- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search



Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

6/5/92 #1   HATONN

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  And God said, Let there be light; and there was light.

Chelas, for generations upon generations this majestic outline of the manner in which your world was created has been at the core of Judaism as well as of Christianity and the third monotheistic religion Islam, the latter two being outgrowths of the first.  In about the seventeenth century an Archbishop, James Ussher of Armagh in Ireland, calculated from these opening verses of Genesis the precise day and the moment of the world's creation, in the year 4004 B.C.  Today many old editions of your "Bible" still carry Ussher's chronology printed in the margins; many still believe that Earth and the Solar System of which it is a part are indeed no older than that.

Unfortunately, this concept has had to take on science as its adversary; and science, firmly tied to the Theory of Evolution, has met the challenge and joined the battle.



It is most unfortunate that BOTH sides pay little attention to what has BEEN KNOWN FOR MORE THAN A CENTURY--THAT THE CREATION TALES OF GENESIS ARE EDITED AND ABBREVIATED VERSIONS OF MUCH MORE DETAILED MESOPOTAMIAN TEXTS, WHICH WERE IN TURN VERSIONS OF AN ORIGINAL SUMERIAN TEXT.  And thus rages the battle between religion and state, Creationists and Evolutionists.  But, does an argument ever produce truth?  No--it simply causes entrenchment of those ideas already prevailing--right or wrong. Readers, this "separation" is not the norm among the Earth's nations and peoples nor was it the norm in antiquity, when the biblical verses were put to print.

Let us look at ancient times.  The king was also the high priest, the state had a national religion and a national god, the temples were the seat of scientific knowledge, and the priests were the servants. This was so because, when civilization began, the gods who were worshipped--the focus of the act of being "religious"--were none other than the Anunnaki/Nefilim, who were the source of all manner of knowledge, alias science, on Earth.

The merging of state, religion, and science was nowhere more complete than it was in Babylon. There the original Sumerian Epic of Creation was translated and revised so that Marduk, the Babylonian national god, was assigned a celestial counterpart.  By renaming Nibiru "Marduk" in the Babylonian versions of the "creation story", the Babylonians usurped for Marduk the attributes of a supreme "God of Heaven and Earth".  Do you believe that such pronouncements could not be? Dear ones, this is Babylonia which is now not present but rested very near Baghdad in IRAQ.  Do you not feel Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi "government" capable of restating a few things?  How about your own government?  Do they always speak truth to you?  Do they EVER speak truth to you?

This version--the most intact one found thus far--is known as Enuma elish ("When in the heights"), taken from its opening words.  It became the most hallowed religious-political-scientific document of the land; it was read as a central part of the New Year rituals, and players reenacted the tale in passion plays to bring its import home to the masses.  The clay tablets on which they were written were prized possessions of temples and royal libraries in antiquity.

The decipherment of the writing on the clay tablets discovered in the ruins of ancient Mesopotamia more than a century ago led to the realization that exists that related biblical creation tales millennia before the Old Testament was compiled.  Especially important were texts found in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal in Nieveh (a city of biblical renown); they recorded a tale of creation that matches, in some parts word for word, the tale of Genesis.  George Smith of the British Museum pieced together the broken tablets that held the creation texts and published, in 1876, The Chaldean Genesis; it conclusively established that there indeed existed an Akkadian text of the Genesis tale, written in the Old Babylonian dialect, that preceded the biblical text by at least a thousand years.  Excavations between 1902 and 1914 uncovered tablets with the Assyrian version of the creation epic, in which the name of Ashur, the Assyrian national god, was substituted for that of Babylonian Marduk.  Subsequent discoveries established not only the extent of the copying and translation, in antiquity, of this epic text, but also its unmistakable Sumerian origin.



Now, does it become even more obvious why there would be deliberate attempt to destroy the temples, mosques, museums and libraries in Iraq during the last so-called "war"?  Israel and the Elite would-be world owners and controllers--would have NOTHING if Truth made it to open forum and the masses opened their eyes.  THIS IS WHY "THEY" HAD TO COME UP WITH "DEAD SEA SCROLLS" TO PUBLICIZE--SO THAT YOU WOULD NEVER ATTEND SUCH TABLETS AS WERE ALREADY PUBLIC IN IRAQ.  Always the game has been to replace Truth with lies, feed the lies while discounting the "rumors" of truth and the masses would never be the wiser.  It always works--or, at least--so far it has always worked.  I hope we are about to see a change in that line of unreasoning.



In 1902 a man named King (L.W.) produced a work called The Seven Tablets of Creation, which showed that the various fragments of writings add up to seven tablets; six of them relate the creation process; the seventh tablet is entirely devoted to the exaltation of "the Lord"--Marduk in the Babylonian version, Ashur in the Assyrian one--Aton in the Egyptian.  The seven-tablet division is the basis of the division of the biblical story into a seven-part timetable, of which six parts involve divine handiwork and the seventh is devoted to a restful and satisfactory look back at what had been achieved.

It is true that the Book of Genesis, written in Hebrew, uses the term "yom", most commonly meaning and translated a "day", to denote each phase.  But what means "day" as to duration? Twenty-four hours?  But, it says in Genesis that the timetable was not of human intent but rather, with the Creator.  You are further told in the Book of Psalms (90-4) that in God's eyes "a thousand years are like yesterday."  Would it then be conceded that Creation might have taken six thousand years?  Even with reason in front of you, you will find that most scholars and receivers of edicts handed down by orthodox doctrines--will continue to insist on a "twenty-four" hour day--even while insisting God is infinite and all-powerful and able to do anything HE chooses to do.  These same ones will acknowledge that time and space perception change immediately upon entering the outer atmosphere around your globe--but nay, the holding to the lie is more important than admitting error.



Is the biblical tale of creation simply a religious document, its contents to be considered only a matter of faith to be believed or disbelieved?  Or is it a scientific document, imparting to you essential knowledge of how things began, in the heavens and of Earth?  Is it neither, both or either? This, of course, is the core of the ongoing harangue between your Creationists and Evolutionists in which you choose up sides according to your "preacher" or "priest" in your local church building and he is repeating that which is told to him and accepted in order to remain a good-little worker within the indoctrinated "faith".  Facts and truth seem to have little to do with the line of argument as neither apparently, does historical proof.

I would predict that the two camps would have laid down their arms long ago were they to ever realize that what the editors and compilers of the Book of Genesis had done was no different from what the Babylonians had done" using the only scientific source of their time, those descendants of Abraham--scion of a royal-priestly family from the Sumerian capital Ur--also took the Epic of Creation, shortened and edited it to suit their controlling needs and perception, and made it the foundation of a national religion glorifying so-called Yahweh "who is in the Heavens and on Earth."

Back in Babylon, Marduk was a dual deity.  Physically present, resplendent in his precious garments, he was worshipped as Ilu (translated "god" but literally meaning "the Lofty One"); his struggle to gain supremacy over the other Anunnaki gods has been carefully detailed in other writings and I won't go into it herein in great detail.  On the other hand, "Marduk" was a celestial deity, everlasting, and omnipresent God--Elohim--in whose grand design for the universe the path of each planet is its predetermined "destiny", and what the Anunnaki had done on Earth was likewise a predetermined mission.  Thus was the handiwork of a universal God manifest in Heaven and on Earth.

The profound perceptions, which lie at the core of the biblical adoption of the creation story, Enuma elish, could be arrived at only by bringing together religion and science while retaining, in the narrative and sequence of events, the scientific basis.

But chelas, to recognize this--that Genesis represents not just religion but also science--one must recognize the role of the Anunnaki and accept that the Sumerian texts are not "myth" but factual reports.  Scholars have made much progress in this respect, but they have not yet arrived at a total recognition of the factual nature of the texts and the closer they get and the more they try to present them--harder down comes the shackles and attempts to destroy the very work in point.  Although both scientists and theologians are well aware of the Mesopotamian origin of Genesis, they remain stubborn in brushing off the scientific value of these ancient texts.  Further, the evangelists in the world get right onto the bandwagon while calling themselves "Zionists" and loudly and blindly shout and rave, and bring the terrified congregations into the lie with great frenzy and hype.  Note they are the ones who started and continued the push to destroy Iraq and completely push Israel in the rebuilding of the temple, etc., in Jerusalem so that the "prophecies" might be fulfilled and the "master" come again.  Can this be defined as "REASONED THINKING"?

These "great authorities" proclaim that these texts "cannot be science" because "it should be obvious by the nature of things that none of these stories can possibly be the product of human memory!"


Such a ridiculous statement can be challenged only by explaining that the information of how things began indeed did not come from the memory of the Assyrians or Babylonians or Sumerians but from the knowledge and science of the Anunnaki/Nefilim.  This includes the Creation of Man.  They too, of course, couldn't "remember" how the Solar System was created or how Nibiru/Marduk invaded the Solar System, because they themselves were not yet created on their planet--just like any other story projection such as your own perceptions of Genesis.  But just as your scientists are getting a pretty good notion of how some of the things in the Solar System came about, through something they call "Big Bang", the Anunnaki/Nefilim, capable of space travel over 450,000 years ago, surely had some capacity to arrive at sensible scenarios of creation; much more so since their planet, acting as a spacecraft that sailed past all the outer planets, gave them a chance at repeated close looks that were undoubtedly more extensive than your Voyager window-peeping.  I ask you again, what is a Starship--Starcraft?

For you Inquiring Minds, several updated studies of the Enuma elish, such as The Babylonian Genesis by Alexander Heidel of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, have dwelt on the parallels in theme and structure between the Mesopotamian and biblical narratives.  Both indeed begin with the statement that the tale takes its reader (or listener, as in Babylon) to the primordial time when the Earth and "the heavens" did not yet exist.  But whereas the Sumerian cosmogony dealt with the creation of the Solar System and only then set the stage for the appearance of the celestial Lord (Nibiru/Marduk), the biblical version skipped all that and went directly to the Celestial Battle and its aftermath.

With the immensity of space as its canvas, here is how the Mesopotamian version began to draw the primordial picture:

When in the heights Heaven had not been named

And below earth had not been called, naught but primordial Apsu, their Begetter, Mummu, and Tiamat, she who bore them all.

Their waters were mingled together.

No reed had yet been formed, No marshland had appeared.

Even in the traditional King James version, readers, the biblical opening is more matter-of-fact, not an inspiration religious opus but a lesson in primordial science, informing the reader that there indeed was a time when Heaven and the Earth did not yet exist, especially in the perceptions of anyone and anything around at the time within the arena in which this particular "Play" would be transformed into seeming reality.  It, further, stated that it took an act of the "Celestial Lord", his "spirit" moving upon the "waters", to bring Heaven and Earth about with a bolt of light" or something like it.


The progress in biblical and linguistic studies since the time of King James has moved the editors of both the Catholic The New American Bible and The New English Bible of the churches in Great Britain to substitute the word "wind"--which is what the Hebrew ru'ach means--for the "Spirit of God", so that the last verse now reads "a mighty wind swept over the water".  They retain, however, the concept of "abyss" for the Hebrew word Tehom in the original Bible; but by now even theologians acknowledge that the reference is to no other entity than the Sumerian Tiamat. Oops!  Proof of tampering, changing and editing?  I suggest you consider same most carefully.

Let us move on with this understanding, the reference in the Mesopotamian version to the mingling "waters" of Tiamat ceases to be allegorical and calls for a factual evaluation.  It goes to the question of the plentiful waters of Earth and the biblical assertion that when the Earth was formed it was completely covered by water.  You will soon realize this to be correct.  If water was so abundant even at the moment of Earth's creation, then only if Tiamat was also a watery planet could the half that became Earth be watery!!!

The watery nature of Tehom/Tiamat is mentioned in various biblical (yours) references.  The prophet Isaiah (51:10) recalled "the primeval days" when the might or the Lord "carved the Haughty One, made spin the watery monster, drained off the waters of the mighty Tehom."  The Psalmist extolled the Lord of Beginnings who "by thy might the waters thou didst disperse, the leader of the watery monsters thou didst break up."

What was the "wind" of the Lord that "moved upon the face of the waters" of Tehom?  Tiamat?  Not the divine "Spirit" but the satellite of Nibiru/Marduk that, in the Mesopotamian texts, was called by that term!  Those texts vividly described the flashes and lightning strokes that burst off Nibiru/Marduk as it closed in on Tiamat.  Applying this knowledge to the biblical text, its correct reading emerges:

When, in the beginning, The Lord created the Heaven and the Earth.

The Earth, not yet formed, was in the void, and there was darkness upon Tiamat.

Then the Wind of the Lord swept upon its waters and the Lord commanded, "Let there be lightning!"

and there was a bright light.

The continuing narrative of your Genesis does not describe the ensuing splitting up of Tiamat or the breakup of her host of satellites, described so vividly in the Mesopotamian texts.  It is evident, however, from the above-quoted verses from Isaiah and Psalms, as well as from the narrative in Job (26:7-13), that the Hebrews were familiar with the skipped-over portions of the original tale.  Job recalled how the celestial Lord smote "the helpers of the haughty One", and he exalted the Lord who, having come from the outer reaches of space, cleaved Tiamat (Tehom) and changed the Solar System:

The hammered canopy He stretched out in the place of Tehom,

The Earth suspended in the void; He penned waters in its denseness, without any cloud bursting....

His powers the waters did arrest, His energy the Haughty One did cleave.

His wind the Hammered Bracelet measures out,

His hand the twisting dragon did extinguish.

The Mesopotamian texts continued from here to describe how Nibiru/Marduk formed the asteroid belt out of Tiamat's lower half:

The other half of her He set up as a screen for the skies;

Locking them together as watchman he stationed then....

He bent Tiamat's tail to form the Great Band as a bracelet.

Genesis picks up the primordial tale here and describes the forming of the asteroid belt thus:




Realizing that the Hebrew word Shama'im is used to speak of Heaven or the heavens in general, the editors of Genesis went into some length to use two terms for "the heaven" created as a result of the destruction of Tiamat.  What separated the "upper waters" from the "lower waters", the Genesis text stresses, was the Raki'a; generally translated "Firmament", it literally means "Hammered-out Bracelet".

Then Genesis goes on to explain that Elohim then called the Raki'a, the so-called Firmament, Shama'im, "the Heaven"--a name that in its first use in the Bible consists of the two words sham and ma'im, meaning literally "where the waters were".  In the creation tale of Genesis, "the Heaven" was a specific celestial location, where Tiamat and her waters had been where the asteroid belt was hammered out.

That happened, according to the Mesopotamian texts, when Nibiru/Marduk returned to the Place of Crossing--the second phase of the battle with Tiamat: "Day Two", if you wish, as the biblical narrative does.

Are there scholars on your placement who have this information deciphered correctly and in presentable form?  Indeed, but they are not allowed coverage and books are removed from the libraries as soon as they are placed there.  I won't aid and abet our enemies by giving that information at this time and if some of you researching historians find same--PLEASE DO NOT RELAY THE INFORMATION ON TO US--YET.  THIS IS THE MOST CRITICALLY OPPOSED INFORMATION WITHIN YOUR POLITICAL ELITE CIRCLES--LET US NOT ENDANGER THE VERY WRITERS WHO CAN GIVE YOU FREEDOM THROUGH TRUTH.



The ancient tale is replete with details, each of which is amazing in and of itself.  Ancient awareness of them is so incredible that its only plausible explanation, readers, is the one offered by the Sumerians themselves--namely, that those who had come to Earth from Nibiru were the source of that knowledge.  Modern astronomy has already corroborated many of these details and can no longer be actually hidden; by doing so, it indirectly confirms the key assertions of the ancient cosmogony and astronomy: the Celestial Battle that resulted in the breakup of Tiamat, the creation of Earth and the asteroid belt, and the capture of Nibiru/Marduk into permanent orbit around the Sun.

Let's just look at one aspect of the ancient tale--the "host" of satellites, or "winds", that the "celestial gods" had.

You now know that Mars has two moons, Jupiter sixteen moons and several more moonlets, Saturn twenty-one or more, Uranus as many as fifteen, Neptune eight.  Until Galileo discovered with his telescope the four brightest and largest satellites of Jupiter in 1610, it was unthinkable that a celestial body could have more than one such companion--evidence Earth and its solitary Moon.

But here we read in the Sumerian texts that as Nibiru/Marduk's gravity interacted with that of Uranus, the Invader "begot" three satellites ("winds") and Anu/Uranus "brought forth" four such moons.  By the time Nibiru/Marduk reached Tiamat, it had a total of seven "winds" with which to attack Tiamat, and Tiamat had a "host" of eleven--among them the "leader of the host", which was about to become an independently orbiting planet, your eventual Moon.

Another element of the Sumerian tale, of great significance to the ancient astronomers, was the assertion that the debris from the lower half of Tiamat was stretched out in the space where she had once existed.

The Mesopotamian texts, and the biblical version thereof in Genesis, are emphatic and detailed about the formation of the asteroid belt--insisting that such a "bracelet" of debris exists and orbits the Sun between Mars and Jupiter.  But your astronomers were not aware of that until the nineteenth century.  The first realization that the space between Mars and Jupiter was not just a dark void was the discovery by Giuseppe Piazzi on January 1, 1801, of a small celestial object in the space between the two planets, an object that was named Ceres and that has the distinction of being the first known (and named) asteroid.  Three more asteroids (Pallas, Juno, and Vesta) were discovered by 1807, none after that until 1845, and hundreds since then, so that almost 2,000 are known by now.  Astronomers believe that there may be as many as 50,000 asteroids at least a mile in diameter, as well as many more pieces of debris, too small to be seen from Earth, which number in the billions.

In other words, it has taken modern astronomy almost two centuries to find out what the Sumerians knew 6,000 years ago.


Even with this knowledge, the biblical statement that the "Hammered-out Bracelet", the Shama'im--alias "the Heaven", divided the "waters which are below the Firmament" from the "waters which are above the Firmament" remained a puzzle.  Now, what could the "Bible" be speaking of?

You ones have known, of course, that Earth was a very watery planet, but it has been assumed that it is uniquely so.  Many will undoubtedly recall science-fiction tales wherein aliens come to Earth to carry off its unique and life-giving liquid, water.  So even if the ancient texts had in mind Tiamat's, and hence Earth's, waters, and if this was what was meant by the "water" which is below the Firmament", what water was there to talk about regarding that which is "above the Firmament"???

You know--don't you--that the asteroid belt had, indeed, as the ancient text reported, divided the planets into two groups?


"Below" it are the Terrestrial, or inner, Planets; "above" it the gaseous, or Outer, Planets.  But, except for Earth, the former had barren surfaces and the latter no surfaces at all, and the long-held conventional wisdom was that neither group had any water--excepting, of course, Earth.

As a result of the missions of unmanned spacecraft to all the other planets except Pluto, you now know better.  Mercury, which was observed by the spacecraft Mariner 10, I believe, in 1974/75, is too small and too close to the Sun to have retained water, if it ever had any.  There is no point in arguing the point herein for it is not the point of this JOURNAL to restructure all of your misperceptions.  Size and closeness to the Sun have NOTHING to do with whether or not a place has water.  But--we shall go with what the scientist "think" they know and what is projected to you so that confusion is not the point instead of the tale unfolding.

Venus, likewise is believed to be waterless because of its relative proximity to the Sun.  This one surprised the scientists for it was discovered by unmanned spacecraft, both American and Soviet, that the extremely hot surface of the planet (almost 900 degrees Fahrenheit) was caused not so much by its proximity to the Sun as by a "greenhouse" effect: the planet seems to be enshrouded by what is presumed to be a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide and clouds that contain sulfuric acid. As a result the heat of the Sun is trapped and does not dissipate back into space during the night. (Assuming, of course, that there is actually heat from the Sun--which there is not!)  Through this assumption, however, it would be recognized that an ever-lasting temperature would have vaporized any water that Venus might have had.  But did it ever have such water in its past?  You see, as we travel along in the theories of "formation" and "what if's", it becomes more and more clear that man hasn't ANY NOTION OF WHAT REALLY IS!  It is now pretty much speculated that Venus once had a lot of water.

Interestingly, enough, "the lost oceans of Venus" can be traced in its rocks--telltale signs of water flow, in fact.  There was indeed water "below the Firmament"--not only on Earth but also on Venus as well.

The latest scientific discoveries have now added Mars to the list of inner planets whose waters corroborate the ancient statement.  There exist "canals" on Mars and they can be seen through the telescopic lenses.


Let us close this portion.

Hatonn to clear and allow pondering of this information that you might become balanced and perceptive in awareness. Salu.





Source: THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR, June 16, 1992, Volume 19, Number 9.

THANK YOU Rocky Montana