Posted on 05/10/2006 10:25:28 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
He is having a number of people, including New Mexico Tech scientists, examine the potsherd to determine what the glaze is. Material engineers at the site said it looks like Trinitite, the substance materials such as sand turn into when subjected to a nuclear blast. However, Collins said he isn't suggesting a nuclear blast hit the site. He doesn't know the cause, but suspects a comet strike or electrical event.
(Excerpt) Read more at dchieftain.com ...
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Volunteers work side-by-side with Trinity Southwest University students and faculty during the 2005-2006 excavation season at Tall el-Hammam in Jordan, the site of biblical Sodom (above).
The Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project, directed by Dr. Steven Collins (Dean of TSU's College of Archaeology), is revealing that Sodom was a massive, influential Bronze Age city, but was not occupied for over five centuries after its destruction in the Middle Bronze Age, matching the biblical data precisely.
Thanks.
Thank You. :)
Makes ya wonder what they might dig up next.
My grandfather was at Los Alamos National Labs. When he died I got his rock collection and there were several of these in there. They look EXACTLY the same. The ones I have came from the top of the ground right after the first atomic explosion on US soil.
Prolly the bones of Ninurta and Nergal who dropped the bombs.
Just read an interesting footnote on this in "The Wars of Gods and Men" (Sitchin).
Page 313:
* The traditional and literal translation of the Hebrew term Netsiv melah has been "pillar of salt," and tracts have been written in the Middle Ages explaining the process whereby a person could turn into crystalline salt. However, if--as we believe--the mother tongue of Abraham and Lot was Sumerian, and the event was first recorded not in a Semitic language, but in Sumerian, an entirely different and more plausible understanding of the fate of Lot's wife becomes possible.
In a paper presented to the American Oriental Society in 1918 and in a followup article in Beitrage zur Assyriologie, Paul Haupthad shown conclusively that because the early sources of salt in Sumer were swamps near the Persian Gulf, the Sumerian term NIMUR branched off to mean both salt and vapor. Because the Dead Sea has been called in Hebrew, The Salt Sea, the biblical narrator probably misinterpreted the Sumerian term and wrote "pillar of salt" when in fact Lot's wife became a "pillar of vapor."
In this connection it is notewortthy that in Ugaritic texts, such as the Canaanite tale of Aqhat (with its many similarities to the tales of Abraham) the death of a mortal by the hand of a god was described as the "escape of his soul as vapor, like smoke from his nostrils."
Indeed, in the Erra Epos which, we believe, was the Sumerian record of the nuclear upheaval, the death of the people was described by the god thus: 'The people I will make vanish, their souls shall turn to vapor.
It was the misfortune of Lot's wife to be among those who were "turned to vapor." [Sitchin]
However, if--as we believe--the mother tongue of Abraham and Lot was Sumerian, and the event was first recorded not in a Semitic language, but in Sumerian, an entirely different and more plausible understanding of the fate of Lot's wife becomes possible.However, since the tongue of Abraham wasn't Sumerian...
Ni-ib-ri = man of Nippurian origin. Nippur was Sumer's 'religious center.'
Some interesting reading in Chapter 13, "Abraham: The Fateful Years" ['The Wars of Gods and Men" - Sitchin]
Zecharia Sitchin's Errors: An OverviewThe study shows - from the texts themselves, not my opinion - that "Nibiru" is not a planet beyond Pluto and that the Anunnaki gods are never associated with it. These ideas are fabrications... This study details the impossibility of Sitchin's translations of "nephilim" as "those who came down" or "people of the fiery rockets" in light of Hebrew vocabulary and grammar. I know it sounds mind- numbing, but again I have tried to illustrate the concepts and problems. It also contains a scan of a page from one of Sitchin's books where he could not tell the difference between Aramaic and Hebrew - an amazing mistake if he's an expert... Mr. Sitchin contends that the word "Nephilim" means "those who came down from above" or "those who descended to earth" or "people of the fiery rockets" (see The Twelfth Planet, pp. vii, 128ff.). These translations, of course, serve his purpose - to see the Nephilim as ancient astronauts. As such it is hard to over-estimate the importance of Sitchin's work here - if he's wrong about the meaning of "nephilim," much of his overall thesis falls... Sitchin assumes "Nephilim" comes from the Hebrew word "naphal" (as opposed to ARAMAIC - see below) which usually means "to fall." He then forces the meaning "to come down" onto the word, creating his "to come down from above" translation. "Nephilim" - in the form we find it in the Hebrew Bible - COULD come from Hebrew "naphal," but it could ONLY mean be translated one way in light of the spelling - "those who are fallen" (i.e., either "fallen in battle" - which is out of the question given the context of Genesis 6 - or "spiritually fallen" / evil - which fits the context IF the sons of God are evil)... In short, if you care about the grammar of Hebrew, Sitchin's word meanings CAN'T be correct. The above file also discusses Sitchin's confusion of the sons of God and the nephilim - and evidence from his own book, Stairway to Heaven, that he cannot distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic! My suspicion behind this apparent blunder is that Sitchin wants to distance the Annunaki from the evil Watchers of ancient Jewish literature (Hebrew Bible, Enoch, and some Dead Sea Scrolls).
by Michael S. Heiser
So what does his errors on the Nephilim have to do with the Sumerians? Or Ur of the Chaldees, Babylonian. Is he wrong on everything he's ever research or written about? That would be pretty incredible, wouldn't it? The guy writes 10 books and doesn't get anything right. Hahaha.
Heiser points out that Sitchin simply doesn't know whereof he speaks, and shows how Sitchin fabricates things -- including meanings to words which were defined by the ancients themselves. Sitchin's 3600 year orbiting planet doesn't exist, and as at least one reviewer noted, the orbital characteristics Sitchin gives for it in "The Twelfth Planet" (which is after all the first of the books) are impossible.
I keep hearing about the 'watchers,' moreso in the last couple of days. So what's with the watchers? Had no idea until I saw this thread on FR today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1631505/posts
Is this what Heiser is referring to? Do you have an opinion on this? Thanks.
The Watcher's were not a part of Satan's rebellion; they created their own rebellion against God by deciding to leave their first estate which was heaven, and go to the earth to cohabitate with human women. Why doesn't the church ever address this issue? In fact, why did they try to cover it up by leaving Enoch out of the canon version of the Bible, and then manipulate the meaning "sons of God." They mistranslated Sons of God, (angels of God) creating some ridiculous theory suggesting it to mean Sons of Seth. People bought that explanation because they did not realize there was such a huge difference in changing that text around and it would keep them from the truth and allow the churches to cover it up.Enoch was "left out" because it postdates the Old Testament by centuries.
Enoch was one of the greatest Prophets of God to have ever walked the Earth. In his lifetime he wrote 365 books. We have one of them. Where are the others? Are they lost or being kept hidden? It is in Enoch where we first learn about the rebellion of the Watchers, the angels assigned to watch over and guard over the earthWe have one book by Enoch, who writes it from a point of view wherein he'll never again enjoy other human company. So, how did he get his manuscript back to the human race? Simple, the book is a fabrication. The original Enoch is mentioned as one of the sons of Cain. Instead of wondering about a distinction without a difference regarding the Sons of God, that author should be trying to find out where Cain's wife came from, and why "they" -- the churches -- have spent thousands of years trying cover it up. :')
So where did she come from? Previous race of people or was Adam and Eve's family large enough after a few generations for there to be 'kissin' cousins' by the time Cain was told to hit the road?
But you didn't answer my question about the watchers. What's the story? Who are they?
They sound like something from post-exile belief, perhaps even the Hellenic period.
Either that, or something from the Fantastic Four comics series. ;')
There's at least one OE Creationist who takes the view that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls, IOW, there were other humans around. The Concordant Translation claims that Genesis' first words are "In a Beginning" rather than "In The Beginning", from which one can infer either that view, or a few other views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
