Enki�s journey to Nibiru: the inciting layer

Thus far in this miniseries I extracted just a few lines of text-corpus in the Sumerian epic-poem Enki’s journey to N’ibiru from which I unpacked two different superficial layers evidently meant to be palatable to the ‘gods’ (me-en).

The first layer showed the Sumerian scribe as truly grateful for having been selected by his ‘god’ and master, Enki, to accompany him on a journey to N’ibiru and back. N’ibiru (Na-hibiru: the ‘Reddish One’), I explained, refers to Mars, the ‘Red Planet’…also called ‘Mu’, or ‘Lahmu’ in full: literally La ha Mu: ‘[Land] of Mu’). It is, purportedly, the home planet of the gods…but some left it for Earth when it was devastated by a cosmic incident that stripped it of most of its crust, water and atmosphere, becoming the ANU.NNA.KI of Sumerian legend: [Those Who] From the Heavens (A Nu) Stayed (nna) on Earth (ha Ki).

Now, despite the fact that conventional archaeologists and anthropologists view ‘gods’ as mere figments of ancient and primitive imaginations, ‘Forbidden Archaeology’ evidence suggests that ‘gods’ were real, flesh-and-blood hominid beings of highly advanced technology which they kept to themselves mainly to be regarded with awe by ordinary people; to lord even over ‘mortal’ kings. And, properly translated, Sumerian scribes are in complete agreement with this. But these scribes, we discovered, were not always so reverent to their elite masters in their writings. To avoid their wrath, however, they mastered the art of double-speak; of using the same words to appear to be praising the gods whereas on a deeper level they were busy insulting them. This they did by being economical with vowels – a practice later adopted by Egyptian writing (hieroglyphics) which then influenced Hebrew writing. This practice enabled a reader, clued into their vernacular, to insert his own vowel ‘fillers’ that lead to other intended layers of meaning.

Editor's Comment
BPF should get house in order

Speaker of the National Assembly, Dithapelo Keorapetse, has this week rightly washed his hands of the mess, refusing to wade into a party squabble that has no clear leadership and no single version of the truth.When a single party sends six different letters to the Speaker’s office, each claiming to be the authoritative voice, it is not just confusion, but an embarrassment.Keorapetse is correct to insist on institutional boundaries. Parliament...

Have a Story? Send Us a tip
arrow up