Anton Lavey

The Anunnaki Part 2: Origin of the 50 Names of Marduk As found In The Simon Necronomicon

Greetings!

I would like to welcome everyone to the GateWalker’s Page. If this is your first time here please review some of our previous articles first.

So far we have outlined the definition of the term Anunnaki. This is the second part of an ongoing discussion concerning the Anunnaki  and their origins. I can simply state that the GateWalker is also a part of this “divine family,” but it is useful for us to look at scholarly evidence..

In our previous article we were able to discover that the term “Anunnaki” actually means “princely offspiring” or “those of divine blood.” This would seem to indicate that these were beings or a form of man that were of some divine origin. Just how these divine offspring came int o being has a lot to do with understandint the 50 Names of Marduk. It seems that the 50 Names of Marduk, though from the Babylonian Enuma Elish, actually comes from an older Sumerian Rite concerning Dumuzi. This is discussed at length  in a online article hosted by a co-author of the Rutgers University study listed herein:

Sumerian Anunnaki and their Descendants Multiorgasmic 

Sumer (“Land of the ‘Watchers'”), the first true empire and civilization in recorded history (ca 5,000 – 2,000 BCE), was — according to its own mythology — founded by and flourished under the reign of the “Anunnaki” (Those Who from Heaven to Earth Came”), who were the Sumerian equivalent of the “Nefilim” (Those Who from Heaven to Earth Fell”), also known as the “Watchers,” whose progeny were the Rephaim.

Perhaps more than any culture before or since, Sumer glorified and celebrated eroticism and sexual activity. Public sexual expression, incest and pedophilia, and sacred prostitution: all have their origins in Sumerian culture. Yet also during the Sumerian period did women enjoy the most economic, social, and sexual freedoms than they have ever since. With the Anunnaki, women were truly considered equal in every way. This was due to the fact that both the Anunnaki males and their descendants as well as the Human females with whom they shared and enjoyed all, were equal sexually and emotionally. All were multiorgasmic.

Central to this webpage is the theory that the “Watchers” were multiorgasmic. Thus, were the Anunnaki equivalent with the “Watchers” (Nefilim) of Canaanite mythology, they too would also have been multiorgasmic. And sure enough, we soon discovered irrefutable proof of this in perhaps the single most important public ritual practiced annually by the Sumerians for over 2,000 years and was later practiced in many derivative forms by Pagans worldwide.


Hieros Gamos (“Sacred Marriage”):  The Multiorgasmic Sumerian King-making Sex Ritual

As stated above, the king’s capacity for leadership was tested via the Hieros Gamos (Sacred Marriage) ceremony wherein he sexually re-enacted with the Priestess the role of Dumuzi, the demi-god ruler of Sumer. Without this ceremony, “he was not considered fit to rule.”

Thus, his kingship depended upon his ability to consummate “his marriage with the goddess” not once or twice… but “fifty times.” That’s right: 50 orgasms, one after the other, non-stop.

By this requirement, all Sumerian Kings had to be… multiorgasmic.

“…the high priestess, acting in place of The Goddess (Inanna), had sex with the new king to show the Goddess’s people that the Goddess herself accepted him as their caretaker and ruler of the country. Not only did these two have sex fifty times, but the entire congregation had front row seats to these fifty climaxes….”

–  http://people.stu.ca/~gwvpt/theme4.htm (emphasis added)
And while the above-cited quote has it appear that 50 orgasms were required of each, the ancient texts themselves limit this 50-orgasm requirement to the man, alone. Only the King-apparent, in the role of the God Dumuzi, was required to climax 50 times.

Inanna

The ritual text itself, used in the actual Sumerian “Sacred Marriage” rite, makes clear that it is the King-apparent, assuming the role of the mortal “Dumuzi,” who experiences these fifty orgasms:

Inanna spoke:
“My beloved, the delight of my eyes, met me.
We rejoiced together.
He took his pleasure of me.
He brought me into his house.
He laid me down on the fragrant honey-bed.
My sweet love, lying by my heart, Tongue-playing,
one by one,
My fair Dumuzi did so fifty times.
Now, my sweet love (i.e., Dumuzi) is sated.”

(excerpt from “The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi,” ca 3000 BCE) (emphasis added)

This multiorgasmic interpretation is further validated in the book “Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth” (1983, Wolkstein & Kramer) where this passage is indeed understood as Dumuzi “…making love to her ‘fifty times'” (p. 153).

Only after fifty such orgasms is Dumuzi, her male lover (twice described by Inanna as “my sweet love” in the above-excerpted passage), sexually “sated.”

Should any doubt still remain as to the correct interpretation of this “fifty times” passage, another version of this same event was recorded anciently and can be found online at Oxford University’s “Electronic Corpus of Sumerian Literature“:

“When my sweet precious (Inanna), my heart, had lain down too,
Each of them in turn kissing with the tongue, each in turn,
Then my brother
(Dumuzi) of the beautiful eyes did it fifty times to her,
Exhaustedly waiting for her, as she trembled underneath him, dumbly silent for him.
My dear precious passed the time with my brother laying his hands on her hips.”

(excerpt from “A Balbale of Inana and Dumuzid,” t.4.08.04, 12-18)
And then we have the personal account of Enmerkar, King of Uruk, relating his personal experience in the “Sacred Marriage” Rite of Kingship with an “entu” or “hierodule” (the female priestess representing Inanna in “Sacred Marriage” rite) (ca 2600 BCE). Responding to a boast by the governor of a neighboring city claiming to be the true “beloved” of Inanna, and thus attempting to make himself a potential rival to Uruk’s throne, Enmerkar replies:

“He may lie with her in sweet slumber on the adorned bed, but I lie on Inana’s splendid bed strewn with pure plants. Its back is an ug lion, its front is a pirig lion. The ug lion chases the pirig lion, the pirig lion chases the ug lion. As the ug lion chases the pirig lion and the pirig lion chases the ug lion, the day does not dawn, the night does not pass. I accompany Inana for a journey of (15) double-hours*…” (Lines 77-88)

– “Enmerkar and Ensuhkesdanna: A Sumerian Narrative Poem, Berlin, p. 45 (emphasis added)

* In personal commnication, the author, Dr. Adele Berlin, explained that the Sumerian “double-hour” refers to the distance that could be traveled in two hours. To our reply email asking her opinion of the theory that this might refer to a non-stop sexual “journey” of 30 hours, Dr. Berlin replied “You have understood the passage well. The idea is of a never-ending night of lovemaking with the goddess, which proves who is the superior king.”  Thus, apparently Enmerkar chose to use this common term for distance to more literally and figuratively illustrate the sexual “journey” taken by both he and Inanna [i.e., her priestess], with whom he orgasmically “accompany”-ied for 30 hours.
In “accompany”-ing Inanna in bed on a 30-hour (“15 double-hours”) sexual “journey” during the “Sacred Marriage” king-making rite rather than to instead “lie with her in sweet slumber”, Enmerkar indisputably lays hold to the superior sexual claim to Inanna’s favor, and thus Uruk’s throne. Enmerkar further illustrates the eternal nature of their lovemaking by using as metaphor the two lion decorations inlaid into the Sacred Marriage bed, itself, likewise eternally “chasing” each other about the bed’s base.

Unlike his lesser rival, Enmerkar had proved himself worthy of kingship in proving himself capable of fully “accompany”-ing the sexually insatiable Inanna:

“Inanna’s powers are prodigious. She is capable of making love through the day and night… The marriage of the goddess Inanna to the king was of essential importance to the people of Sumer. It was by this religious ritual that Inanna, Queen of Heaven, would take the earth-king into the “sweetness of her holy loins,” and by her cosmic powers ensure the king’s powers of leadership and fertiliity.

Yet Inanna, the Goddess of Love, does not offer her favors freely. Not only must she be properly approached with sweet words and gifts, but she must be properly and amply loved. A lion of a man is demanded: a king who is equal to Inanna…”

– “Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth“, 1983, Wolkstein & Kramer; p. 155 (emphasis added)
Once the King met with Inanna’s (the Priestess’) sexual approval by proving his multiorgasmic capacity, thus evidencing his possession of this unique Rephaim (Anunnaki) trait, then were the following words spoken signifying her acceptance of him as a “fit” and “worthy” King:

“You, the chosen shepherd of the holy shrine,
You, the king, the faithful provider of Uruk,
You, the light of An’s great shrine,
In all ways you are fit:
To hold your head high on the lofty dais,
To sit on the lapis lazuli throne,
To cover your head with the holy crown…
To bind yourself with the garments of kingship,…
In all ways you are fit.
May your heart enjoy long days…
You are the favorite of Ningal. Inanna holds you dear.”

The Sacred Marriage likely originated in the Sumerian city of Uruk (which was dedicated to the Goddess Inanna) earlier than 3000 B.C. The Sacred Marriage was between the Goddess Inanna and either the high priest (representing the god), or the king (representing the God Dumuzi), and was performed in the temples of various fertility goddesses for nearly two thousand years. The annual symbolic reenactment of this mythical union was a public celebration essential to the well-being of the community, and since it was the occasion of a joyous celebration, it may have involved sexual activity on the part of the worshipers in and around the temple grounds (Lerner 240). The fact that the king of Sumer ritually married a representative of the goddess Inanna once every year helped sustain the power of the priestesses at least for a time (Stephenson 56). Rites similar to the Sacred Marriage also flourished in classical Greece and pre-Christian Rome (Lerner 240).”

–  Women in Mesopotamia (emphasis added)
This yearly rite, which begins with sacrifices and culminates in this sacred marriage or “hieros gamos“, is delicately and sketchily described by Geoffrey Parrinder {“World Religions from Ancient History to the Present,” (Facts on File Publications, New York, 1983), pp. 125-128} who observes that the king acted as the successor to Dumuzi, lover and husband of Inanna. In re-enacting the love-feast of these two deities that assured fertility: “The part of the goddess was given to a selected priestess.” Parrinder notes that entry to the higher classes of priesthood was by patronage, so that society’s physically and intellectually favored were selected. A highly readable account of the sacred marriage of Inanna and Dumuzi, giving full and glowing details of their lovemaking and subsequent exchange of gifts has recently been published. This work describes the results of the sacred union in terms of establishing the authority and throne of the king, granting him a favorable and glorious reign and an enduring crown, fertile fields, sheep, vegetation, grain, birds, and produce in abundance {Wolkstein, Diane, and Samuel N. Kramer, “Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth, Her Stories and Hymns from Sumer”  (Harper & Row, N.Y., 1983), pp. 146-147}.

–  http://www.thoughtsandplaces.org/venusworks.html (emphasis added)

Evidence from a Sumerian seal, described by Iris Furlong in “The Mythology of the Ancient Near East” in The Feminist Companion to Mythology, edited by Carolyne Larrington, shows sacred marriage rites may have been performed in Sumer before the middle of the third millennium B.C. – more than 4500 years… This feast of collective pleasure involved the whole populace and lasted many days, according to A.T. Mann and Jane Lyle in (their book) “Sacred Sexuality.” Everything in the rite was designed to stir the senses; men and women anointed themselves with essences, paints and jewelry, toasted the goddess and her bridegroom with wine and danced serpentine dances to lyre, flute and drum. Hierophants and priestesses performed libations and sacrifices and burned as incense cinnamon, aloes and myrrh. At the ritual’s peak, the king approached the temple with offerings of oil, precious spices and delectable foods to tempt the goddess. He mounted the goddess at the temple summit as the crowd chanted poetry. The ritual was performed as an allegorical masque, according to Furlong, including speaking parts and probably music; the king played the part of the god Dumuzi (“faithful son”), and a priestess of the highest rank played the goddess Inanna or Ishtar in a ritualized enactment of the divine coupling. The poetry of the ritual (“The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi”), translated from the Sumerian Gudea Cylinders, circa 3000 B.C., reflects an attitude toward sex, and sexual spirituality, much different than that prevailing in Western culture today.

The sacred marriage as a rite acted on many levels. On a physical level, it renewed fertility. The Sumerians, according to Furlong, considered their ruler responsible for agricultural prosperity, and all sexual reproduction on earth, vegetable, animal and human, depended on his intercourse with the goddess. The sacred marriage also legitimized the king’s power; without it, Mann and Lyle write, he was not considered fit to rule. His leadership ability was directly linked to his consummating his marriage with the goddess.

http://www.crystalforest1.homestead.com/whoreheartofgold.html (emphasis added)


“Sacred Marriage” Multiorgasmic Rite Used to Select Sexually-Equal Kings

“The Consecration of the Sacred King – after the close complicity of the night spent with Dumuzi (the Sacred Marriage Ceremony), Inanna decrees the fate of her chosen consort and priest-king, because “in all ways” She found him ” fit” and “Inanna holds you dear”. It must be pointed out that in South Mesopotamia, after kingship descended from the heavens to Eridu, it is Inanna and Enlil who descend to Earth to choose and crown the king, as described in the myth of Etana. It is Inanna (or her earthly representative, the High Priestess of Uruk/the land) again in the Courtship that decrees the fate of the king/Dumuzi. This is a very strong evidence that at least the High Priestess was equal in status to the king, once he had to be first accepted by her to rule the land as her consort.

–  http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/gods/ladies/ladyinanna2.html
(emphasis added)
There are “hints that Ishtar was in some way responsible for the selection and sanctioning of the kings of the Sumerian city-states, who acted as stewards of the divine sovereigns. It was this way…which gave rise to the concept of sacred marriage, the ‘temple prostitution’ that the later Bible writers would find so abominable. The sacred marriage was a formal, highly stylized cultic institution, at one and the same time religious and political, enacted between the high priestess representing Ishtar, and the king in the role of high priest representing the city as the vicar of god; and though this act of sacred sexuality, the power of the divinity flowed down from heaven through the king to the people and the land.”

– Magnus Magnusson, BC – The Archaeology of the Bible Lands
“…A text does exist describing the coronation of a Sumerian king during the Uruk period (late fourth millennium). According to this text, the king-to-be approached the throne dais of the goddess Inanna-Ishtar. There he received from her the ‘bright scepter’ and the ‘golden crown’. He probably also received from her a new, royal name.”

– An Encyclopedia of Archetypal Symbolism

–  http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/marriage.html

Sumer‘s First Gods and Kings (The Anunnaki) Were Multiorgasmic

Thus it can only be concluded that the entire Sumerian “Sacred Marriage” Rite was established as a necessary means of ensuring that all of Sumer’s kings possessed the invaluable male sexual capacity of being wholly and truly multiorgasmic. The public display of this male multiorgasmic trait validated their original “divine” Anunnaki bloodline before all the people, thus legitimizing their right to rule. And thus, this trait came direct from the original Anunnaki, the Canaanite “Nefilim,” the “Watchers” who descended “from Heaven” anciently to teach women “sexual pleasure” previously unknown to them. As their kingly descendants, these “demi-god” Sumerian kings were required to prove themselves multiorgasmic prior to being permitted to acquire and/or retain the throne. Thus, given this fact, their forefathers, the Anunnaki, must have likewise possessed this same required “kingly” sexual trait.

The necessity of ensuring these kings as being of the divine Anunnaki birthright and bloodline is explained here:

To be a bridge to the gods, the king had to be superior in his very essence to ordinary people. The early kings were crucial to the development and survival of Sumerian civilization… Kingship was so important in Sumerian times that the Sumerian King List records “that kingship came down from heaven“. Crucial as they were to state formation, these earliest kings had to find a way to legitimate their power. As they had the weight of historical precedence to buttress their idea of rule, no dynastic principle to assure the rights of a successor, they had to demonstrate that they were greater than the rest of the populace.

–  http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/gods/ladies/ladyinanna2.html
Given that the “Sacred Marriage” ceremony so explicitly served as the Final Test whereby a prospective heir-apparent to the throne proved his right to King-ship, the importance of his ability to perform “fifty times” with the Priestess must have been of incalculable importance to the Sumerians.

As only truly multiorgasmic males could perform sexually as required by this sex ritual, thereby “…demonstrat(ing) that they were greater than the rest of the populace” and thus showing themselves “superior in (their) very essence to ordinary people,” the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the original “Anunnaki” Gods and Kings of Sumer were multiorgasmic, as also were their more earthly descendants and rightful heirs to the Sumerian throne. This then necessitated that an ritual be prepared that permitted the populace to ensure that their King did indeed descend from the Anunnaki bloodline and, thus, was worthy and “fit” to be their King.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu also Multiorgasmic?

In the later Sumerian/Babylonian myth of “Epic of Gilgamesh” (“He Who Saw Everything“, Part I), Gilgamesh is described as a demi-god King (“‘I am king indeed?’ His name was called Gilgamesh From the very day of his birth, He was two-thirds god, one third man…”), a giant also (“Eleven cubits high he is, nine spans his chest”), and one stronger than all other males and also possessing an insatiable sexuality:

“All young girls made women by Gilgamesh His lusts are such, and no virgin left to her lover! Not the daughter of a warrior, Nor the wife of a nobleman! Yet he is king and should be. The people’s careful shepherd… He is wise, he is handsome, he is firm as a rock… No virgin left to her lover, For he lusts strongly!

In the legend, the people complain to the Gods about Gilgamesh and so an equal to Gilgamesh is formed and called “Enkidu.” This new male being is at first tempted into submission via a hierodule (sacred maiden), a “child of pleasure,” of the Temple of Inanna/Ishtar. This young woman sex priestess then seduces Enkidu and his multiorgasmic session with her is described:

“She had no shame for this, Made herself naked Welcomed his eagerness Incited him to love, Taught the woman’s art. Six days, seven nights, That time lying together, Enkidu had forgotten his home Had forgotten the hills. After that time he was satisfied… For six days and seven nights Enkidu made love to that girl.

Again, only after lovemaking for almost an entire week is this particular male satisfied. And while myths do tend to over-exaggerate the acts of gods and demigods, yet where Sumerian and Babylonian myths regarding sexual capacity are concerned, it must be remembered that the “Sacred Marriage” ceremony requiring the King to orgasm “fifty times” was not myth or legend, but was a very real and oft-documented ceremony for over 2,000 years in Sumer, Thus, such “superhuman” male sexual capacity was indeed very real in that time and place and did not need to be embellished.

Sumer‘s Multiorgasmic Legacy Fades into History
… and Women’s Equality Fades Away with Them

Only after the Anunnaki and their descendants faded from power in Sumer, for as-yet-unknown reasons, did the subsequent kingdoms of Babylonia and later, Assyria, begin to dominate females and deprive them of their former prestige and position while moving swiftly to control and repress female sexualtiy, whose multiorgasmic nature had for so many millennia been championed and equally enjoyed by the Rephaim but which now fell under the domination of sexually intimidated, mono-orgasmic males:

“The history of women in Mesopotamia is a long and complex one. Part of this is due to the fact that there are many divisions in the history of Mesopotamia itself. History begins in Mesopotamia with civilizations there rising and falling and shifting. Along with these shifting civilizations came shifting views about women, particularly their status and freedoms. This essay will cover the status of women during the different civilizations of Mesopotamia: Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria, and Judea. Of special interest, however, is the Assyrian period, which lasted from 900 BC.-600BC. During this period, an extremely important law, entitled the Middle Assyrian Law 40, was written that still affects women of this region today. With MAL 40, the state assumed control of female sexuality by forcing certain women to wear veils, and restricting other women from wearing them. With each successive civilization, women enjoyed less freedom and a lower status, and a patriarchal revolution slowly took place…”

“The first ancient Mesopotamian civilization was that of Sumeria…  During this period, a woman’s strongest position was in relation to the temples. Often young girls worked in the temples as housekeepers or as concubines to the earthly representatives of the gods (Stephenson 56). Fathers were proud to have their daughters serving religion in this way. They would mark their daughters’ entry into temple life with a ceremonial sacrifice and bestow the girls’ marriage dowries to the temple (Stephenson 56). Nin-dingir priestesses annually participated in the Sacred Marriage by impersonating or representing the goddess Inanna (Lerner 239). The Sacred Marriage likely originated in the Sumerian city of Uruk (which was dedicated to the Goddess Inanna) earlier than 3000 B.C. The basis for the ritual of the Sacred Marriage was the belief that fertility of the land and of people depended on the celebration of the sexual power of the fertility goddess (Lerner 239). The Sacred Marriage was between the Goddess Inanna and either the high priest (representing the god), or the king (representing the God Dumuzi), and was performed in the temples of various fertility goddesses for nearly two thousand years. The annual symbolic reenactment of this mythical union was a public celebration essential to the well-being of the community, and since it was the occasion of a joyous celebration, it may have involved sexual activity on the part of the worshipers in and around the temple grounds (Lerner 240). The fact that the king of Sumer ritually married a representative of the goddess Inanna once every year helped sustain the power of the priestesses at least for a time (Stephenson 56). Rites similar to the Sacred Marriage also flourished in classical Greece and pre-Christian Rome (Lerner 240).

“In about 1750 BC. the Sumerians, who had been the creative force in developing Western civilization, were overcome by neighboring Semitic people, the Babylonians, whose greatest king gave his famous Code of Hammurabi to history (Stephenson 57). Historians have learned much about the Babylonian male/female relationship, and the status of women, from the Code of Hammurabi. Under these laws, a woman could be divorced on virtually any grounds: childlessness, adultery, and even poor household management. For example, one of the rules states, “If she have not been a careful mistress, have gadded about, have neglected her house, and have belittled her husband or children , they shall throw that woman into the water.” All the husband need do to obtain a divorce was say, “Thou art not my wife,” and return her dowry (Walsh 24). However, a wife who used these words against her husband would be drowned. A woman could not divorce her husband, but she could leave him if she could prove that her husband had been cruel and that she had been faithful, and then simply return to her parents’ home with her dowry. A wronged husband was free to kill his wife and her lover (Walsh 24).”

Women in Mesopotamia (emphasis added)
Jessica Bieda, Univ. of Az., Women’s Studies Dept.
In foreboding foreshadowing of future vilification during the 15th-16th Centuries for their “insatiable” “carnal lust,” the Babylonians began to actively persecute women as “witches”:

“By the time of the Code of Hammurabi, formulated between 1792 and 1750 BC, the position of women had obviously been greatly eroded. The crimes recorded on the tablets which now outnumbered all others were those of witchcraft and female adultery. According to the Code the accused woman was subjected to the ordeal of the river. If she survived being thrown into a river, she was absolved from any crime. Were she to drown, however, this was considered to be proof of her guilt. This way of ascertaining her guilt or otherwise had a continuing influence for hundreds of years. In Europe, women accused of witchcraft were subjected to similar ordeals by water up until medieval times.”

– “The Mythology of Sex“, Dening, Ch. 3

It is thus apparent that by the time of the Babylonian Period, the Rephaim were clearly no longer an influence in the area. Where the Sumerian Rephaim might have emmigrated during the advent of the Babylonian Empire is not known.

However, approximately 1,500 years earlier, after first establishing the Sumerian Empire, other Rephaim were actively establishing the longest-lived empire in World history: Egypt.

From Sumer to Egypt (ca 3,500 – 3,300 BCE)

“There is archaeological evidence of a strong cultural connection between Sumer and ancient Egypt. ‘Ptah‘ and the other gods were called, in Egyptian, Ntr = ‘Guardian, Watcher‘.”

They (ie, ‘The Watchers’) had come to Egypt, the Egyptians wrote, from Ta-Ur, the ‘Far/Foreign Land,’ whose name Ur meant ‘oldest’ but could have also been the actual place name – a place well known from Mesopotamian and biblical records: the ancient city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia. And the straits of the Red Sea, which connected Mesopotamia and Egypt, were called Ta-Neter, the ‘Place of the Gods (‘Watchers’),’ the passage by which they had come to Egypt. That the earliest gods did come from the biblical lands of Shem is additionally borne out by the puzzling fact that the names of these olden gods were of ‘Semitic’ (Akkadian) derivation. Thus Ptah, which had no meaning in Egyptian, meant ‘he who fashioned things by carving and opening up’ in the Semitic tongues.”

– Zecharia Sitchin, The Wars of Gods and Men (http://echoes.devin.com/watchers/sons-of-god.html)   (emphasis added)


“It was, in fact, the biblical Land of Shin’ar. It was the land whose name – Shumer – literally meant the Land of the Watchers. It was indeed the Egyptian Ta Neter – Land of the Watchers, the land from which the gods had come to Egypt.”

– Zecharia Sitchin, Stairway to Heaven (http://echoes.devin.com/watchers/sons-of-god.html)

The “Watchers” in Egypt

If, as the Egyptians believed, Sumer (present-day Iraq) was indeed the Ta Neter (Land of the Gods) from which Land the Gods (“Watchers”) had come to Egypt, what evidence is there in Egypt that would help either prove or disprove the Sumerian/Fallen Angel Connection, and further, what evidence is there that such “Watchers” in Egypt possessed some superhuman sexual capacity?

While the Hebrews believed the Watchers and their progeny, in particular, were blood-thirsty “giants” bent on the destruction and corruption of Humankind, yet if such evil, malignant, giant superbeings actually did make their way into Egypt, surely such a dreadful arrival would have figured prominently in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and historical texts, as well. If the Watchers were the massive cannibalistic monsters as depicted and vilified in Genesis, the Books of Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Jubilees, etc., they would have posed an horrific threat to the Egyptians as these supposedly murderous half-humans/half-demons invaded their lands. And yet nothing of any such “invasion” by any such foreigners from the East appears anywhere in Egyptian history of this period. No accounts exist at all of cannabilistic giants devouring whole villages, etc, as exists in Hebrew records. In fact, no successful invasion into Egypt occurred at all until the Greeks’ conquest of Egypt under Alexander, thousands of years later.

Yet as seen in the previous quotes, there can be no doubt that the Egyptians recorded the arrival of “the Watchers” in Egypt from the Mesopotamian area of Sumer (Shu’mer) approximately 3500 BCE.

So, as Egypt’s “Gods” came from Sumer anciently, who were the “Watchers” in Egypt… really?

The key to their discovery lies not in looking for “giants” or “cannibals” or even “demons” (all Hebrew lies), but in first searching for an Egyptian “Watcher” (God) or group of “Watchers” leaving some mark on Egyptian history in exemplifying the single indisputable defining characteristic of the Watchers: their superhuman sexual capacity.

Of course, it’s not enough to simply find a male sex god or gods and assume that such must be of the “Watchers.” No… if such a “Watcher” existed, he would have to fill additional requirements. After all, we have historical records that document the history and origins of these “Watchers,” and while many of the specific vilifications and condemnations of the “Watchers” can be taken with a rather large grain of salt, yet there are basic characteristics and historical evidences revealed that can be useful in establishing a fairly reliable, relatively credible base of general “Watcher” characteristics, and any Egyptian “Watcher” candidate(s) would have to match these same criteria.

Specifically, in addition to exemplifying the epitome of the male sexual ideal (“super” “virility”), any such “Watcher”:

    1. Would have been documented as being a real man/being, not simply a “God”
      based on a myth, legend, or superstition, etc.;
    2. Would not have been native to Egypt, but would have specifically arrived in
      Egypt from either Canaan/Palestine or – preferably – Sumer (whose very name in
      Sumerian and Egyptian means “Land of the Watchers,” further evidence of the
      obvious ancient contact existing between them); and
    3. Would have had to arrive in a timeframe following the Watchers’ expulsion from
      Canaan/Palestine, ca 4,000 BCE.

While almost no “deity” could arguably hope to pass even the first of these criteria, yet there is one Egyptian “deity” that does… and further succeeds in passing all three, historically and convincingly, and whose very name, like “Rephaim,” specifically refers to never-ending “virility” of an eternal sexually “firm” nature.

The Watcher deity in question was by far the most “virile” of all the ancient Sex Gods. And according to many Egyptologists, he also happened to be Egypt’s first Pharoah, King Menes.

More of this article can be read at the following link. This actually reinforces that the 50 Names as they appear in the Simon Necronomicon are of Sumerian origin and different than those that appear in the Enuma Elish since it is an older rite.

Warlock Asylum

Advertisements

10 replies »

  1. Fantastic information. The Sumerian Book of creation must be one of the most rational arguments for our existence as human beings.
    We need to spread this information – get it into mainstream.
    will be back many times.

    Like

  2. Thanks! I see the reference now. 🙂

    To clarify, this article does not come from folks at Rutgers University. Instead, that site is owned and operated by a co-author of the Rutgers study found and featured there who is also the author of the information you’ve quoted. Thanks, again!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s