But it is precisely here, in this passage, that the O’Briens assert that the translational “paradigm error” occurs to obscure what is really taking place:As with the translations of the early chapters of Genesis, something has gone wildly wrong! From what has preceded, the reader will appreciate that the great (Anunnaki) were not such ninnies, or such scoundrels, as to murder one of their own people and then require Ninlil to mix “clay” from his flesh and blood. Nor, later, to spit on the mixture in the hope of producing a hybrid from man and lordling! In any case, how does man take part in the hybridization?
We are satisfied that the authors of Atra-Hasis have produced the best translation possible from the Akkadian text. The fault must have lain with the Akkadian scribes who misinterpreted the original texts. Now, the question is — can we, with the material supplied, provide a more realistic account?295
The fault in this one instance, in other words, was not in the modern scholarly translations, but rather in a mistranslation original to the Akkadian, or, as one scholar of Sumerian grammar aptly quipped, “One may say that we see Sumerian through an Akkadian glass darkly.”296
So how do the O’Briens apply their more secular approach to uncover what they believe to have been an original scribal mistranslation?
In the first place, the translation of the term ri-im-ka is suspect. The root word rimku does, indeed, mean “washing,” but need not imply a bath. The word can also mean “pouring out,” and in that context could be translated as “draught”; and it is more likely that all the lordlings would be given (blood) purifying draughts on the first, seventh, and fifteenth days of the month before one was chosen for the experiment, than that they would be given weekly baths.
In the second place, it is not necessary to slaughter someone in order to obtain their purified blood. Thirdly, a mixture of flesh and blood does not make clay. But it could make what we, today, would call a culture. And out of the right kind of culture, it is possible to produce a hybrid of two individuals — it is now standard practice in the production of test-tube babies. Moreover, in the text that follows, the “clay” that Nintu mixed was placed into the wombs of foster mothers, who in due course produced the hybrid babies. What, then, was this clay that Nintu mixed?
It was something which, when mixed with “spittle,” produced a culture which could be put into wombs to grow into embryos. The Akkadian term for spittle was ru-tu or ru-u-tu; and if this were, originally, loaned from the Sumerian, it could have meant a “conception escape.” And an escape of “semen” is almost indistinguishable from “spittle.”297
The 8th Kharsag Tablet, Obverse298
The 8th Kharsag Tablet, Reverse299
2. The O’Briens on the Technological Indications
What then of the “clay” or “culture”? Could a similar case be made for a corrupted Sumerian origin for the term?The Akkadian word for this “clay” was tittu; written as ti-it-tu. In the context of the hybridization story, the Akkadian word is meaningless to us — and we believe that it was the same to the Akkadian scribes. This suggests that the word was copied from the original Sumerian without alteration — and we know that the original was in Sumerian, because the personalities mentioned, like Enlil, Enki, Nusku and Anu, were from the Sumerian pantheon rather than the Semitic one. Consequently, we must ask ourselves what ti-it-tu could have meant to the Sumerians.
The syllables had the following archaic signs and meanings:
At this juncture, the O’Briens reproduce the following table:
ti ‘to live’, live‘, or living’.
or ti(n) ‘life’ — probably an early variant of the above.
it or id ‘with’.
tu ‘bear’, ‘beget’, enter‘.
or tu(n) ’Portion‘, ’piece‘, or ’increase‘.
They then comment as follows:All these meanings appear to be apposite to the subject matter so, consequently, it is possible to consider that the “clay” which Nintu was to mix with lordling sperm (spittle) was a “piece of life” or “material of life.” The jump that must be taken, here, is to conclude that this “piece of life” was a “female ovum.” And this jump is justified by the closing stages of the narrative where fourteen “mothers” are brought into the story to carry the resulting embryos.300
With this secular, “technological” paradigm of interpretation in hand, they note that “it should be possible to continue the narrative with some degree of credibility.”301 The translation resulting from this paradigm shift is rather intriguing for its implications:Enki said: “On the first, seventh, and fifteenth day of the month, I will prepare purifying draughts; let all the lordlings be purified, and then choose one from whom to take a blood sample. From his flesh and blood we will take what is required for the Lady of Creation to mix the life cultures, so that the lordling and man may be thoroughly hybridized in the culture. Let the hybrid receive “spirit” from the lordling’s flesh, and then, let us not forget that living man will have a “spirit.”
In the Assembly, the Great (Anunnaki), who administer the affairs of Earth, agreed. On the first, seventh, and fifteenth day of the month, Enki made the purifying draughts. We-ila, who had the right characteristics, was chosen by the Assembly to give blood. And from his flesh and blood, the Lady of Creation mixed the cultures. [... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...]
After she had mixed the cultures, she summoned the (Anunnaki), the great lords.
The lordlings [the great lords] gave their sperm for the life cultures.302
Thus, on any reading, if the text is to be credited with any veracity — a“standard academic” translation such as Dalley’s, or in a more secularized translation such as the O’Briens’ — mankind is an engineered hybridized creature, part “lordling” and part “human.” In the O’Briens’ view, the sperm donor came from a “lordling,” or one of the Anunnaki, and the egg donors were human.303
But what of the assertion that one of the “gods” had to be slaughtered in order to bring this to pass? Again, the paradigm shift and methodological assumptions lead the O’Briens to a very different translational conclusion:...(It) is far more probable that the (Anunnaki) wished, not to kill, but to “shed blood” for the purpose of obtaining blood samples from which they could select the most suitable of the lordlings.
The importance of the blood sample in determining histocompatibility is well known in modern medicine, because foetal wastage due to blood-group incompatibility forms a serious proportion of stillbirths. It is known, for example, that O-group mothers will more often carry incompatible foetuses than mothers of other blood-groups; in fact, where B- and AB-group males marry O-group females, such matings are termed ABO-incompatible. If this occurs so frequently among modern, polymorphous, but related populations, it may have been far more serious a problem when attempting a conjugation of (Anunnaki) and Hominid, and may have required a very careful selection of blood type.
Even among apparently compatible types, it may have been necessary to make a detailed study of the effect of important antigens on suitable cells and tissues, notably on both blood cells and skin cells, to determine their effect on histocompatibility. This may well be the explanation for the use of both blood and “flesh” in the experiments carried out by Enki and Ma-mi. In fact, the purification process mentioned may have referred to the process of neutralizing incompatible antigens in the male donor.
The Lady of Creation so manipulated the cultures that lordling and man were “thoroughly mixed.” In genetic terms, this mixture was to be half Lordling and half Human; and since the former are stated to have provided the male elements, the female elements must have been taken from human women; and these women could only have come from the Cro-Magnon tribes in the vicinity. Earlier in the epic, Enki is quoted as saying: “You are the biological expert, the creatress of Mankind, we want you now to create a lullu...” From this we might infer that, in her role of biologist to the (Anunnaki), Ninlil had previously been active in creating Mankind, and this lullu was
to be an ad hoc operation, possibly resulting in a specialized hybrid, bred for heavy labour.
Such an inference would raise problems. Mankind, at that time, was the Cro-Magnon race and admittedly, it had appeared very suddenly, and markedly superior to its contemporaries — the Neanderthalers. But that event was thirty thousand years earlier; and it would have had to have been another biological expert from another (Anunnaki) group. Could the (Anunnaki) have descended twice onto the Near East? And could they have carried out an earlier hybridization between themselves and the Neanderthalers — to produce the remarkable advance from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon?
In answer to these two imponderable questions, we can only state that there is no evidence that they did so; but absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence. They might have!304
Their technological “translation” of texts, however, reaches its true zenith when they turn to other considerations in the text.The implementation of the hybridization project took place in the Bit Shimti. Bit was the Akkadian for “house” but Shimti, or si-im-ti, is a word that might have the seed of surprise within it. The archaic pictograms of the Sumerian syllables may be analyzed as follows...
They then reproduce the following insert:
(i)
O’Briens’ Sumerian Insert305
The O’Briens then suggest that the meaning is simply what is literally suggested: a “bright eye for seeing.”306
Then they follow this up with another insert of the Sumerian cuneiograms of the phonetic syllables:
(ii)
(iii)
O’Briens’ Sumerian Cuneiogram Insert307
It is best to cite the O’Briens directly on what they believe is the technology signified by this odd assortment of word roots: “The best combination of these meanings is ‘bright eye for examining the life culture.’ The Bit Shimti may well have been the building which housed this piece of apparatus which appears to indicate an illuminated miscroscope.”308 That is possible, but given all the preceding discussion of the modern genome project, and the vast array of equipment needed to sequence the genome much less splice the genes of one organism to another, the meaning might equally be taken to indicate the sequencers and color-coded light-readers themselves. In short, to make such a reading as the O’Briens’ work, much more technological resources would be needed than mere microscopes. This indeed might point to a fundamental difficulty with their “paradigm shift in translation,” for the sheer size of a project to do what they are suggesting is implied by the scope of the task itself, and yet the texts that they cite do not seem to hint of a project of such scale. Moreover, as we have seen in the first parts of this chapter, such a project would require massive computational power, and again, there are no hints of this in the texts they cite. Regrettably, the O’Briens do not make a complete translation of all the Kharsag tablets in their book, which might yield such information.309
What does all this add up to in the O’Briens’ opinion? There are, they maintain, but two possibilities for the genetic constitution of mankind, if one takes these ancient tablets — and their own interpretation of them — seriously:1. If Cro-Magnon Man were a hybrid of Neanderthal Man and (Anunnaki), and the Patriarchal tribes were hybrids of Cro-Magnon Man and the (Anunnaki), then the Patriarchal tribespeople — who were the progenitors of the Jewish race — were three parts (Anunnaki) and only one part Neanderthal.310
2. Alternatively, if Cro-Magnon were not a hybrid, but an evolutionary mutation of Early Man, then the Patriarchal tribes were half (Anunnaki) and half Early Man.
In either case, it has to be stated that the Jewish race, through their Patriarchal progenitors, carry more of the “divine” (Anunnaki) strain within their cells than us Gentiles. The percentages would be roughly as follows:
Patriarchal TribesGentiles
Case 1: 75% (Anunnaki)/25% Hominid 50% (Anunnaki)/50% Hominid
Case 2: 50% (Anunnaki)/50% Hominid Nil (Anunnaki)/100% Hominid
It is worth citing how the O’Briens continue to explore this question.
Which case is correct? There are only four clues — the first lies with the infant Noah who was so startlingly like the Shining Ones, and so startlingly unlike his own family, that his father was constrained to beg Methuselah to make the forbidden journey to Eden to obtain reassurance from Enoch.311
They then cite the Book of Enoch, 106: 1–8:
After some time, my son Methuselah took a wife for his son, Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and gave birth to a son. The child’s body was as white as snow and as red as the rose, and the hair of his head was in long locks which were as white as wool: and his eyes were beautiful. When he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the Sun might have done; the whole house was bright. And he straightaway sat up in the hands of the midwife, opened his mouth, and spake of the Lord of Justice. His father, Lamech, was afraid of him, and ran to his father, Methusaleh.
And he said to him: “I have produced a strange son, different from, and unlike Man; he resembles the Sons of the Lord in Eden. His nature is different, he is not like you and me — his eyes are like the rays of the Sun and his face shines. It seems to me that he is not born of my stock, but that of the Angels...”312
Their comment on this strange development is also worth citing:It would appear that the young Noah was a throwback to his progenitor on the male line — We-ila. Of course, this would have been more likely to happen under Case 1, but could still have happened under Case 2.313
Or to put it in rather more stark terms — ones that reveal the complete implications — Noah was himself a product of the b’nai elohim or “sons of God” (or “sons of the gods”) of Genesis 6, and of the daughters of men: Noah himself was a hybrid, and suggestively, the implication is that he might not really have been the biological son of Lamech at all.
For the O’Briens, then, there is a hidden reason why Noah and his family were “saved” from the flood, for he clearly bore a “divine” bloodline that “the powers that be” or rather “the powers that were” wished to preserve.314
But it is the “fourth clue” in which the O’Briens find the “definitive key” to unraveling the mystery, for some of the Anunnaki, the fallen ones designated “Watchers” in the Book of Enoch,...were able to procreate with the daughters of the Patriarchs. For this to have been possible, in a natural situation outside of the laboratory, there must have been a very close genetic relationship between Watcher and Woman. This would have been favoured by the higher (Anunnaki) genetic ratio in the Patriarchal woman assumed in Case 1.315
In other words, the O’Briens incline to the view that there was an earlier project to hybridize Cro-Magnon man, and that from this experiment yet another hybridization occurred between the “gods” and that Cro-Magnon man to produce the hybrid of a hybrid, modern Homo sapiens sapiens. In chapters seven and eight, we shall see just how closely this harmonizes not only with other ancient texts and legends, but with aspects of the standard model of human origins within science as well.
A hint of it is given in the Mayan creation epic, the Popul Vuh, an ocean away in Meso-America:The Popul Vuh states that mankind had been created to be a servant of the “gods.” The “gods” are quoted:
“Let us make him who shall nourish and sustain us! What shall we do to be invoked, in order to be remembered on earth? We have already tried with our first creations, our first creatures; but we could not make them praise and venerate us. So, then, let us try to make obedient, respectful beings who will nourish and sustain us.”
According to the Popul Vuh, the “gods” had made creatures known as “figures of wood” before creating Homo sapiens. Said to look and talk like men, these odd creatures of wood “existed and multiplied; they had daughters, they had sons...” There were, however, inadequate servants for the “gods.” To explain why, the Popul Vuh expresses a sophisticated spiritual truth not found in Christianity, but which is found in earlier Mesopotamian writings. The “figures of wood” did
not have souls, relates the Popul Vuh, and so they walked on all fours “aimlessly.” In other words, without souls (spiritual beings) to animate the bodies, the “gods” found that they had created living creatures which could biologically reproduce, but which lacked the intelligence to have goals or direction.
...
Creating Homo sapiens did not end Custodial headaches, however. According to the Popul Vuh, the first Homo sapiens were too intelligent and had too many abilities!
“They (first Homo sapiens) were endowed with intelligence; they saw and instantly they could see far, they succeeded in seeing, they succeeded in knowing all that there is in the world. When they looked, instantly they saw all around them, and they contemplated in turn the arch of heaven and the round face of the earth.
...
“But the Creator and the Maker did not hear this with pleasure. ‘It is not well that our creatures, our works, say: “they know all, the large and the small,”’ they said.”316
The situation is remarkably parallel to the Mesopotamian texts, for there too, after the chimerical mankind — part “god,” part “hominid” — is created, the gods quickly complain that the new being is too smart. Note also that the reasons given for mankind’s creation in the Popul Vuh are identical to the reasons given in texts from the Middle East, both Mesopotamian and biblical: the “gods” needed slaves to do their work for them and to worship them.
Genes, Giants, Monsters, and Men: The Surviving Elites of the Cosmic War and Their Hidden Agenda Page 17