THE ASSERTION, first recorded and transmitted by the Sumerians, that “Man” was created by the Nefilim, appears at first sight to clash both with the theory of evolution and with the Judeo-Christian tenets based on the Bible.
But in fact, the information contained in the Sumerian texts – and only that information – can affirm both the validity of the theory of evolution and the truth of the biblical tale – and show that there really is no conflict at all between the two.
In the epic “When the gods as men,” in other specific texts, and in passing references, the Sumerians described Man as both a deliberate creature of the gods and a link in the evolutionary chain that began with the celestial events described in the “Epic of Creation.”
Holding firm to the belief that the creation of Man was preceded by an era during which only the Nefilim were upon Earth, the Sumerian texts recorded instance after instance (for example, the incident between Enlil and Ninlil) of events that had taken place “when Man had not yet been created, when Nippur was inhabited by the gods alone.”
At the same time, the texts also described the creation of Earth and the development of plant and animal life upon it, in terms that conform to the current evolutionary theories.
The Sumerian texts state that when the Nefilim first came to Earth, the arts of grain cultivation, fruit planting, and cattle raising had not yet extended to Earth. The biblical account likewise places the creation of Man in the sixth “day” or phase of the evolutionary process. The Book of Genesis, too, asserts that at an earlier evolutionary stage:
No plant of the cleared field was yet on Earth, No herb that is planted had yet been grown… . And Man was not yet there to work the soil.
All the Sumerian texts assert that the gods created Man to do their work. Putting the explanation in words uttered by Marduk, the Creation epic reports the decision:
I will produce a lowly Primitive;
“Man” shall be his name.
I will create a Primitive Worker;
He will be charged with the service of the gods,
that they might have their ease.
The very terms by which the Sumerians and Akkadians called “Man” bespoke his status and purpose: He was a lulu (“primitive”), a lulu amelu (“primitive worker”), an awihim (“laborer”).
That Man was created to be a servant of the gods did not strike the ancient peoples as a peculiar idea at all. In biblical times, the deity was “Lord,” “Sovereign,” “King,” “Ruler,” “Master.” The term that is commonly translated as “worship” was in fact avod (“work”). Ancient and biblical Man did not “worship” his god; he worked for him.
No sooner had the biblical Deity, like the gods in Sumerian accounts, created Man, than he planted a garden and assigned Man to work there:
And the Lord God took the “Man” and placed him in the garden of Eden to till it and to tend it.
Later on, the Bible describes the Deity “strolling in the garden in the breeze of the day,” now that the new being was there to tend the Garden of Eden. How far is this version from the Sumerian texts that describe how the gods clamored for workers so that they could rest and relax?
In the Sumerian versions, the decision to create Man was adopted by the gods in their Assembly. Significantly, the Book of Genesis – purportedly exalting the achievements of a sole Deity – uses the plural Elohim (literally, “deities”) to denote “God,” and reports an astonishing remark:
And Elohim said:
“Let us make Man in our image,
after our likeness.”
Whom did the sole but plural Deity address, and who were the “us” in whose plural image and plural likeness Man was to be made?
The Book of Genesis does not provide the answer. Then, when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowing, Elohim issued a warning to the same unnamed colleagues:
“Behold, Man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.”
Since the biblical story of Creation, like the other tales of beginnings in Genesis, stems from Sumerian origins, the answer is obvious. Condensing the many gods into a single Supreme Deity, the biblical tale is but an edited version of the Sumerian reports of the discussions in the Assembly of the Gods.
The Old Testament took pains to make clear that Man was neither a god nor from the heavens.
“The Heavens are the Heavens of the Lord, unto Mankind Earth He hath given.”
The new being was called “the Adam” because he was created of the adama, the Earth’s soil. He was, in other words, “the Earthling.”
Lacking only certain “knowing” and a divine span of life, the Adam was in all other respects created in the image (selem) and likeness (dmut) of his Creator(s). The use of both terms in the text was meant to leave no doubt that Man was similar to the God(s) both physically and emotionally, externally and internally.
In all ancient pictorial depictions of gods and men, this physical likeness is evident. Although the biblical admonition against the worship of pagan images gave rise to the notion that the Hebrew God had neither image nor likeness, not only the Genesis tale but other biblical reports attest to the contrary. The God of the ancient Hebrews could be seen face-to-face, could be wrestled with, could be heard and spoken to; he had a head and feet, hands and fingers, and a waist.
The biblical God and his emissaries looked like men and acted like men – because men were created to look like and act like the gods.
But in this very simplicity lies a great mystery. How could a new creature possibly be a virtual physical, mental, and emotional replica of the Nefilim? How, indeed, was Man created?
The Western world was long wedded to the notion that, created deliberately, Man was put upon Earth to subdue it and have dominion over all other creatures. Then, in November 1859, an English naturalist by the name of Charles Darwin published a treatise called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. Summing up nearly thirty years of research, the book added to earlier thoughts about natural evolution the concept of natural selection as a consequence of the struggle of all species – of plant and animal alike – for existence.
The Christian world had been jostled earlier when, from 1788 on, noted geologists had begun to express their belief that Earth was of great antiquity, much, much greater than the roughly 5,500 years of the Hebrew calendar. Nor was the concept of evolution as such the explosive: Earlier scholars had noted such a process, and Greek scholars as far back as the fourth century B.C. compiled data on the evolution of animal and plant life.
Darwin’s shattering bombshell was the conclusion that all living things – Man included – were products of evolution. Man, contrary to the then-held belief, was not generated spontaneously.
The initial reaction of the Church was violent. But as the scientific facts regarding Earth’s true age, evolution, genetics, and other biological and anthropological studies came to light, the Church’s criticism was muted.
It seemed at last that the very words of the Old Testament made the tale of the Old Testament indefensible; for how could a God who has no corporal body and who is universally alone say,
“Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness?”
But are we really nothing more than “naked apes”? Is I lie monkey just an evolutionary arm’s length away from us, and the tree shrew just a human who has yet to lose his tail and stand erect?
As we showed at the very beginning of this book, modern scientists have come to question the simple theories. Evolution can explain the general course of events that caused life and life’s forms to develop on Earth, from the simplest one-celled creature to Man. But evolution cannot account for the appearance of Homo sapiens, which happened virtually overnight in terms of the millions of years evolution requires, and with no evidence of earlier stages that would indicate a gradual change from Homo erectus.
The hominid of the genus Homo is a product of evolution. But Homo sapiens is the product of some sudden, revolutionary event. He appeared inexplicably some 300,000 years ago, millions of years too soon.
The scholars have no explanation. But we do. The Sumerian and Babylonian texts do. The Old Testament does.
Homo sapiens – modern Man – was brought about by the ancient gods.
The Mesopotamian texts, fortunately, provide a clear statement regarding the time when Man was created. The story of the toil and ensuing mutiny of the Anunnaki informs us that “for 40 periods they suffered the work, day and night”; the long years of their toil are dramatized by repetitious verses.
For 10 periods they suffered the toil;
For 20 periods they suffered the toil;
For 30 periods they suffered the toil;
For 40 periods they suffered the toil.
The ancient text uses the term ma to denote “period,” and most scholars have translated this as “year.”
But the term had the connotation of “something that completes itself and then repeats itself.” To men on Earth, one year equals one complete orbit of Earth around the Sun. As we have already shown, the orbit of the Nefilim’s planet equaled a shar, or 3,600 Earth years.
Forty shars, or 144,000 Earth years, after their landing, the Anunnaki protested, “No more!” If the Nefilim first landed on Earth, as we have concluded, some 450,000 years ago, then the creation of Man took place some 300,000 years ago!
The Nefilim did not create the mammals or the primates or the hominids. “The Adam” of the Bible was not the genus Homo, but the being who is our ancestor – the first Homo sapiens. It is modern Man as we know him that the Nefilim created.
The key to understanding this crucial fact lies in the tale of a slumbering Enki, aroused to be informed that the gods had decided to form an adamu, and that it was his task to find the means.
“The creature whose name you uttered – IT EXISTS”
and he added: “Bind upon it” – on the creature that already exists – “the image of the gods.”
Here, then, is the answer to the puzzle: The Nefilim did not “create” Man out of nothing; rather, they took an existing creature and manipulated it, to “bind upon it” the “image of the gods.”
Man is the product of evolution; but modern Man, Homo sapiens, is the product of the “gods.” For, some time circa 300,000 years ago, the Nefilim took ape-man (Homo erectus) and implanted on him their own image and likeness.
Evolution and the Near Eastern tales of Man’s creation are not at all in conflict. Rather, they explain and complement each other. For without the creativity of the Nefilim, modern Man would still be millions years away on the evolutionary tree.
Let us transport ourselves back in time, and try to visualize the circumstances and the events as they unfolded.
The great interglacial stage that began about 435,000 years ago, and its warm climate, brought about a proliferation of food and animals. It also speeded up the appearance and spread of an advanced manlike ape, Homo erectus.
As the Nefilim looked about them, they saw not only the predominant mammals but also the primates – among them the manlike apes. Is it not possible that the roaming bands of Homo erectus were lured to come close to observe the fiery objects rising to the sky? Is it not possible that the Nefilim observed, encountered, even captured some of these interesting primates?
That the Nefilim and the manlike apes did meet is attested to by several ancient texts.
A Sumerian tale dealing with the primordial times states:
When Mankind was created,
They knew not the eating of bread,
Knew not the dressing in garments;
Ate plants with their mouth like sheep;
Drank water from a ditch.
Such an animal-like “human” being is also described in the “Epic of Gilgamesh.”
That text tells what Enkidu, the one “born on the steppes,” was like before he became civilized:
Shaggy with hair is his whole body,
he is endowed with head-hair like a woman… .
He knows neither people nor land;
Garbed he is like one of the green fields;
With gazelles he feeds on grass;
With the wild beasts he jostles
at the watering place;
With the teeming creatures in the water
his heart delights.
Not only does the Akkadian text describe an animal-like man; it also describes an encounter with such a being:
Now a hunter, one who traps,
faced him at the watering place.
When the hunter saw him,
his face became motionless. …
His heart was disturbed, overclouded his face,
for woe had entered his belly.
There was more to it than mere fear after the hunter beheld “the savage,” this “barbarous fellow from the depths of the steppe”; for this “savage” also interfered with the hunter’s pursuits:
He filled the pits that I had dug, he tore up my traps which I had set; the beasts and creatures of the steppe he has made slip through my hands.
We can ask for no better description of an ape-man: hairy, shaggy, a roaming nomad who “knows neither people nor land,” garbed in leaves, ‘like one of the green fields,” feeding on grass, and living among the animals. Yet he is not without substantial intelligence, for he knows how to tear up the traps and fill up the pits dug to catch the animals. In other words, he protected his animal friends from being caught by the alien hunters.
Many cylinder seals have been found that depict this shaggy ape-man among his animal friends.
Then, faced with the need for manpower, resolved to obtain a Primitive Worker, the Nefilim saw a ready-made solution: to domesticate a suitable animal.
The “animal” was available – but Homo erectus posed a problem. On the one hand, he was too intelligent and wild to become simply a docile beast of work. On the other hand, he was not really suited to the task.
His physique had to be changed – he had to be able to grasp and use the tools of the Nefilim, walk and bend like them so that he could replace the gods in the fields and in the mines. He had to have better “brains” – not like those of the gods but enough to understand speech and commands and the tasks allotted to him. He needed enough cleverness and understanding to be an obedient and useful amelu – a serf.
If, as the ancient evidence and modern science seem to confirm, life on Earth germinated from life on the Twelfth Planet, then evolution on Earth should have proceeded as it had on the Twelfth Planet.
Undoubtedly there were mutations, variations, accelerations, and retardations caused by different local conditions; but the same genetic codes, the same “chemistry of life” found in all living plants and animals on Earth would also have guided the development of life forms on Earth in the same general direction as on the Twelfth Planet.
Observing the various forms of life on Earth, the Nefilintl and their chief scientist, Ea, needed little time to realize! what had happened: During the celestial collision, their planet had seeded Earth with its life. Therefore, the being, that was available was really akin to the Nefilim – though* in a less evolved form.
A gradual process of domestication through generations of breeding and selection would not do. What was needed was a quick process, one that would permit “mass’ production” of the new workers. So the problem was • posed to Ea, who saw the answer at once: to “imprint” the image of the gods on the being that already existed.
The process that Ea recommended in order to achieve a quick evolutionary advancement of Homo erectus was, we believe, genetic manipulation.
We now know that the complex biological process whereby a living organism reproduces itself, creating progeny that resemble their parents, is made possible by the genetic code. All living organisms – a threadworm, a fern tree, or Man – contain in their cells chromosomes, minute rodlike bodies within each cell that hold the complete hereditary instructions for that particular organism.
As the male cell (pollen, sperm) fertilizes the female cell, the two sets of chromosomes combine and then divide to form new cells that hold the complete hereditary characteristics of their parent cells.
Artificial insemination, even of a female human egg, is now possible. The real challenge lies in cross-fertilization between different families within the same species, and even between different species. Modern science has come a long way from the development of the first hybrid corns, or the mating of Alaskan dogs with wolves, or the “creation” of the mule (the artificial mating of a mare and a donkey), to the ability to manipulate Man’s own reproduction.
A process called cloning (from the Greek word klon -“twig”) applies to animals the same principle as that of I taking a cutting from a plant to reproduce hundreds of ‘similar plants.
The technique as applied to animals was first demonstrated in England, where Dr. John Gurdon replaced the nucleus of a fertilized frog’s egg with the nuclear material from another cell of the same frog. The successful formation of normal tadpoles demonstrated that the egg proceeds to develop and subdivide and create progeny no matter where it obtains the correct set of matching chromosomes.
Experiments reported by the Institute of Society, Ethics land Life Sciences at Hastings-on-Hudson, show that techniques already exist for cloning human beings. It is now possible to take the nuclear material of any human cell not necessarily from the sex organs and, by introducing its twenty-three sets of complete chromosomes into the female ovum, lead to the conception and birth of a “pre-determined” individual. In normal conception, “father” and “mother” chromosome sets merge and then must split to remain at twenty-three chromosome pairs, leading to chance combinations.
But in cloning the offspring is an exact replica of the source of the unsplit set of chromosomes. We already possess, wrote Dr. W. Gaylin in The New York Times, the “awful knowledge to make exact copies of human beings” – a limitless number of Hitlers or Mozarts or Einsteins (if we had preserved their cell nuclei).
But the art of genetic engineering is not limited to one [process. Researchers in many countries have perfected a process called “cell fusion,” making it possible to fuse cells [rather than combine chromosomes within a single cell. As a result of such a process, cells from different sources can I be fused into one “supercell,” holding within itself two [nuclei and a double set of the paired chromosomes.
When [this cell splits, the mixture of nuclei and chromosomes j may split in a pattern different from that of each cell before [the fusion. The result can be two new cells, each genetically [ complete, but each with a brand-new set of genetic codes, [completely garbled as far as the ancestor cells were I concerned.
This means that cells from hitherto incompatible living I organisms – say, that of a chicken and that of a mouse can be fused to form new cells with brand-new genetic mixes that produce new animals that are neither chickens nor mice as we know them. Further refined, the process can also permit us to select which traits of one life form shall be imparted to the combined or “fused” cell.
This has led to the development of the wide field of “genetic transplant.” It is now possible to pick up from certain bacteria a single specific gene and introduce that gene into an animal or human cell, giving the offspring an added characteristic.
We should assume that the Nefilim – being capable of space travel 450,000 years ago – were also equally advanced, compared to us today, in the field of life sciences. We should also assume that they were aware of the various alternatives by which two preselected sets of chromosomes could be combined to obtain a predetermined genetic result; and that whether the process was akin to cloning, cell fusion, genetic transplant, or methods as yet unknown to us, they knew these processes and could carry them out, not only in the laboratory flask but also with living organisms.
We find a reference to such a mixing of two life-sources in the ancient texts.
According to Berossus, the deity Belus (‘lord”) – also called Deus (“god”) – brought forth various “hideous Beings, which were produced of a twofold principle”:
Men appeared with two wings, some with four and two faces. They had one body but two heads, the one of a man, the other of a woman. They were likewise in their several organs both male and female.
Other human figures were to be seen with the legs and-horns of goats. Some had horses’ feet; others had the limbs of a horse behind, but in front were fashioned like men, resembling hippocentaurs. Bulls likewise bred there with the heads of men; and dogs with fourfold bodies, and the tails of fishes. Also horses with the heads of dogs; men too and other animals with the heads and bodies of horses and the tails of fishes. In short, there were creatures with the limbs of every species of animals… .
Of all these were preserved delineations in the temple of Belus at Babylon.
The tale’s baffling details may hold an important truth.
It is quite conceivable that before resorting to the creation of a being in their own image, the Nefilim attempted to come up with a “manufactured servant” by experimenting with other alternatives: the creation of a hybrid ape-man-animal. Some of these artificial creatures may have survived for a while but were certainly unable to reproduce.
The enigmatic bull-men and lion-men (sphinxes) that adorned temple sites in the ancient Near East may not have been just figments of an artist’s imagination but actual creatures that came out of the biological laboratories of the Nefilim – unsuccessful experiments commemorated in art and by statues.
Sumerian texts, too, speak of deformed humans created by Enki and the Mother Goddess (Ninhursag) in the course of their efforts to fashion a perfect Primitive Worker.
One text reports that Ninhursag, whose task it was to “bind upon the mixture the mold of the gods,” got drunk and “called over to Enki,”
“How good or how bad is Man’s body?
As my heart prompts me,
I can make its fate good or bad.”
Mischievously, then, according to this text – but probably unavoidably, as part of a trial-and-error process – Ninhursag produced a Man who could not hold back his urine, a woman who could not bear children, a being who had neither male nor female organs.
All in all, six deformed or deficient humans were brought forth by Ninhursag. Enki was held responsible for the imperfect creation of a man with diseased eyes, trembling hands, a sick liver, a failing heart; a second one with sicknesses attendant upon old age; and so on.
But finally the perfect Man was achieved – the one Enki named Adapa; the Bible, Adam; our scholars, Homo sapiens. This being was so much akin to the gods that one text even went so far as to point out that the Mother Goddess gave to her creature, Man, “a skin as the skin of a god” – a smooth, hairless body, quite different from that of the shaggy ape-man.
With this final product, the Nefilim were genetically compatible with the daughters of Man and able to marry them and have children by them. But such compatibility could exist only if Man had developed from the same “seed of life” as the Nefilim. This, indeed, is what the ancient texts attest to.
Man, in the Mesopotamian concept, as in the biblical one, was made of a mixture of a godly element – a god’s blood or its “essence” – and the “clay” of Earth. Indeed, the very term lulu for “Man,” while conveying the sense of “primitive,” literally meant “one who has been mixed.”
Called upon to fashion a man, the Mother Goddess,
“Washed her hands, pinched off clay, mixed it in the steppe.”
(It is fascinating to note here the sanitary precautions taken by the goddess. She “washed her hands.” We encounter such clinical measures and procedures in other creation texts as well.)
The use of earthly “clay” mixed with divine “blood” to create the prototype of Man is firmly established by the Mesopotamian texts.
One, relating how Enki was called upon to “bring to pass some great work of Wisdom” – of scientific know-how – states that Enki saw no great problem in fulfilling the task of “fashioning servants for the gods.”
“It can be done!” he announced. He then gave these instructions to the Mother Goddess:
“Mix to a core the clay
from the Basement of Earth,
just above the Abzu –
and shape it into the form of a core.
I shall provide good, knowing young gods
who will bring that clay to the right condition.”
The second chapter of Genesis offers this technical version:
And Yahweh, Elohim, fashioned the Adam of the clay of the soil;
and He blew in his nostrils the breath of life, and the Adam turned into a living Soul.
The Hebrew term commonly translated as “soul” is nephesh, that elusive “spirit” that animates a living creature and seemingly abandons it when it dies.
By no coincidence, the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) repeatedly exhorted against the shedding of human blood and the eating of animal blood “because the blood is the nephesh.” The biblical versions of the creation of Man thus equate nephesh (“spirit,” “soul”) and blood.
The Old Testament offers another clue to the role of blood in Man’s creation. The term adama (after which the name Adam was coined) originally meant not just any earth or soil, but specifically dark-red soil. Like the parallel Akkadian word adamatu (“dark-red earth”), the Hebrew term adama and the Hebrew name for the color red (adorn) stem from the words for blood: adamu, dam.
When the Book of Genesis termed the being created by God “the Adam,” it employed a favorite Sumerian linguistic play of double meanings. “The Adam” could mean “the one of the earth” (Earthling), “the one made of the dark-red soil,” and “the one made of blood.”
The same relationship between the essential element of living creatures and blood exists in Mesopotamian accounts of Man’s creation. The hospital-like house where Ea and the Mother Goddess went to bring Man forth was called the House of Shimti; most scholars translate this as “the house where fates are determined.” But the term Shimti clearly stems from the Sumerian SHI.IM.TI, which, taken syllable by syllable, means “breath-wind-life.”
Bit Shimti meant, literally,
“the house where the wind of life is breathed in.”
This is virtually identical to the biblical statement.
Indeed, the Akkadian word employed in Mesopotamia to translate the Sumerian SHI.IM.TI was napishtu – the exact parallel of the biblical term nephesh. And the nephesh or napishtu was an elusive “something” in the blood.
While the Old Testament offered only meager clues, Mesopotamian texts were quite explicit on the subject. Not only do they state that blood was required for the mixture of which Man was fashioned; they specified that it had to be the blood of a god, divine blood.
When the gods decided to create Man, their leader announced:
“Blood will I amass, bring bones into being.”
Suggesting that the blood be taken from a specific god,
“Let primitives be fashioned after his pattern,” E* said.
Selecting the god,
Out of his blood they fashioned Mankind;
imposed on it the service, let free the gods…
It was a work beyond comprehension.
According to the epic tale “When gods as men,” the gods then called the Birth Goddess (the Mother Goddess, Ninhursag) and asked her to perform the task:
While the Birth Goddess is present,
Let the Birth Goddess fashion offspring.
While the Mother of the Gods is present,
Let the Birth Goddess fashion a Lulu;
Let the worker carry the toil of the gods.
Let her create a Lulu Amelu,
Let him bear the yoke.
In a parallel Old Babylonian text named “Creation of Man by the Mother Goddess,” the gods call upon “The Midwife of the gods, the Knowing Mami” and tell her:
Thou art the mother-womb,
The one who Mankind can create.
Create then Lulu, let him bear the yoke!
At this point, the text “When gods as men” and parallel texts turn to a detailed description of the actual creation of Man.
Accepting the “job,” the goddess (here named NIN.TI – “lady who gives life”) spelled out some requirements, including some chemicals (“bitumens of the Abzu”), to be used for “purification,” and “the clay of the Abzu.”
Whatever these materials were, Ea had no problem understanding the requirements; accepting, he said:
“I will prepare a purifying bath. Let one god be bled… From his flesh and blood, let Ninti mix the clay.”
To shape a man from the mixed clay, some feminine assistance, some pregnancy or childbearing aspects were also needed. Enki offered the services of his own spouse:
Ninki, my goddess-spouse, will be the one for labor. Seven goddesses-of-birth will be near, to assist.
Following the mixing of the “blood” and “clay,” the childbearing phase would complete the bestowal of a divine “imprint” on the creature.
The new-born’s fate thou shalt pronounce; Ninki would fix upon it the image of the gods; And what it will be is “Man.”
Depictions on Assyrian seals may well have been intended as illustrations for these texts – showing how the Mother Goddess (her symbol was the cutter of the umbilical cord) and Ea (whose original symbol was the crescent) were preparing the mixtures, reciting the incantations, urging each other to proceed.
The involvement of Enki’s spouse, Ninki, in the creation of the first successful specimen of Man reminds us of the tale of Adapa, which we discussed in an earlier chapter:
In those days, in those years, The Wise One of Eridu, Ea, created him as a model of men.
Scholars have surmised that references to Adapa as a “son” of Ea implied that the god loved this human so much that he adopted him. But in the same text Ami refers to Adapa as “the human offspring of Enki.” It appears that the involvement of Enki’s spouse in the process of creating Adapa, the “model Adam,” did create some genealogical relationship between the new Man and his god: It was Ninki who was pregnant with Adapa!
Ninti blessed the new being and presented him to Ea.
Some seals show a goddess, flanked by the Tree of Life and laboratory flasks, holding up a newborn being.
The being that was thus produced, which is repeatedly referred to in Mesopotamian texts as a “model Man” or a “mold,” was apparently the right creature, for the gods then clamored for duplicates.
This seemingly unimportant detail, however, throws light not only on the process by which Mankind was “created,” but also on the otherwise conflicting information contained in the Bible.
According to the first chapter of Genesis:
Elohim created the Adam in His image – in the image of Elohim created He him. Male and female created He them.
Chapter 5, which is called the Book of the Genealogies of Adam, states that:
On the day that Elohim created Adam,
in the likeness of Elohim did He make him.
Male and female created He them,
and/ He blessed them, and called them “Adam”
on the very day of their creation.
In the same breath, we are told that the Deity created, in his likeness and his image, only a single being, “the Adam,” and in apparent contradiction, that both a male and a female were created simultaneously.
The contradiction seems sharper still in the second chapter of Genesis, which specifically reports that the Adam was alone for a while, until the Deity put him to sleep and fashioned Woman from his rib.
The contradiction, which has puzzled scholars and theologians alike, disappears once we realize that the biblical texts were a condensation of the original Sumerian sources. These sources inform us that after trying to fashion a Primitive Worker by “mixing” apemen with animals, the gods concluded that the only mixture that would work would be between apemen and the Nefilim themselves. After several unsuccessful attempts, a “model” – Adapa./ Adam – was made.
There was, at first, only a single Adam.
Once Adapa/Adam proved to be the right creature, he was used as the genetic model or “mold” for the creation of duplicates, and those duplicates were not only male, but male and female. As we showed earlier, the biblical “rib” from which Woman was fashioned was a play on words on the Sumerian TI (“rib” and “life”) – confirming that Eve was made of Adam’s “life’s essence.”
The Mesopotamian texts provide us with an eye-witness report of the first production of the duplicates of Adam.
The instructions of Enki were followed. In the House of Shimti – where the breath of life is “blown in” – Enki, the Mother Goddess, and fourteen birth goddesses assembled. A god’s “essence” was obtained, the “purifying bath” prepared. “Ea cleaned the clay in her presence; he kept reciting the incantation.”
The god who purifies the Napishtu, Ea, spoke up. Seated before her, he was prompting her. After she had recited her incantation, She put her hand out to the clay.
We are now privy to the detailed process of Man’s mass creation.
With fourteen birth goddesses present,
Ninti nipped off fourteen pieces of clay; Seven she deposited on the right, Seven she deposited on the left. Between them she placed the mould… the hair she… the cutter of the umbilical cord.
It is evident that the birth goddesses were divided into two groups. “The wise and learned, twice-seven birth goddesses had assembled,” the text goes on to explain. Into their wombs the Mother Goddess deposited the “mixed clay.” There are hints of a surgical procedure – the removal or shaving off of hair, the readying of a surgical instrument, a cutter.
Now there was nothing to do but wait:
The birth goddesses were kept together.
Ninti sat counting the months.
The fateful 10th month was approaching;
The 10th month arrived;
The period of opening the womb had elapsed.
Her face radiated understanding:
She covered her head,
performed the midwifery.
Her waist she girdled,
pronounced the blessing.
She drew a shape;
in the mould was life.
The drama of Man’s creation, it appears, was compounded by a late birth. The “mixture” of “clay” and “blood” was used to induce pregnancy in fourteen birth goddesses. But nine months passed, and the tenth month commenced. “The period of opening the womb had elapsed.” Understanding what was called for, the Mother Goddess “performed the midwifery.”
That she engaged in some surgical operation emerges more clearly from a parallel text (in spite of its fragmentation):
Ninti … counts the months… .
The destined 10th month they called;
The Lady Whose Hand Opens came.
With the … she opened the womb.
Her face brightened with joy.
Her head was covered;
… made an opening;
That which was in the womb came forth.
Overcome with joy, the Mother Goddess let out a cry.
“I have created!
My hands have made it!”
How was the creation of Man accomplished?
The text “When the gods as men” contains a passage whose purpose was to explain why the “blood” of a god had to be mixed into the “clay.” The “divine” element required was not simply the dripping blood of a god, but something more basic and lasting.
The god that was selected, we are told, had TE.E.MA – a term the leading authorities on the text (W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard of Oxford University) translate as “personality.” But the ancient term is much more specific; it literally means “that which houses that which binds the memory.” Further on, the same term appears in the Akkadian version as etemu, which is translated as “spirit.”
In both instances we are dealing with that “something” in the blood of the god that was the repository of his individuality. All these, we feel certain, are but roundabout ways of stating that what Ea was after, when he put the god’s blood through a series of “purifying baths,” was the god’s genes.
The purpose of mixing this divine element thoroughly with the earthly element was also spelled out:
In the clay, god and Man shall be bound,
to a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
the Flesh and the Soul
which in a god have ripened –
that Soul in a blood-kinship be bound;
As its Sign life shall proclaim.
So that this not be forgotten,
Let the “Soul” in a blood-kinship be bound.
These are strong words, little understood by scholars.
The text states that the. god’s blood was mixed into the clay so as to bind god and Man genetically “to the end of days” so that both the flesh (“image”) and the soul (“likeness”) of the gods would become imprinted upon Man in a kinship of blood that could never be severed.
The “Epic of Gilgamesh” reports that when the gods decided to create a double for the partly divine Gilgamesh, the Mother Goddess mixed “clay” with the “essence” of the god Ninurta. Later on in the text, Enkidu’s mighty strength is attributed to his having in him the “essence of Anu,” an element he acquired through Ninurta, the grandson of Anu.
The Akkadian term kisir refers to an “essence,” a “concentration” that the gods of the heavens possessed. E. Ebeling summed up the efforts to understand the exact meaning of kisir by stating that as “Essence, or some nuance of the term, it could well be applied to deities as well as to missiles from Heaven.” E. A. Speiser concurred that the term also implied “something that came down from Heaven.” It carried the connotation, he wrote, “as would be indicated by the use of the term in medicinal contexts.”
We are back to a simple, single word of translation: gene.
The evidence of the ancient texts, Mesopotamian as well as biblical, suggests that the process adopted for merging two sets of genes – those of a god and those of Homo erectus – involved the use of male genes as the divine element and female genes as the earthly element.
Repeatedly asserting that the Deity created Adam in his image and in his likeness, the Book of Genesis later describes the birth of Adam’s son Seth in the following words:
And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years,
and had an offspring
in his likeness and after his image;
and he called his name Seth.
The terminology is identical to that used to describe the creation of Adam by the Deity.
But Seth was certainly born to Adam by a biological process – the fertilization of a female egg by the male sperm of Adam, and the ensuing conception, pregnancy, and birth. The identical terminology bespeaks an identical process, and the only plausible conclusion is that Adam, too, was brought forth by the Deity through the process of fertilizing a female egg with the male sperm of a god.
If the “clay” onto which the godly element was mixed was an earthly element – as all texts insist – then the only possible conclusion is that the male sperm of a god – his genetic material – was inserted into the egg of an ape-woman!
The Akkadian term for the “clay” – or, rather, “molding clay” – is tit. But its original spelling was TI.IT (“that which is with life”). In Hebrew, tit means “mud”; but its synonym is bos, which shares a root with bisa (“marsh”) and besa (“egg”).
The story of Creation is replete with plays on words. We have seen the double and triple meanings of Adam-adama -adamtu-dam. The epithet for the Mother Goddess, NIN.TI, meant both “lady of life” and “lady of the rib.”
Why not, then, bos – bisa – besa (“clay – mud-egg”) as a play on words for the female ovum?
The Wise and learned,
Double-seven birth-goddesses had assembled;
Seven brought forth males,
Seven brought forth females.
The Birth Goddess brought forth
The Wind of the Breath of Life.
In pairs were they completed,
In pairs were they completed in her presence.
The creatures were People –
Creatures of the Mother Goddess.
Homo sapiens had been created.
The ancient legends and myths, biblical information, and modern science are also compatible in one more aspect. Like the findings of modern anthropologists – that Man evolved and emerged in southeast Africa – the Mesopotamian texts suggest that the creation of Man took place in the Apsu – in the Lower World where the Land of the Mines was located. Paralleling Adapa, the “model” of Man, some texts mention “sacred Amama, the Earth woman,” whose abode was in the Apsu.
In the “Creation of Man” text, Enki issues the following instructions to the Mother Goddess: “Mix to a core the clay from the Basement of Earth, just above the Abzu.”
A hymn to the creations of Ea, who “the Apsu fashioned as his dwelling,” begins by stating:
Divine Ea in the Apsu
pinched off a piece of clay,
created Kulla to restore the temples.
The hymn continues to list the construction specialists, as well as those in charge of the “abundant products of mountain and sea,” who were created by Ea – all, it is inferred, from pieces of “clay” pinched off in the Abzu – the Land of Mines in the Lower World.
The texts make it abundantly clear that while Ea built a brick house by the water in Eridu, in the Abzu he built a house adorned with precious stones and silver.
It was there that his creature, Man, originated:
The Lord of the AB.ZU, the king Enki … Built his house of silver and lapis-lazuli; Its silver and lapis-lazuli, like sparkling light. The Father fashioned fittingly in the AB.ZU. The Creatures of bright countenance, Coming forth from the AB.ZU, Stood all about the Lord Nudimmud.
One can even conclude from the various texts that the creation of Man caused a rift among the gods.
It would appear that at least at first the new Primitive Workers were confined to the Land of Mines. As a result, the Anunnaki who were toiling in Sumer proper were denied the benefits of the new manpower. A puzzling text named by the scholars “The Myth of the Pickax” is in fact the record of the events whereby the Anunnaki who stayed in Sumer under Enlil obtained their fair share of the Black-Headed People.
Seeking to reestablish “the normal order,” Enlil took the extreme action of severing the contacts between “Heaven” (the Twelfth Planet or the spaceships) and Earth, and launched some drastic action against the place “where flesh sprouted forth.”
That which is appropriate he caused to come about.
The Lord Enlil,
Whose decisions are unalterable,
Verily did speed to separate Heaven from Earth
So that the Created Ones could come forth;
Verily did speed to separate Earth from Heaven.
In the “Bond Heaven-Earth” he made a gash,
So that the Created Ones could come up
From the Place-Where-Flesh-Sprouted-Forth.
Against the “Land of Pickax and Basket,” Enlil fashioned a marvelous weapon named AL.A.NI (“ax that produces power”).
This weapon had a “tooth,” which, “like a one-horned ox,” could attack and destroy large walls. It was by all descriptions some kind of a huge power drill, mounted on a bulldozer-like vehicle that crushed everything ahead of it:
The house which rebels against the Lord, The house which is not submissive to the Lord, The AL.A.NI makes it submissive to the Lord. Of the bad … , the heads of its plants it crushes; Plucks at the roots, tears at the crown.
Arming his weapon with an “earth splitter,” Enlil launched the attack:
The Lord called forth the AL.A.NI, gave its orders.
He set the Earth Splitter as a crown upon its head,
And drove it into the Place-Where-Flesh-Sprouted-Forth.
In the hole was the head of a man;
From the ground, people were breaking through
He eyed his Black-headed Ones in steadfast fashion.
Grateful, the Anunnaki put in their requests for the arriving Primitive Workers and lost no time in putting them to work:
The Anunnaki stepped up to him, Raised their hands in greetings, Soothing Enlil’s heart with prayers. Black-headed Ones they were requesting of him. To the Black-headed people, they give the pickax to hold.
The Book of Genesis likewise conveys the information that “the Adam” was created somewhere west of Mesopotamia, then brought over eastward to Mesopotamia to work in the Garden of Eden:
And the Deity Yahweh
Planted an orchard in Eden, in the east …
And He took the Adam
And placed him in the Garden of Eden
To work it and to keep it.
Join our list
Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.