ASTRONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ENUMA ELISH

ASTRONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE ENUMA ELISH by Alessandro Demontis The Enuma Elish is the Babylonian creation myth, a copy of an Akkadian precedent in turn of a Sumerian precedent or, as some commentators argue, composed of several Sumerian myths that had Enlil as protagonist. The most complete form ever found is written in Babylonian tablets dated to around 1000 BC but in these tables reference is made to Sumerian terms which would show that the poem was indeed of Sumerian origin, therefore datable to a period between 2800 BC and 2400 BC. The myth, read literally, tells of a 'war between divinities', preceded by their 'birth', and then ending up with the creation of man and the gathering of various gods in their homes. Then, we read a sort of 'exaltation' of the main deity, Marduk, to whom the 50 divine names and epithets are attributed, which contain all the characteristics of the other deities. But on a more 'open' reading, the Enuma Elish turns out to be a mixture of theogony and cosmogony. Since every divinity is associated with a planet or a star according to the Sumerian and Babylonian customs, translating the myth into a cosmogonic form, some mysterious points immediately jump to the eye. If when describing the formation of the 'pairs of elders' Lahamu and Lahmu they can easily be identified in Venus and Mars, and when we speak of Kishar and Anshar we can identify Jupiter and Saturn, the problem is when we have to identify the last couple of divinities, the young ones: Anu and Nudimmud (in some versions Ea and in others Antu replace Nudimmud). Now, if each god corresponds to a planet, we cannot fail to draw the conclusion that these two divinities are associated with two other planets of the Solar System. And since the myth names the 'divine couples' in an order that mirrors the identification of the various planets in a direction away from the Sun, the latter couple can only be identified in Uranus and Neptune. This point is the major obstacle in the establishment's recognition of Enuma Elish as a cosmogonic myth, as it would imply that the Sumerians, some 5000 years ago, knew these two planets that we have only known in the last two centuries. But if the names we read are celestial bodies of the Solar System, where are Mercury and Pluto? The Enuma Elish states that before the creation of the divine couples, Apsu, the 'primeval' of all things, husband of Tiamat the 'mother of all gods', had a herald: Mummu. Moreover, according to the Enuma Elish, Anshar had a herald as well: it was called Gaga. Here Mummu is identified with Mercury, the herald of the Sun (Apsu), and Gaga is identified with Pluto. The greatest opposition especially to this last statement, is the fact that Pluto would therefore be described as a 'herald' or 'satellite' of Saturn (Anshar). From the scientific side it must be pointed out that this hypothesis is not at all absurd, in fact some astronomers have hypothesized that Pluto was actually a satellite that escaped following a collision, and that the debris of this collision had amalgamated to create its satellite Charon. These astronomers propose that it was a satellite of Neptune, obviously because it is the closest planet. So let’s deal with Mummu. Generally, scholars such as Thorkild Jacobsen or Stephanie Dalley believed that Mummu derives from the duplication of Sumerian MU7 (scream) making pindaric flights to link this meaning to the concept of 'word' then 'action' (?) thus describing Mummu as an 'attribute' of Tiamat as a creative force. Other sumerologists believe that Mummu was an incorrect way of writing Nummu which is a term associated with water, and also in this case they consider it an epithet of Tiamat. This, however, is somewhat risky since various versions of Enuma Elish have been found and all report written Mummu (mu-um-mu) and not Nummu. Indeed, not one uses the term Nummu. It would therefore be like saying that all the copies of the text found in various places contained the same error. Furthermore, the text of Enuma Elish definitely distinguishes Apsu, Tiamat and Mummu as three distinct characters, so much so that we read: Apsu had not lost his power ... and Tiamat roared ... was afflicted, and their acts ... their ways (their ways) were evil ... Then Apsu, the creator of the great gods, wept to Mummu, his minister, and said: "O Mummu, you minister who refreshes my spirit, come, let's go to Tiamat! " It is therefore deduced that if Apsu turns to Mummu to go to Tiamat, Mummu cannot be a wrong term to identify Tiamat herself. In another point of the first tablet we read: Since he (Mummu) planned evil verse his children (of Apsu) ... he was frightened ..., his knees went weak, because of the evil their firstborn had planned. This gives us a new indication, that Mummu / Mercury would be after Tiamat, the oldest planet in the Solar System. The myth goes on to tell that the younger gods (the external ones) had an 'annoying behavior' that made both Apsu and Tiamat nervous. This idiom is translated from Sumerian terms that mean both 'their ways' and 'their ways' i.e. 'their paths'. From an astronomical point of view this would indicate their proto orbits. We must in fact remember that little time had passed since the birth of these young gods. It can therefore be assumed that this moment, on an astronomical scale, corresponds to a period in which the planets were in the process of formation and with still undefined orbits. It is actually absurd to think that the Solar System was born and always was as we know it now, with the same masses, with the same distances and the same stable and precise orbits. In such a situation, with erratic orbits, some of these forming planets could have been at short distances and therefore interact electromagnetically, generating particular phenomena that could have had the effect of 'disturbing Apsu' that is, interfering with the Sun. When Apsu and Mummu go to Tiamat, these are Apsu's words: I can't rest during the day, at night I do not lie in peace ... But I will destroy their ways (their ways). There are complaints, and then we will succeed again to lie in peace. 'Destroying their ways' is an expression that makes little sense, while 'destroying their paths / their ways' astronomically would mean putting an end to the erratic path of the planets. The text then states that Ea, the one who knows all things, discovered Mummu's plan and approached Tiamat. Some lines are missing from the text but from a later point where we read: To avenge Apsu, Tiamat planned evil But the god proclaimed to Ea the way she was organized his forces One can understand that something had happened to Apsu for which Tiamat decides to take revenge against the younger gods. Here begins a long description of a whole series of 'monsters' that Tiamat generates in order to avenge Apsu. The descriptions are very suggestive; there is talk of scorpion-men, fish-men, huge storms, the monster Lahamu, dragon vipers and unspecified 'cruel weapons'. Furthermore, Tiamat creates 'eleven terrible monsters' and places them at his side, calling to himself the strongest of these (Kingu) and electing him at the head: She exalted Kingu, in their midst I raise her power, to march before the forces, to lead the army, to give the signal of battle, to lead the attack [...] "I have cast your spell, in the assembly of the gods I have elevated you I have assured you of dominion over the gods. Be exalted in your power, my spouse, may the gods above all the Anunnaki worship your name" She gave him the Tables of Destinies, "Your command will not be ignored, and what you say will be established." Sitchin interprets this passage as the intervention of 11 satellites, and among these the growth in size and electromagnetic and gravitational influence of one in particular, Kingu, which would have risen to the proportions of a real planet, acquiring its own prototype. independent orbit no longer necessarily linked to Tiamat. The text indignation goes that on to other describe the gods/planets terror feel and towards Tiamat's exaltation of Kingu. Gathered the gods wonder who can face Kingu and defeat him and Tiamat. It is at this point that the story of Enuma Elish has the 'focal point' which introduces the young god / planet Nibiru. His name in the myth is Marduk, who in the Sumerian pantheon is the son of Ea and Damkina. And unfortunately this is also the point where the Enuma Elish presents a fragmentation that renders some lines illegible that would have been of great help. The various versions available differ in some points including this one. The most recent Babylonian version here is fragmentary and missing 24 lines, while the older one is less damaged. In other versions this part of the story is completely ruined except for a few words which are therefore of dubious translation. The Babylonian version has been translated by various authors. The LW King version reports that: "An avenger [...] from the depths [...] valiant [...] his decisions [...] from his father [...] he said to him: O you son who has peace in your heart ... in battle you will go […] coleri who will observe you will finally find peace [...]" The text indicates that Marduk was generated 'deep down'. The god who addresses him, calling him 'my son' is definitely Ea. This in an astronomical version would imply that the 'deep' is an area of the Solar System beyond Neptune. A reference to the 'deep' also comes to us from the translation by N.K. Sandars: In the deep abyss Marduk was born was created in the heart of the Absu. Ea and Damkina created it, father and mother . Also in this translation we talk about the 'deep', the figure of Ea (Neptune) appears and a new figure comes out here, that of Damkina, wife of Ea. Astronomically Damkina is indeed a 'dark spot'. Sitchin does not deal with this translation of Sandars, and does not address the theme 'Damkina'. However we believe that this detail is not very relevant for the purposes of the cosmogony translated by Sitchin. The main characters, that is, those who 'perform actions' in the Enuma Elish are all reflected in the Sumerian pantheon. Obviously, as in a situation of formation of a Solar System there are many elements at stake, so also in the Enuma Elish other names are reported which are not taken into consideration by Sitchin. While this may give rise to criticism of him, it must nevertheless be considered that the mere fact that he does not give an explanation of what Damkina would be in astronomical terms is not enough to invalidate the other identifications. Personally I am convinced that Damkina can be identified in a trans Neptunian object similar to the various Eris, Quaoar or Sedna discovered recently, but this remains only a personal hypothesis and should be taken as such. The story of Enuma Elish goes on to describe the meetings of the gods who speak to each other of the god Marduk and ask him to become their 'champion' in the fight against Tiamat. Marduk agrees to fight against Tiamat asking, however, that from that moment: "If I, your avenger, conquer Tiamat and give you back your lives, gather an assembly and make my destiny dominant. In Upsukkinaku sit joyfully, and I, not you, will decide the fates." In short, Marduk asks to have supremacy over all the gods and to have the power to 'establish and control destinies'. Astronomically this translates into having a force of attraction and an orbit capable of 'controlling' the structure of the Solar System. How we will see it later. Marduk then prepares to approach Tiamat. Coming face to face, their meeting is described in the Enuma Elish in great detail. We are told that Marduk armed himself with a 'net', with the 4 winds of the North, South, East and West, plus the 'evil wind' and other weapons. These 'weapons' could be identified as satellites or asteroid clusters traveling with Marduk linked to him by his gravitational force, identified in the 'web'. For his part, Tiamat instead generated '11 monsters' and put Kingu at the head of his host. Of Kingu it is said that: “You praised Kingu; among them (the gods) has increased its power. To march towards the forces, to lead the hordes " And again, in another point of the text we read that: “You have pinned the Table of Destinies on the his chest ... saying: Your command will not be challenged, and words of your mouth will be established." From these lines, translating them into an astronomical version, it is deduced that Kingu has acquired such power and gravitational force to affect the course of the other planets. So we arrive at the moment of battle: "Marduk released his 'net' and captured it, and released his wicked Wind, which stood behind him, on Tiamat's face. As soon as she opened her mouth to swallow it, The evil wind filled her while still her he had not closed his lips. The terrible wind filled her up to her navel" Marduk's 'net' may be its gravitational pull. Subsequently we read that: “He damaged her inner parts, hurt her heart. He subdued her and took her life; He threw her body and stood on top of her. And when Tiamat, the leader, was defeated, his hordes were scattered" Once Tiamat was destroyed and with his body 'torn’, his satellites (the hordes) move erratically no longer held together by his gravitational force. “But they were surrounded so that they could not escape. He captured them, destroyed their weapons, caught them in a net and left them imprisoned" Marduk's gravitational force then intercepts the movement of the satellites and attracts them, preventing them from dispersing into space. Then Marduk returns to Tiamat and hits her: “He and his merciless aides destroyed the its head [its top]. He cut her veins and let the blood flow, ordering the North Wind to spread it in places remote and secret." Essentially, a collision tears off part of its upper part from Tiamat, and the debris is scattered around the surrounding areas. At this point a fundamental gesture in Sitchin’s theory - in the identification of this myth as a 'chronicle of a planetary battle' - is described. In fact, Marduk, having divided Tiamat in two parts, decides to put one of these two parts in a very specific point as if it were to divide 2 areas of the battlefield: “He opened it in 2 like a mussel; one of his halves he established as a cover for the sky. He established a lever, imposed an 'observer', and ordered them (the pieces of Tiamat) not to let its waters advance" Astronomically, therefore, the formation of a section of the Solar System that divides it into 2 regions is described. This section is identified as the Asteroid Belt, born from the fragments of the part torn from Tiamat's head. Subsequently we read that Marduk went towards 'the deep' by scrutinizing the structure of the abyss, and established a dwelling there, the E-Sara, in which some deities would have resided. This could be the peripheral area of ​ ​ orbit: the Solar System where the outermost planets And he founded E-sara, a residence in it. The E-sara house that he created as Heaven, He made Anu, Bel, and Ea live in these districts. Where the name Bel (which replaces Gaga) would be Enlil and, in an astronomical key, Pluto. The term E-Sara (E.Shara in the version of King and Esharra in that of Sandars) is rather difficult because of not univocal translation. It could mean 'house or zone delimiting time or space' (remember that sar in Sumerian and Akkadian was a multiple unit of measurement, applied with different values to both time and space measures) but also 'house where you start' or 'where you leave'. It is important to note these last two meanings because, for those coming from outside the Solar System, the E-Sara area would be the starting point of the system, and equally for those traveling outwards starting, for example, from the Earth, the E-Sara represents the zone from which one 'exits' the Solar System. The meaning of 'to enter' of the term SHAR is also attested in the Sumerian lexicons. The text then arrives at the fifth tablet, where the term Nibiru appears for the first time. In King's version we read: "He established the stations of the gods, the stars, their images and the zodiac he created. [...] He founded the station of Nibiru (the planet Jupiter) So that no one could escape" while in Sandars’ version, the corresponding passage becomes: “He designed positions for the great gods, and gave them a stellar appearance like constellations. [...] Then he gave them Nibiru, the pole of the universe, to mark their path, so that no one could err." In King's version, the part in parentheses is not part of the original text but is an interpretation of it. Most sumerologists are convinced that the term Nibiru however, the term Nibiru sometimes indicates Jupiter and sometimes indicates Mercury. In my opinion, indicates something alien to the planets - divinities whose stations (positions or orbits) Marduk had established. This is because the text clearly states that first Marduk 'established the stations of the gods' , then he had already established the positions of all the planets, including Jupiter, and only then did he introduce Nibiru. It would make no sense, therefore, to say that 'Marduk gave them Jupiter so that they could not err' because included Jupiter among the itself gods (Kishar) (planets) was already bounded by Nibiru. Nibiru must necessarily be an object or an area alien to the gods already mentioned. The myth then addresses the theme of the arrangement of the Moon and the Sun in the sky, describing in detail the way in which the phases of the moon were 'decided' and how they should mark time. We are not surprised by this importance of the Moon compared to the Sun, in fact the god of the Moon, Nannar, was the son of Enlil, while the god of the Sun, Utu was his grandson. The description of the succession of the moon phases is very beautiful: He gave the moon the luster of a jewel, He gave her all night, to mark the days, and watch over them at night every month as cycle of a pale and growing light. [...] And he said, "Oh New moon, when you grow up on the world,for six days your horns are crescent-shaped, Until on the seventh day half a cycle is complete; let your pallor stop and one phase follow another dividing the month from one full phase to another " Subsequently Marduk sets the Sun to the East: After staring at the Moon, Marduk took the Sun And he set it to mark the cycle from one year to the next. He gave him the gate of the East, and the task of ending the night . Then occurs the arrangement of the carcass of Tiamat, described in detail, passing from the condensation of the waters dispersed in the atmosphere to create clouds, to the creation of the mountains (including the high peaks) and the birth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers from the ‘eyes of Tiamat'. The next step is the construction of the abode of Ea (father of Marduk) on Earth. When the god's work was done, and done it, then He founded temples on earth, giving them to Ea . All the gods then appear before Marduk to bring their gifts, including his mother Damkina, whose gift Marduk particularly appreciates so much that the epic describes that: But when Damkina gave her gift, he flashed, his face lit up ... gave Usmu, her servant, his gift: the charge of Absu's secret house, and made it guardian of the sanctuaries of Eridu. Marduk can finally sit on his throne and receive recognition of his greatness: He mounted the throne raised in the temple. Damkina, Ea, and all the great gods (the gods Anunna), all the Igigi shouted in unison: “In the past the name of Marduk meant only a beloved son ... but he is now the supreme king Great King of the universe, this is now his name, we trust in him " This last passage, besides being an attestation of the greatness of the newly elected main divinity, also seems to describe the actual taking of importance of the planet of the celestial battle. In fact, before, as an 'invader' he was only a 'beloved son' generated by Ea and Damkina ... but after destroying Tiamat and establishing his orbit between Mars and Jupiter by balancing the orbits of the various planets, he became in effect the regulator of the Solar System, the 'Great King'. It is evident, however, that in these passages the names of the deities, which previously described planets, also describe real characters in flesh and blood who perform actions. This is confirmed from the moment Marduk decides to create man. He turns to Ea, his father, calling him an 'architect' that is, the creator and planner of his actions. Marduk's wish, expressed to his father, formidable way in the epic: is described in a "I will combine blood with blood, blood and bone, to form something new: his name will be MAN - Aboriginal man. It will be remembered as my creation. His task will be to serve us faithfully, so the weary gods will have rest, I will plan and change their operations, dividing them in a better way." Ea, whom the Sumerians have always described as a wise scientist, and to whom Sitchin attributes considerable knowledge in the medical-biological field, replies to his son not to use his own blood, but to use that of one of Tiamat's servants. The council of the gods is called, which is also attended by the rebel prisoners. Kingu is accused of instigating the rebellion (he was put in charge of the horde by Tiamat) and is killed. His blood is used for the creation of Man: When that was done, when Ea in his wisdom had begotten man and his burden of work, that was an act out of understanding, a marvel of finesse conceived by Marduk and performed by Nudimmud. Where Nudimmud is the epithet of Ea which means 'skilled creator'. The poem then concludes with the assignment to Marduk of the 50 divine names, each representing a function assigned to him or one of its peculiarities. Particularly interesting are 2 names assigned to it: LUGALDIMMERANKIA is the fifth, King of the Cosmos! Literally translating the name: 'Lu.gal.dim.mer.an.kia' we get 'great lord of the violent storm that binds heaven to earth' or ' great lord of the violent storm that shakes heaven and earth' defined as the 'King of the Cosmos'. As NEBIRU he projected the stars in their orbits, the wandering gods obey to the law of passage. Nebiru, standing in the center, it is the god they worship; of this shining they say: “He who one day crossed the firmament now it is the fulcrum of the Universe" Here returns the term Nibiru, whose meaning is 'to cross' or 'he who crosses'. As Nibiru he establishes the orbits of the planets. These must obey the 'law of passage', which is easy to identify in the laws that govern orbits and planetary gravitation; Nibiru is located 'in the center', exactly the position occupied by the asteroid belt that divides the Solar System into two groups of 5 elements. On one side:  Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars And on the other side:  Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto The attribution of the name 'Nibiru' (he who crosses) is motivated by the passage: "He who once crossed the firmament is now king of the universe". This article is a revision of the original published in November 2009 xxxxx DEEPENING: ANALYSIS OF THE CRITICS TO THE ASTRONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF ENUMA ELISH Author Ian Lawton has published a series of papers in which he criticizes Sitchin 's theory. In this part I will examine in detail his criticism of the astronomical rendering of the Enuma Elish. Going to comment on the various concepts exposed by Sitchin in his analysis of the Enuma Elish, and more generally in the chapter entitled 'Epic of Creation', Lawton begins with: Sitchin places a highly literal interpretation on the Epic of Creation. This is another of the major pieces of evidence which apparently persuades him that this 'twelfth' planet was primarily referred to as Nibiru, and was the planet from which the Anunnaki came. Ignoring for the moment whether he has any grounds for such a literal interpretation, let us review the principal elements of his analysis. This passage must be kept in mind because Lawton later comments as if this 'highly literal translation' is negative. The sequence according to which the Solar System would have been formed is then exposed, to then arrive at Sitchin's account of the arrival of Marduk / Nibiru which would have collided with the planet Tiamat breaking it in two. From one of these parts the Earth would be born, from the other the asteroid belt. Nine astronomical objections At this point Lawton highlights 9 points that would show the fallacy of this theory. Let's analyze them one by one. 1. It would require an extraordinary series of coincidences for even one of the Earth, Moon, Pluto and Nibiru to stabilize in a different orbit after a collision without additional accelerative stimuli. It is therefore highly unlikely that they could all benefit from such an unlikely sequence of events. Meanwhile, the fact that 'it would take an extraordinary series of coincidences' is not a valid argument in the astronomical field, especially being used, in recent years, to always discovering new 'coincidences' that have shaped the Solar System to make it what it is. Furthermore, Lawton makes a mistake when he says that Pluto, the Moon, the Earth and Nibiru could not have settled in certain orbits without an additional push after collisions. The myth of creation is very clear: the Earth and the Moon settled in their new position precisely due to collisions and interactions with Nibiru and its satellites (which in addition to the collision provided the necessary thrust), while Pluto would have been 'torn apart. 'from the attraction of Saturn to a passage of Nibiru that would have' released 'it in the area beyond Neptune (E-Sara). In this case the 'further push' would actually be a 'drag' (or a ‘pull’) by the attraction of Nibiru moving in the direction of exit from the Solar System. 2. Sitchin's view of gravity and its effects is hopelessly inadequate. For example, he has Nibiru being affected by the pull of Neptune and Uranus, but there is no contra effect on them; gravity works both ways, especially since Nibiru is supposed to be of similar size to them, and yet their orbits remain to this day more circular than that of the Earth. Similarly, he suggests that the gravitational pull of other planets could cause 'bulges' in Nibiru sufficient to cause satellites to be ripped out of it; this is an idiotic view of how gravity works. Once again Lawton shows that he has not read Sitchin's books carefully. In the first part of this objection Lawton states that according to Sitchin Nibiru would have been deflected by the thrust of Neptune and Uranus, but without affecting them. Big mistake because Sitchin clearly states that the particular orientation of Uranus is due to the passage of Nibiru as it appears in the forming Solar System. This passage is found in the II tablet of the 'Lost Book of the God Enki' , the book in which Sitchin combines all the notions presented in the previous ones, in a fictional form: Toward Antu his course he turned, his face to An soon to show. When An saw him, My son! My son! With exaltation he shouted. To leadership you shall be consigned, a host by your side will be your servants! Let Nibiru be your name, as Crossing forever known! He bowed to Nibiru, turning his face at Nibiru's passage; He spread his net, for Nibiru four servants he brought forth, His host by his side to be: the South Wind, the North Wind, the Fast Wind, the West Wind. As can be seen from the ninth line, An (Uranus) ”bowed turning his face” as Nibiru passed'. In fact, Uranus has a peculiar characteristic: it is inclined by 98° on the plane of the orbit. This means that its rotation is technically defined as retrograde, and that one pole always remains facing the Sun (in reality, every 40 years or so the Sun heats a different pole). The currently accredited theory regarding the particular position of Uranus states that: "To explain this last fact (the inclination of 98°) a hypothesis has been presented which is based on a possible collision of Uranus, during the formation phases, with another proto-planet, with the final result of this strange inclination of the axis." . Therefore not only Sitchin affirms that Uranus (and also Neptune) were affected by the effect of Uranus, but the current theory attributes the 'mystery' of Uranus precisely to the interaction with another planetary body. Even more important is that this interaction would have occurred in the 'formation phase', exactly the situation immortalized in the Enuma Elish which, we recall, causes the 'celestial battle' to take place precisely in the formation phases of the Solar System. In the same objection Lawton states that 'yet their orbits (of Uranus and Neptune) still remain more circular than that of the Earth' . In addition to pointing out that this is true only in the case of Neptune (eccentricity = 0.0097 against 0.0167 of the Earth) but not in that of Uranus (eccentricity = 0.0461 instead of 0.0167 of the Earth), Lawton always makes the mistake of considering that similar events occurred at a time when orbits were stable. The third part of this objection is that 'Sitchin claims that the gravitational effects of the other planets caused such unrest in Nibiru that matter was ripped from him to form satellites - this is an idiotic view of how gravity works.' And here we could probably agree with Lawton were it not that from the astronomical point of view we can make a consideration ... it is certainly true that normally a satellite cannot be created by separation of matter from another celestial body only due to gravitational thrust, but no model currently allows to establish how the planets behaved in the formation phase. Sitchin, not being an astronomer nor an astrophysicist, explains this concept with the sentence: “Marduk must still have been in a very plastic stage at that time . As he passed by Ea / Neptune, the gravitational pull caused the side of Marduk to bulge." 3. Nibiru had to make at least two orbital passes to tear Tiamat in half - and yet on the second pass it came back in roughly the same orbit, despite all the gravitational interactions it must have suffered on the first pass which should have altered its orbit considerably. From the opposite perspective, one might also ask why Nibiru managed to cause so much devastation on these first two passes, and yet cause none on the myriad of passes it has supposedly made subsequently. On this point I have nothing to object to, it is one of the doubts that I also put myself when I began my work of criticism and research on Sitchin's theory. And it is a point to which I cannot give an explanation other than the fact that it was a matter of 'concidence' or that the various forces of attraction and repulsion were balanced so that Nibiru obtained, at each passage, more or less the same proto orbit . After all, the text is too vague. We are told that first one of its satellites, and then Nibiru itself, hit Tiamat, but nothing in the text indicates that the two collisions occurred in the exact same area. Regarding the fact that Nibiru caused that 'damage' in the first two passages and none in the following, it should be noted that this is not necessarily true. The 'damage' caused by Nibiru in the first two passages occurred precisely because a planet of a certain size was on that route. After this planet was thrown away, there was nothing else in that region to 'cause harm' in the next steps. Or rather, there was the asteroid belt. And it is certainly not new the theory according to which the asteroid belt contains some 'hole' areas (or Kirkwood gaps) which are mainly due to a phenomenon called 'sling effect' and attributable to the orbital resonance with nearby planets, but secondarily they may be caused, or may have been millions of years ago, by the passage of a celestial body that dragged part of the asteroids making up the belt with it. Sitchin himself remarks this point in the book 'The other Genesis'. 4. As a corollary to the above, Sitchin uses another supposed text (unnamed) to suggest that Nibiru's orbital plane is inclined at 30 degrees to the ecliptic. I am inclined to ask how, if this is the case, did it manage to come so close to so many of the planets in our Solar System on its first two devastating passes? Or is he suggesting that once more unknown forces forced it to stabilize in this non-aligned orbit thereafter? Here too the consideration made several times with regard to the stability and definition of the orbits is valid, moreover the orbit of Nibiru is inclined by 30 degrees, but very elliptical and very narrow. This aspect is rarely discussed by Sitchin, as indeed it is natural. The very fact of the 30 degree inclined orbit is also an interpretation but it is not necessarily correct. This knowledge comes mainly from some biblical passages which indicate that 'the Lord comes from the South' and which list the constellations he passes through. The analysis of these constellations, as Sitchin has shown in his books, identifies an inclination of about 30°. Nibiru would therefore be inclined 30 degrees coming from BELOW the ecliptic. This data is important for some astrological aspects, above all due to the fact that, coming from the south, at a certain point Nibiru 'stood' on the ecliptic, made a 'bell' and fell back under the ecliptic to continue its entire path. Of its entire orbit only a small part was above the ecliptic. This therefore makes it observable at certain times of the year in a different way depending on where you are. A location in the southern hemisphere, for example, could never have appreciated the part of orbit that Nibiru made above the ecliptic. A schematic of Nibiru's possible orbit was made by Andy Lloyd for his 'dark star' theory. Although his scheme places Nibiru above the ecliptic and not below, it illustrates well how the oblong but narrow orbit intersects the rather large and circular orbits of the inner Solar System. This pattern also illustrates why Nibiru encounters so many almost aligned planets as it passes by. If it seems absurd to us to think of planets lined up almost in line waiting for Nibiru, in reality this is a phenomenon that occurs regularly. The durations expressed in years of the orbits of the planets are very different from each other, just think that the Earth's orbit lasts 1 year, and that of Neptune 165 years. But what does it mean that 'Nibiru meets the planets in a row'? It means that at a given time at a given point the orbits of the planets are synchronized. For example, let's say that at a given moment T1 Nibiru is in a position P1. The planets will make their much less durable orbits in time but at that moment T1 will be near point P1. If we theorize the point P1 in an area of Nibiru's orbit near the outer limit of the Solar System, the planets will be in that area or aligned in that direction. This point will obviously be reached again by Nibiru at a T2 time exactly after 3600 years. Can we somehow verify if this concept is valid? Yes, just look at the orbital parameters of the outer planets: This table clearly shows that Nibiru's orbit of about 3600 years is perfectly compatible with those of the other planets, simply in that amount of time each planet will make a different number of orbits and every about 3600 years these planets will be in the same area. Obviously there is a consideration to make. Let's look at Jupiter: it has an orbital period of only 11.8 years, that is, in this time it completes the entire path around the Sun and returns to the starting point. This means that a temporal misalignment of 1 or 2 years is enough for Jupiter, at the passage of Nibiru in a given point, to be in a different point. This must be specified because it is good to clarify that neither Sitchin nor I affirm that at the passage of Nibiru ALL the planets are aligned and he meets them in the same point at the same time, but only that, in his slow approach in the outermost zone (Neptune, Uranus ), the product of the duration of the orbits by the number of orbits completed by these 2 planets is such that Nibiru can absolutely cross them in sequence. This answers Lawton's question as to why Nibiru seems to cross all these planets in a row every time it passes that point. Paradoxically, in the outer zone of the Solar System, Pluto is the celestial body that has the most difficulty in crossing (or aligning with) Nibiru. This is because its orbit is covered in 248 years, and completes 15 orbits in 3720 years (14 orbits in 3472 years) a period incompatible with the approximately 3600 of Nibiru and the alignment of the other planets. 5. Nowadays the asteroid belt does not contain anything like enough mass to make up a planet the size of the Earth (ie, the other half of Tiamat). However it must be appreciated that Jupiter would have acted like a giant suction cleaner on any debris from an exploding planet (a possibility that still cannot be written off, even if Sitchin's interpretations are wrong), and other factors would have reduced the extent of the debris remaining over time. We have arrived at the 'gem' that all Sitchin's critics, without distinction, sooner or later come up with as an 'ace takes it all' move. The concept expressed is that the total mass of the asteroids contained in the main belt between Mars and Jupiter, gathered together, is not even enough to form a small planet like Earth. This, according to them, is proof that the asteroid belt is not due to a cosmic collision (which they believe should have left many more remains). Some of them argue that instead the belt is composed of residues of the forming matter of the entire inner Solar System, but that it has not had the opportunity to assemble itself to form a planet due to the excessive interaction caused by Jupiter (Lawton speaks of it in next point). Lawton again objects but offers an admission that this mass is insufficient due to various factors. Let's immediately comment on the first point. The asteroid belt has a total mass estimated at 2.3×10^21 kg, less than that of Pluto. This mass is not comparable with that of the Earth 5.9742×10^24 therefore 2000 times larger. which is But how should this data be read? The creation myth precisely states that Marduk struck Tiamat and tore off part of it, throwing it to form the asteroid belt. Assuming, as Lawton himself admits, that over time various phenomena have contributed to reducing the total mass of asteroids in the belt, the total mass would be that of the torn part, therefore not to be compared with the mass of the Earth. Furthermore, the total mass of the Earth is an average of the estimated masses of the peripheral areas (crust and mantle), lighter and less dense, and of the internal ones (core) which are much heavier and denser. The mass of the belt, this being born from the 'uprooting' of a superficial portion of the Earth, is normally lower as it is made up of lighter and less dense materials. In addition to this, is it fair to argue that the asteroid belt originated from matter that did not assemble due to Jupiter's gravitational interference effect? The answer once again comes to us from Alessandro Morbidelli's team of astronomers and astrophysicists. On April 18, 2000 Morbidelli, Chambers and Petit published the essay: "The Primordial Excitation and Clearing of the Asteroid Belt" (available on the Sciencedirect.com website) which reports on a series of astronomical models studied by scientists to clarify what the planetary effects in the formation phase of the asteroid belt. The abstract of the report clearly states that: This suggests that the formation of Jupiter did not prohibit the formation of large embryos in the outer belt and Jupiter did not accrete them while it was still growing. This suggests that the formation of Jupiter did not prohibit the formation of large embryos in the outer belt and Jupiter did not cause them to accretion while it was still growing. In other words, the process of formation of Jupiter did not forbid the assembly of asteroid bodies in the outer belt (therefore the one closest to Jupiter and which would have been most affected by its effects) to form large 'embryos' of planets. 6. Bodes law predicts that not only should a planet have originally formed between Mars and Jupiter as Sitchin asserts, but also that a planet should always have been where the Earth is now. Yet according to Sitchin the latter's position was achieved subsequent to the original formation of our Solar System, so originally this space must have been empty. This law supports him in one sense but at the same time undermines him in another - although at one point he does produce what appears to be somewhat contrived evidence, involving simplification of Bode's Law, to refute this claim. (However in fairness it should be appreciated that Bodes Law is not as foolproof as it sounds, and is in reality only another 'theory' about how the Solar System was formed.) Another case in which Lawton raises an objection but immediately afterwards gives an explanation and makes an admission that alone would be enough to question the meaning of the objection. Let us analyze in detail the question of Bode's law. This is an empirical law that establishes the semi-major axis of the orbits of the planets of the Solar System through a formula which in its last forumulation in AU (astronomical units) is: a = 0.4 + 0.3xK where K is a constant that takes positive values each double of the previous one (0,1,2,4,8,16,32 etc). Thanks to this law in its original formulation Johan Bode in 1772 was able to verify the orbits of the 6 planets then known. The law, according to calculations, predicted the presence of a planet between Mars and Jupiter, as Sitchin claims and as many researchers who deal with the 'planet X' claim. But at the same time, if we hold Bode's law to be valid, there still would have to be a planet where Earth is to fully satisfy the law. To better understand, we report the mirror of the values ​ ​ planets: in AU relating to the average orbits of the In the occupying position k = 8 in fact there is the main asteroid belt. Towards the end of the eighteenth century the small planet Ceres was in fact discovered which satisfied Bode’s law since its distance is 2.77 AU, therefore perfectly compatible with k = 8 and the theoretical distance of 2.8 AU. Recall that, according to Sitchin, Tiamat was where the main asteroid belt now exists, and therefore Ceres; however before the impact the Earth did not exist, therefore the point k = 8 would have been satisfied but not that k = 2; In fact, Sitchin is seriously wrong to refer to this law to justify the presence of Tiamat in that given area of ​ ​ space, as are all those others who, like him, rely on Bode's law. But let's get to the point: is Bode's law really valid? Does it have a justification? Meanwhile, we must keep in mind that the law was formulated when Bode already knew the distances of the first 6 planets well, and despite the fact that the first planet of the Solar System is Mercury, the value k = 1 is given to Venus, the next planet. My suspicion is that this decision was made because all distances were thus met. If k = 1 were assigned to Mercury, the situation would be completely different and Bode's law would not be respected in at least 3 cases, as Brodetsky points out in his essay: ”Some problems with astronomy” . There is also another factor to be taken into account. It is now officially recognized by astronomy that the orbits are linked to each other by the effects of the gravitational interactions of the planets, and therefore indirectly to their mass. This means, for example, that if we could paradoxically reduce the mass of a planet, its gravitational field would be reduced, and its orbits and those of the surrounding bodies would be affected. As a result, the duration, the arrangement of the orbits, and the equilibrium of the forces of gravitation between the planets are influenced, albeit to a small extent, by their mass. Bode's law does not take these factors into account. Furthermore, Bode's law is not satisfied by the orbits of the natural satellites of individual planets, which should be expected. But let's get back to Bode's law. From the mirror it is evident that for the couple Neptune and Pluto the law is not satisfied. In fact, with k = 128 Neptune should have a distance of 38.8 AU, while its real distance is 30.1 AU. Pluto, the next planet, which should have k = 256 and a theoretical distance of 77.2 AU, on the other hand, has 39.5, which is slightly higher than the theoretical one of Neptune. What does this mean? That according to Bode's law Pluto finds himself exactly where Neptune should be, and Neptune is 'in the middle of the feet' between Uranus and Pluto in a place not his. The theoretical distance of Pluto instead corresponds to less than a small deviation from the actual position of the planet Eris (67.7 AU). The following graph highlights the deviation between real and theoretical values. We conclude that Bode's law is absolutely not satisfactory for its purpose, and that the fact that this provides theoretical values ​ ​ very similar to the real ones of 7 planets is the result of an incorrect empirical formulation, and for this reason it should not be kept into account in the arguments for and against the famous 'planet X'. We continue with the next point. 7. The idea that the Moon was originally a planet in its own right is not supported by modern discoveries; the latest thinking appears to be that, most likely, it split off from the Earth after the impact of a Mars-sized body. Various theories have followed on the origin of the Moon, among which the one that has taken hold most is the one described by Lawton. But is the theory of the impact of a planet with the Earth really supported by 'modern discoveries'? What discoveries these are Lawton does not mention. Let us then briefly review the salient steps of the succession of the various theories. The three previous theories about the origin of the moon, and why they were discarded, are briefly described by Donald R. Davis and William K. Hartmann in their paper ”The origin of the Moon”: 1. One early theory was that the moon is a sister world that formed in orbit around Earth as the Earth formed. This theory failed because it could not explain why the moon lacks iron. 2. A second early idea was that the moon formed somewhere else in the Solar System where there was little iron, and then was captured into orbit around Earth. This failed when lunar rocks showed the same isotope composition as the Earth. 3. A third early idea was that early Earth spun so fast that it spun off the moon. This idea would produce a moon similar to Earth's mantle, but it failed when analysis of the total angular momentum and energy involved indicated that the present Earth-moon system could not form in this way. While the third theory has nothing to do with Sitchin's theory, the first two are closely related. The Moon, called Kingu in the Epic of Creation, was a product of Tiamat who 'created 11 terrible monsters'. According to Sitchin the Moon was a celestial body that formed after Tiamat and shortly before the 'celestial battle' between Marduk and Tiamat, so just before the Earth formed as it is now. So we can consider Earth and Moon as two related planets growing simultaneously in a delimited region of space. This hypothesis was introduced as early as the end of the 18th century by Laplace who claimed that the natural satellites of the planets were formed from clouds of cosmic debris that would 'thicken' to form spherical bodies which subsequently stabilized in orbit around the planets. Astronomers generally accept this theory in all cases except the Earth-Moon system, for two reasons:  the first, we read of the description of the first theory, is that the composition of the Moon lacks some elements among which the most important is iron, of which the Earth is full in the core, and of which the other rocky planets seem to be full.  The second is that the mass of the Moon is too large compared to that of the Earth. However, it should be noted that the composition of the Earth's core (and the core of the other planets) has not been determined with certainty. According to the currently accepted theory (called 'of the great impact') the Moon does not contain iron precisely because the impact of the Earth with a body of the proportions of Mars would have occurred on the mantle and crust, while the bulk of the iron on Earth is found. in the nucleus that would not have been affected by the impact. If this theory on the one hand seems to explain the lack of iron of the Moon, and therefore proves that the Moon has 'detached' from the mantle and crust of the Earth, on the other it proves to be fallacious. In fact, the mantle and the earth's crust contain considerable quantities of nickel, phosphorus, tungsten and cobalt, elements that are considered scarce in the mantle and in the lunar crust. Aluminum and calcium, of which the earth's crust is full, are also rare on the moon. The currently accepted theory also makes a big mistake: iron is a volatile element at high temperatures, and a planetary impact would have produced high temperatures (around 6000°C as calculated by the same team that formulated the great impact theory) that would have evaporated. instantly iron in addition to water, sodium, and other more volatile elements. It would therefore have been difficult for much of the iron present on Earth to concentrate in the innermost area to form the core. Despite this, in 1984 at the Conference on the origins of the Moon this theory was accepted as an official version even with all these points not explained. As if the unsolved points were not enough, in 1988 at the Conference on the origins of the Earth it was highlighted that the analysis of terrestrial chondrites and the crystallization of terrestrial rocks show that the geochemistry of the Earth is incompatible with the theory of great impact. Lawton does not mention all these problems, he merely dismisses Sitchin's theory by citing what the official version is currently, without reflecting on all the problems this theory presents. One of the reasons why the Moon is not considered a body 'related to the Earth' and captured by the latter, as already mentioned, is the fact that the Moon is too large. In fact, if we consider the other planets in the Solar System, none of them have a satellite that is in proportion to them as large as the Moon is relative to the Earth. But even here the reasoning is wrong. Luna, according to Sitchin, is not a satellite of Earth, but a satellite of Tiamat, a planet considerably larger than Earth. It was only when Tiamat was struck by the satellites of Marduk/Nibiru, and a part of it was thrown with Kingu to an innermost position (where it currently is) that the Moon became an 'acquired satellite' of the Earth. When did all this happen? About 4 billion years ago. The age of the moon is estimated to be 4.6 billion years. The oldest rocks found in the lunar missions date back to 4.5 billion years ago. Stanley Keith Runcorn, an engineer expert in rock analysis, geophysical magnetism and geochemistry, established that the Moon possesses a 'posthumous' magnetic field, that is, a very low residual magnetic field of a much higher one that appears to have run out about 4 billions of years ago. We read a summary of his relationship in an article he signed called 'An ancient lunar magnetic dipole field' (Feb. 1975): Paradoxical as it may seem, it follows from this observation that the Moon possessed a magnetic field of internal origin in its early history. This detail is very important because it was completely neglected in the conference that accepted the theory of the great impact as official, due to the fact that the Moon would have no iron inside, a clue that came from the lack of magnetic field. A study published in January 2009 and titled ”Early Lunar Magnetism” by Ian Garrick-Bethell, Benjamin P. Weiss, David L. Shuster and Jennifer Buz reports that: "It is uncertain whether the Moon ever formed a metallic core or generated a core dynamo. The lunar crust and returned samples are magnetized, but the source of this magnetization could be meteoroid impacts rather than a dynamo." That is, at present it is not known whether the core of the Moon is made up of an inert metal heart or a molten metal heart which, flowing on itself, can generate magnetism. However, later in the same abstract we read: “Here, we report magnetic measurements and 40Ar/39Ar thermochronological calculations for the oldest known unshocked lunar rock, troctolite 76535. These data imply that there was a long-lived field on the Moon of at least 1 microtesla ~ 4.2 billion years ago. The early age, substantial intensity, and long lifetime of this field support the hypothesis of an ancient lunar core dynamo" But what do we read in essence? A molten metal heart that performs a dynamo effect is exactly the situation that occurs in the Earth's core, which according to scientists is not made up of a 'ball' of inert metal, but of layers of molten metal that slide over each other. . Another very important clue comes from the study entitled ”Iron isotope evidence for formation of the Moon through partial evaporation” by Poitrasson, Halliday, Lee, Levasseur and Teutsch, published in 2003 by Lunar & Planetary Science. The study deals with the analysis and interpretation of data concerning particular iron isotopes found in the lunar soil; already from the introduction we read that: The currently favored scenario of the origin of the Moon through a Giant Impact, in which a body approaching the size of Mars hit the proto-Earth and yielded ejecta leading to the Moon remains hypothetical. The alternative theories, especially the capture or co-accretion hypotheses cannot be totally excluded in the view of the present data available Below we read an even more important statement: The different Fe isotope compositions of the Earth and the Moon exclude an origin by fission from the terrestrial mantle or by co-accretion with the Earth. That is, the theory according to which the Moon was formed following a collision of a planetary body with the mantle and the earth's crust is refuted by the diversity of iron isotopes between the Moon and the Earth. The theory would remain valid only considering that a very high heat (justified by the 'great impact') had made the lighter iron 'vaporize': On the other hand, vaporization of bodies in space can generate kinetic isotope fractionation, leaving residues with a relatively heavier isotope signature. [...] Only the Giant Impact theory can account for the energy required to partially melt and vaporise major portion of the Earth and the impacting planet Theia But at the same time, however, evaporation should have occurred both on the Moon and on Earth, and this could explain the mere presence of 'heavy' iron on Earth. But as we read in the document: Hence, the heavy Fe of the Earth, and more especially the Moon can be explained if light iron was partially lost during vaporisation. But where do we find this 'heavy iron' on the Moon? The theory that the Moon was formed from the Earth's mantle serves precisely to explain the lack of 'heavy' iron in its core. This theory holds that the Moon inside has a 'perpetual magma' rather than iron. We read again: In this scenario, the picritic lunar glasses with d57Fe/54Fe values indistinguishable from Mars and Vesta, may represent the deepest part of the Moon's mantle that accreted from essentially rocky material. This would provide evidence that the early lunar magma ocean did not involve the deepest part of the Moon. That is, the magma constituting the Moon and produced by the impact with the earth would not have ended up in the lunar core. There is another aspect to point out. When the impacting body (which astronomers call Theia) produced this very high heat that would have caused evaporation, what iron would have evaporated? The superficial one or the innermost one? The answer comes from the analysis of the isotopes of potassium and oxygen, and it is illuminating: Accordingly, it has been shown experimentally that the iron evaporation flux is more than one order of magnitude larger if it evaporates from metal iron compared to iron oxide [16]. Hence, the contrasted isotopic information given by Fe and K isotopes could be explained if we consider that a significant proportion of the vaporised Fe comes from planetary cores, whereas K will only occur as oxide in planetary mantles and may have evaporated less readily. This conclusion is consistent with certain numerical simulations showing that the Giant Impact will especially heat planetary interiors and involve ejection of a fraction of metallic cores in space Here it is clearly stated that the great impact would have heated especially the innermost areas of the planet with respect to the surface area, causing the ejection of ferrous material from the innermost areas. I think that at this point the numerous problems that the theory of the gigantic impact presents are evident, the various unsolved points that would allow us to pass beyond this theory. Unfortunately, the scientific environment finds it hard to abandon theories that are no longer valid until one is presented that answers more questions than were answered by the previous theory. Likewise, all these new discoveries regarding the quantities of iron, isotopes and the original magnetic field of the Moon, make obsolete the reason why the theory that saw the Moon as a companion to the Earth, and not derived from it, was discarded. 8. Sitchin's initial evidence for Nibiru having a retrograde orbit appears to be purely based on the order in which it encounters the outer planets - according to him, Neptune then Uranus. Given that the relative position of these two to each other must change as they orbit the Sun at different speeds, it appears to me that this argument is pretty insubstantial. I would have thought that in a sense it could just as easily have passed them in this order while traveling in a conventional direction of orbit. This point also represents one of the doubts I investigated years ago because I could not find scientific evidence that could support the phenomenon. Not having found any, I made use of a computer simulation created using the Celestia software with the aid of some simple calculations concerning the orbits. The resulting situation is summarized with a certain approximation (for graphic reasons the orbit of Nibiru is shorter than it should be) in the following image. The two straight lines arranged in a cross divide the planetary orbits into 4 quadrants which, being the almost spherical orbits, we can consider of approximately similar duration. We note that in the case of Uranus each quadrant lasts 21 years, while in the case of Neptune it lasts 41.3 years. The arrows indicate the direction of rotation of the planets, with Nibiru moving counterclockwise like the other planets. We therefore put ourselves in the conditions mentioned by Lawton when he says that Nibiru would have met Neptune before Uranus even if it had moved in a conventional and non-retrograde orbit. The diagram clearly shows that due to the duration of the quadrant of Neptune which is almost exactly double that of the quadrant of Uranus, a body that approaches the two planets in the same direction of their movement has twice the possibility of crossing Uranus than it is. have to cross Neptune. If, on the other hand, the direction of movement of Nibiru were opposite to that of Neptune and Uranus, therefore a retrograde orbit as Sitchin claims, the planet, arriving near the outer zone of the Solar System, would have more chances of crossing Neptune precisely because of its longer orbit. and of longer duration. Using improper terms, with Nibiru approaching in conventional orbit Uranus 'follows' its motion with a 2: 1 ratio with respect to Neptune, while with Nibiru approaching in retrograde orbit Uranus 'escapes' its motion with the same ratio. An example of this can be seen in an animation of the orbit of Halley's comet moving retrograde with respect to the planets. Although its orbit is only 76 years and therefore shorter than that of Uranus, in the animation it is evident that this planet 'escapes' it faster than Neptune does, and therefore has less chance of crossing it. We have thus arrived at the last of the 9 points listed by Lawton. 9. In Genesis Revisited Sitchin goes to some lengths in attempting to prove that modern scientific analysis of the Earth and its crust, the theory of continental drift, and the study of plate tectonics all support his claim that the Earth as we now know it was formed by a huge impact. This may be so, but in my view his analysis does not support his theory of the Earth being formed by the splitting in two of another planet any better than it supports the more conventional idea of the Moon being split off from the Earth. This is not a real objection. One could even agree with Lawton in fact, however if the scientific data on the structure of plate tectonics support the idea that a planet (be it Earth or Tiamat) has suffered a collision with another planetary body, we have already seen in comment on point 7 what doubts exist on the fact that this planet could actually be the Earth and the portion 'torn' by the collision could have given rise to the Moon. The creation of the Earth After discussing these nine 'technical' points Lawton approaches the 'creation of the Earth' from a different point of view. We read in his document: The second approach is to question the extent to which it is reasonable for Sitchin to even attempt to place a literal interpretation on this most enigmatic of texts. Lawton therefore criticizes Sitchin's choice and ability to offer a too literal interpretation of the myth. It is immediately noticeable that in many other places Lawton has accused Sitchin of 'interpreting' the phrases and parts of myths to support his theories. Now the contrary accusation is being made. Lawton continues by highlighting how over the years scholars have interpreted the Enuma Elish in a political form, as if it were a myth created to exalt a certain divine figure. Lawton rightly states that many of Sitchin's critics point exclusively to this 'purpose' of Enuma Elish, a purpose never denied by Sitchin, who however maintains that the myth is of Sumerian origin and not Akkadian or Babylonian, and therefore the original myth would have had a narrative purpose to which parts would have been added over time and would re-manipulated for political purposes. have been But the fact that a myth is used for political purposes to exalt a divinity does not mean that the myth could not have previously, and could continue to have, a main narrative purpose. To be clear, if it were proved that the events narrated in the Gospels were true, the fact that these events were used to glorify Jesus Christ would not compromise their veracity. Nor would it allow us to affirm that those are events invented to glorify Jesus Christ. The point is: can the events described in the Enuma Elish be true? I have shown so far that not only are they plausible, but they find very evident clues in the scientific field, mainly astronomical, for which they can be considered plausible. Only a fool could continue to argue that certain details, certain concepts that find testimony in scientific discoveries of the last 30 years, could have been conceived over 4000 years ago only to 'glorify' gods. The mystery of RAKIA: the Asteroid Belt But let's move on. After an analysis of the tablet IV Lawton faces the moment of the creation of the main asteroid belt, as described by Sitchin. Sitchin in fact connects from the Babylonian Enuma Elish to the text of Genesis (1: 6-8): And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. Here Lawton almost hits rock bottom with his objections. He points out that according to Sitchin the term used for 'firmament' in Hebrew is 'Rakia' which would be translated as 'hammered bracelet' and therefore would represent the asteroid belt. He then states: “We have already seen how his etymological research work is often wrong” . So since Lawton thinks he has proved (and so he is not) that Sitchin made etymological research errors in the past, this time too he must have been wrong. Since Lawton doesn't want to go into detail and examine whether or not Sitchin is wrong, I'll do it. The exact passage from Sitchin's book is as follows (chapter 7): and how the lightning of the Lord (Marduk in the Babylonian version) lit the darkness of space as it hit and split Tiamat, creating Earth and the Rakia (literally, "the hammered bracelet"). This celestial band (hitherto translated as "firmament") is called "the Heaven." We must therefore find out if the meaning of 'hammered bracelet' is likely. Searching on the Internet and in Hebrew vocabularies we find some Torah done by indications that apparently contradict Sitchin. For example, the work of exegesis of the Germaine entitled "The old pat" reports in chapter 9: Lockwood The Hebrew word (rakia) was translated to mean a firm or solid structure (stereoma). However, the Hebrew word means 'expanse'. The Hebrew lexicons show that "rakia" means 'expanse' . It would therefore seem that God placed an 'expanse' (?) between the waters to form the sky. Looking further we find a video document by Walter Oackley called ”A taste of hebrew - analysis of the word: Rakia” which etymologically identifies this term according to two sources: entries H7549 of the Strong dictionary and 2217 of the TWOT (Theological Workbook of the Old Testament). According to Strong the meaning of Rakia derives from the root H7554 and is: RAKIA: 1) extended surface (solid), expanse, flat as base, support. 2) vault of heaven, considered by hebrews solid and supporting waters above therefore we find the confirmation of the meaning of 'expanded', but at the same time it is indicated that Rakia indicates something solid and flat. Dr. Oackley offers us a screenshot of the words related to the term H7554: let's take a good look at the meanings reported: 1) to beat, stamp, beat out, stretch 2) to overlay, beat out (as for plating) 3) beaten out 4) to make a spreading (as of clouds) Here comes the concept of 'hammered' from that 'beaten out'. To these, we add the verbal meanings that arise from the definition of the TWOT, of which I show a capture: Dr. Oackley uses exactly this sentence: "The idea is of when we stamp something in the dust, [...] so we basically stamp the dust and the dust spreads out". Moreover, the analysis of the vocalization of the term made by TWOT shows that the meaning of 'expanse - expansion' is vocalized and written as RIQUA while that of 'stamped - beaten out' is RAQA which becomes RAQIA with the meaning of 'firmament - volta ', therefore more faithful to the original version without vowels. Further on the video explains that: Hebrew The verb: Raqa aquires the sense of beating out precious metals and of the spreading that results At this point taking the exact phrases of the Torah (vayomer elohim yahi rakia betoch ha-mayim vyhi Mavdil beyn mayim la-mayim) we have the following: “And the elohim said: let there be something ‘beaten and expanded/diffused'in the middle of the waters, and let it be that which divides waters from waters”. We therefore deduce that Sitchin is wrong when he says that the term literally means 'hammered bracelet', but he is not far wrong because the double meaning of Rakia implies a solid and flat structure, and the concept of 'beaten, hammered'. Lawton goes on to assert that according to him these texts should be interpreted from an esoteric aspect rather than a literal aspect. But what does 'an esoteric aspect' mean? The term 'esoteric' indicates hidden knowledge that was to be passed on only to initiates of a cult, or to followers of a school of thought. Esoteric texts were often written in codes, with metaphors, with allusions, similes, allegories. And what text, better than one that describes the formation of the Solar System in the form of a 'battle between gods', can be considered esoteric? The text is written in an evident theogonic rather than cosmogonic vein to pass this knowledge on only to authorized or selected persons. TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH: DEC. 2020 ORIGINAL ITALIAN VERSION: DEC 2012