[Music] Hello. So let's briefly read the story of the Tower of Babel, we are in chapter 11 of Genesis and it says: "all the earth had one language". Here, we must know that when "the earth" is used in the Bible it is always difficult to distinguish.
"The whole earth had one language and one words and, migrating from the East, men ended up in a plain in the region of Sinar". . .
Sinar is the biblical term used to indicate the land of Sumer, that is, we are in Mesopotamia . "And they settled there, they said to each other: come, let us make bricks and bake them in the fire. " Now, this is an important note.
In the sense that the bricks, you know, were made by mixing clay and then, generally, they were left in the sun and it was the sun that took care of drying it. So, let's say, cooking them with its heat actually , actually cooking them in the ovens, served to give those bricks a greater resistance capacity to the stresses and weights they had to bear and therefore there were also constructions made in partly of bricks baked in the sun and partly of bricks baked in the oven which were used for those structural elements which were intended to give greater resistance to the entire construction. So this note is interesting.
"The brick served them as stone, the bitumen as mortar. Then he said: come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower". Well, we normally hear about the Tower of Babel.
That is, as if these people had arrived in this plain and said: let's make a tower. No. Let's make ourselves a city that has a tower, that is, let's make ourselves a place in which we settle.
Which is a very different thing , also for the whole concept and for the things that we will now read also taking them from other texts. And therefore: "Let us make ourselves a city and a tower whose top touches the sky. " Here too this translation "whose top touches the sky" does not respect what the Hebrew language says exactly, because the Hebrew language says exactly, I'll show you even if then maybe someone can go and verify, here it says exactly: "ve rocho " that is, "its top", that is, its upper part.
And then there is "bet shamaim", which means "inside the sky" and not "that touches the sky". So it's a different thing. That is, the top must be used to enter the sky, do you understand?
The concept is truly different from what we are told also because we know - and all tradition tells us - that when we talk about this tower which is then identified with Babylon we are talking about a ziggurat, the classic stepped towers that we find in Mesopotamia. Frankly, it makes me smile a little because it is said that these people were so arrogant that they wanted to build a tower to touch the sky, therefore to touch the abode of God. They begin to mix the bricks, put them in the sun, or build ovens to make bake the bricks, and then take weeks if not a few months to build a tower perhaps 30, 40, 50, 60 meters high to touch the sky with their arrogance.
Thus they believe they can touch the sky where God lives. I tell you frankly that when I hear this story told it always makes me smile, also because then we will read other things in other texts that make us understand that things were absolutely not Like this. Then, among other things, it is said that they came from the east and to the east of Mesopotamia there are the Zagros mountains, which is a chain that exceeds 3000 if I'm not mistaken even 4000 metres.
You understand that if I want to touch the sky it takes me maybe six, seven, eight hours. If we want to put a night stage in the middle I'll take two days but I'll go up to 3500 meters and instead of taking months to build something that will take me 50 meters above the ground. Understand that the explanation is neither in heaven nor on earth.
So either the naive people were these poor people who build this tower or the naive one is the one who wrote this text having in mind the idea of writing an allegory, a metaphor to represent the arrogance of men. Well, just like saying it's neither in heaven nor on earth, at least in my opinion. Second those usual reasonings that I am used to making.
So "whose top touches the sky" is not like that, but "whose top allows one to be inside the sky". And then he says: "Let us make a name for ourselves, so as not to be dispersed throughout the earth. " Let's make a name for ourselves.
What does it mean to make a name for yourself so as not to get lost? It's really hard to understand. By reading other texts we will understand better what the intention was.
But "the Lord came down to see the city". Hence "the Lord". In Hebrew there is "Yahweh".
Yahwe comes down to see the city. . .
Yahweh comes down. However, in order to see - as in other passages of the Bible - God needs to come down. That is, he needs to come and see with his own eyes, to see the city and the tower that the children of men were building.
"Let's go down then," he says. In the plural, and therefore this already begins to give us the idea of the fact that he, as is evident throughout the Bible, was part of a group. I have written extensively about the struggles between groups, the military struggles, real wars that also involved Sodom and Gomorrah, in the groups between the Elohim.
And so he invites his people - and in Hebrew there is precisely the verb in the cohort of the first person plural - that is, "Let's go down, come on, let's go and see and intervene". And we intervene, here it says, "Confusing the language. " And so we're left with this "let's make a name for ourselves" thing.
However, let's read the story as it is told to us, for example, by Josephus in his "Jewish Antiquities. I have already told you that Josephus was a Roman Jewish historian . Among other things, he belonged to one of the most important priestly families of the temple of Jerusalem and therefore he was a profound expert in Jewish history, obviously he told the story of this story to the Romans.
And you already remember that I read you how he told you that when Noah arrived with his Ark that height where he was finally able to touch dry land, he found a lot of other people who had taken themselves there precisely to escape these waters that were rising. And these heights, the Bible says, are the heights of Urartu but not identifies a mountain. So it could have been a height of just a few hundred meters, but in short this cannot be determined.
Then they find these other people. Let's continue with the description: "Noah's sons were three: Sam, Japheth and Ham , born one hundred years before the flood. They were the first to descend from the mountains to the plain and established their home here".
They were the first. That is, Noah's family came down first, because the others were still up there. And in fact the others - and therefore here reiterates the fact that there 'there were a lot of other people, this is very curious because at the same time it clears away the idea that all humanity derives from Noah's family - the others, because of the flood, were afraid and were sorry to go down to the plain it was sad to come down from the heights in that place, but those - that is, Noah's family - encouraged us to follow their example.
So Noah's family says: "Come on, let's go down". Those others say: are you stupid? we just escaped a flood, let's stay here for a moment, right?
No, let's go down, let's go down! So I imagine the scene. I mean it would be beautiful to represent in a film.
The plain in which they initially settled is called Senar like the Sinar that we read about before, that is, the land of Sumer. God - obviously here it is always written in Greek Theós - God - and always indicates the Elohim - had ordered that as men multiplied they would occupy other regions with colonies, that is, that they should divide themselves, that they would not all be together, and someone understood why. And now let's go and see who this someone is.
"After the young population flourished in large numbers, God again advised them to establish colonies. But they did not believe that all their good came from benevolence. " That is, they did not have great faith in the benevolence of these Elohim.
They thought that their happiness came from their own strength and did not obey. Indeed, to the violation of God's will they added the suspicion that it was for envy that God incited them to make colonies so that when divided it would be easier to subject them. They had already understood, or at least suspected, that the division of the people had a very specific purpose: we keep them divided, say the Elohim, these here that we have fabricated.
Then we educated them, we gave them civilization. We talked in other videos about teaching them how to farm, how to produce fermented liquids like wine, beer, etc. So they say: no, we try to stay, we try to stay united.
Because they didn't trust, so to speak, this fake benevolence of the Elohim. The one who therefore induced them to ignore these indications was Nebrode who in the Bible is known as Nimrod, grandson of Ham, son of Noah. That is, therefore, this Nimrod was a grandson of Noah.
And then he says that they should have built a tower higher than the waters could rise. And this already makes us understand what, for example, I have explained in the books. How this flood was not a universal flood that covered the whole Earth and therefore also covered the mountains.
Why do you understand that you cannot build a tower that exceeds 4000 meters of mountains? Having the Zagros Mountains there, what need is there? Instead it was believed that a 30 or 40 meter tower was sufficient to escape a possible new flooding of that territory.
Because, precisely, in my books I had explained, from what one reads and seems to understand, that in reality this flood was a flood obtained by opening the floodgates of a dam. Dam I have spoken about extensively. The floodgates of a dam which served to flood an entire territory, killing all those who lived there for the reasons that the Elohim had established.
Obviously, however, some of these inhabitants of this territory were saved by climbing these hills. So here it is said that essentially this tower would have been sufficient to save them from a new flood caused and then it says: "This tower would also avenge the massacre of their ancestors". Even the massacre was done.
Now it occurs to us to ask ourselves: but how does a tower avenge a massacre committed by ancestors through a caused flood? What 's the point? Because to avenge means to avenge.
That is, it means to counter. That is, it means hitting those who produced, in this case, a certain catastrophe which probably caused thousands of deaths. And this rebellious Nimrod does not like this.
And he says: no, we must first make sure we stay united because if they divide us they govern us better. Second, we must do something that allows us to stay united, that allows us to defend ourselves from any new aggression and that allows us, perhaps if we decide, to even take revenge for what we have suffered. One more thing related to Nimrod because it is interesting, and here too I read it to you from the texts written by the specialists.
In this case they are Catholic specialists who write for Catholic specialists, therefore all academics who talk about Nimrod. There is talk of the difficulty of establishing the meaning of his name and it is said that the etymology is very uncertain. The Hebrew root "marad" has been proposed , meaning "to rebel" but it can hardly be thought that Nimrod has Jewish origins.
The most common opinion, philologically, holds that Nimrod is only a deformation of Ninurta, the Babylonian warlord. Ninurta was one of the Anunnaki, that is, the Sumerian Akkadian equivalent of the Elohim, and therefore this would place him and his people within the struggles that the Elohim fought among themselves for reasons of power, for territorial reasons. The Bible is full of these stories.
That is, the Bible tells us about the clashes between the various Elohim, for example between Yahweh and Chemosh, between Yahweh and Milkom. He also tells us how sometimes Yahweh with Israel was defeated by the other Elohim. And therefore the fact of hypothetically identifying Nimrod with Ninurta would immediately place him as one of the Elohim who stands in contrast to the other Elohim.
And here we return to the Bible, where it says: let us make a name for ourselves, that is, let us make a name for ourselves so that we are not scattered across the earth. What does it mean that a people called. .
. Since we call ourselves Italians we can never be dispersed again? Many characters throughout history have used "divide and conquer".
Yet they divided peoples who had a name, or rather, had their own precise identity. So making a name for yourself means nothing, absolutely nothing. And it certainly doesn't guarantee that we won't be divided and we won't be scattered, it doesn't mean anything.
And let's make a name for ourselves in Hebrew is: let's make a "shem" for ourselves. Now, this shem has been discussed for decades. The Hebrew "shem" derives from the Sumerian "mu" and the term "shu mu" or "sham" or "shem" would be the Semitic terms with which the Sumerian term "mu" is identified, is translated, or was translated.
"Mu" was used to describe memorial stones that showed deities within conical structures and, since these conical structures were what the gods were remembered for, the term describing them took on a meaning that harks back to the name. Since these conical structures with the God inside were used to remember the gods, in the evolution of meanings it came to take on the meaning of a name. That is, that simulacrum is the name of the God, it is what remembers him.
So this is already interesting. So let's do something with which we can then. .
. Let's do something that reminds us and which, as we said, is not just the name because that wouldn't be enough. For example, think of a work from 1875 published by John Prince which is "Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon" where it is said that the glyph "mu" indicates "that which allows something to go inside".
I read to you before that in Hebrew the top of the tower must serve to remain inside the sky. There is the "bet", inside, in and not to touch the sky. And therefore this glyph then transposed into the Semitic "shem" indicates something that points or rises upwards.
Well, curious, isn't it? In the sense that if we think about "let's make a name for ourselves" we have, so to speak, all of history full of examples of peoples who had a name and who were divided, dispersed or even exterminated. Here, in the struggle that was fought internally between the various groups of the Elohim, we really seem to think "let's do something - as I read in Josephus Flavius - which not only helps us survive, which not only helps us fight back against any other attacks, but which, for example, also allows us to avenge what has already been done.
if we do as they want, if they divide us, we are lost. Let's be united and build something that allows us to stay united and therefore fight against the other Elohim. Let's create something that allows us to enter the heavens, and this is it which will guarantee our survival.
Then we know that the other Elohim see all this, come down and obviously have the upper hand instead and they actually manage to nip in the bud this attempt to build a city whose tower was supposed to serve to enter the heavens. And here I was reminded of La Stampa of 3 October 2016, but all the newspapers had talked about it. The Iraqi Minister of Transport Kazem Finjan had said in an international conference - he is also a high-ranking military man - he had said with absolute calm that the ancient Sumerians, who lived in his country 5000 years ago, had built airports from which they left for space travel .
And they dedicated an entire page to him, like Repubblica, the Corriere, etc. And, I repeat, the Minister of Transport said it . Among other things, I mention this page - even if I realize a sort of small conflict of interest - because I ended up on this page too.
That is, he talks about Graham Hancock, about Zecharia Sitchin and says ". . .
convinced that a race from other worlds, that of the Elohim, has colonized the Earth. . .
and this Sitchin now has a successor in an Italian scholar i whose books have a certain success, Mauro Biglino. A serious expert in ancient Hebrew and collaborator of Edizioni San Paolo, Biglino is convinced that the Bible does not speak of God and that everything religious and spiritual that we attribute to that book is the result of forced translations". Well, that's quite clear!
In the writings of the Sibyl, which are a Jewish writing from the second century BC, it is said that God - we are always there, that is, the other Elohim - sent winds against this tower. And by twenty we mean, we know, I have talked about many of them times when I talked about the "ruach", that is, this wind, that is, this vehicle that flies fast in the sky. These winds destroyed this tower in the bud.
So, as if to say, they realized that something very dangerous was being born there and so they decided, rightly from their point of view, to really block it, to really block it in the bud. Now, all this may be a fictional story. What is certain is that it has its own coherence which turns out to be far greater than the coherence of who he tells us that these, having at their disposal the Zagros mountains which were well over 3000 or perhaps 4,000 metres, took months to build a small tower of 40 or 50 meters out of arrogance and to touch the sky which would have been the abode of God.
Choose which of the two has greater coherence. Obviously you have to do it with a free mind, because it is clear that if one starts from the assumption that says: no, certain things cannot be true in principle. .
. Then nothing. .
. Then they are not true in principle, it is not a problem. However, in short, there are elements taken from various ancient texts that make us think that a certain story would at least have its own coherence, especially if it is inserted in the context of struggles between the Elohim of which the Bible gives us very extensive documentation.
HI!
