I recently received a direct message at my YouTube channel in response to a comment I made about the age of the pyramids according to Edgar Cayce, on a video of Dr. Chet Snow speaking about the upcoming Venus Transit. According to Cayce, the Great Pyramid was built by Hermes with the help of an intelligence called Ra around 10,500 BC, some 8,000 years before modern archaeology would have you believe. The person who wrote me, though, pointed to the writings of Zecharia Sitchin and said they believed the age was closer to "hundreds of thousands of years".
Now, I realize I may be inviting a firestorm of trouble from Sitchin's legions of followers, but I have to speak my mind and be as honest and transparent as I can.
Sitchin claims the asteroid belt was created when an errant planetary body called Tiamat collided with a very young Earth. However, the Cayce readings claim the belt is the remnants of a planet called Maldek, among other names, destroyed by its human inhabitants a very long time ago. Those familiar with the channeling of Ra in the Law of One material (also called the Ra Material) may also know that the destruction of the planet Maldek is independently corroborated there.
To me, the asteroid belt's place in the harmonic structure of the solar system on the OTHER side of Mars would support it being a former planet. In my reasoning, if it were created by the collision of a celestial hammer with a still-cooling Earth which subsequently reformed into a near-perfect sphere, we'd find two things:
1) The part that blasted off of the Earth would have had the same consistency, and would have likewise reformed a smaller sphere or set thereof. Other than Ceres, I don't know of any spheroidal objects in the belt.
2) That spherical detritus would have taken up orbit closer to Earth in accordance with its mass. Instead we find it on the far side of Mars. As for Ceres, composed of mostly ice, it makes sense that some of the water from a destroyed planet would have frozen into a sphere around a massive chunk of former planet. Furthermore, if the Earth were still molten and malleable enough to survive such a collision and reform into a sphere afterward, there wouldn't have been liquid water to form the ice around Ceres!
I have no doubt Sitchin believed what he wrote. But as long as we're accepting information about the formation of the solar system from otherworldly sources, as the Sumerian Cuneiform Tablets purport to include, I'm casting my lot with Cayce's Ra...especially since Ra is said to be the group collective consciousness of an ancient third dimensional civilization on Venus. The Anunnaki aren't even from our solar system, and there are indications they don't have our best interests at heart. Ra, by way of contrast, feels regret at how its attempt at assisting the Atlantean and Egyptian civilizations has led to much historical and present suffering.
I don't mean to disrespect the views of Sitchin's followers, by any means. I am interested in having the discussion, and I think it's only right and fair that I back up my own view...and in my view, it's virtually impossible for someone to honestly and thoroughly research the work of Edgar Cayce and deny its validity and reliability.
Strangely, the only reason I know Sitchin made this claim about the origin of the asteroid belt is Dr. Chet Snow related it to me directly during our interview this week - almost a month after I made the YouTube comment that sparked this whole blog post.
How's that for full circle?