The Secret History of the Reptilians: The Pervasive Presence of the Serpent in Human History, Religion and Alien Mythos

I used to translate Sanskrit to the point of being able to teach people Sanskrit, so I really admire Scott Robert's work. I understand where he is coming from in putting some major questions out there about how the Bible is mistranslated in regards to the topic of Reptilians. I really like his style of writing and the book is a good read. This book has a few typos and from an interview with Scott Roberts he stated a whole section of the book on Reptilian DNA got left out by the publisher, so hopefully the editing and publishing part of the book is improved in the next edition of it. I look forward to Scott Robert's future books.

As always, the service was great. I got my package earlier than expected and was recieved in great condition. The book itself is a great read. Alot of information about the supposed existence of the reptilian aliens is often on the deep end. This author's work is not one of them. The author is sincere and has done his research into this book. I was also happy about his approach to Stitchin's research as well and how he didn't base his investigations on Stitchin's flawed hypothesis. Again, the book is a great read for those that are interested in this type of material.

I read and hear so much about "the reptilians" in alternative history and science writings and presentations. This author does a nice job of pointing out and relating images and references throughout historical writings and symbology, including noting where the reference is meant as positive, negative, or neutral.If you have read Sitchin's books about the Anunnaki, then you will be at least familiar with this recurring theme (reptiles, snakes, etc.) throughout sacred texts, myths, depictions, and architecture. This is a handy one-stop overview of many if not most of the appearances presented in a cross-cultural format. A theme that permeates so many cultures must be richly laden with meaning. Especially intriguing is the challenge that the "reptile" (or snake) as represented throughout written history may actually be a propaganda smear tactic initiated by one "leader" eager to maintain complete control against a sibling (in the same ruling lineage) with a completely different philosophy of leadership, evolution, empowerment, and stewardship of natural resources - including indigenous fauna. Is the Snake always a bad guy? Or, as with many stories in current events, does your opinion of actions depend greatly on the spin you happen to read and which source(s) you favor?Interesting ideas presented here with broader application .... well worth the read.

Mr. Roberts has done tons of religious and historical research to write clearly about the serpent in human thought, religion and history. I am so glad I got this book; saved me a ton of time of doing my own research online, at the library, etc. He has a knowledge of ancient Hebrew, early civilizations' creation ideas and is able to carry all the information in a thread to the present. He shows how civilizations and languages influence each other. I have been curious about the dragons, snakes, serpents, etc. in world thought. He is thought provoking, but states that he does not intend to change anyone's personal beliefs. I was glad to gain the world history knowledge. I read it in 3 days (I'm retired); couldn't put it down.

If you are looking for a non-scientific, non-scholarly, rambling aimless wasteland of 220 pages of opinionated verbosity that lacks focus, written by a lightweight in this area -- this is your book.I normally don't write book reviews, but this needed to be written, because of the wide variety of authors/investigators I have read in this subject area.Roberts offers nothing new or original that isn't already well established, better presented/documented and easier to read by others, namely Sitchin, Boulay ("Flying Serpents and Dragons: The Story of Mankind's Reptilian Past"), Von Daniken, Icke, The Gnostic Bible ("Secret Book of John"), Cayce ("Atlantis"), Freke/Gandy, Wilcox, Marciniak, Temple, Jenkins, Clow, Goldstein, Rogers, and others (who in my opinion are far more credible, scholarly and at least support their positions with some defensible foundation).Roberts spends 10% of his 220 pages touting his last book ("The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim"); 30-40% examining Genesis of the old testament (which he mistakenly assumes to be valid, never challenging its authenticity/reliability or authorship); 20-30% criticizing Icke, Von Daniken and Sitchin; 10-20% rambling about the Merovingian element; and about 5% on the Annunaki (mostly criticizing one of Sitchin's translations)...Robert's work is mostly a continuous chain of unsubstantiated personal opinions. His sentences seem to run on forever and he is more repetitive than I am.While poor writing and want of editing can be forgiven, Roberts fails to use the scientific method or conduct requisite due diligence to establish a credible foundation for his opinions.For example, he mistakenly assumes the "original" old testament (OT) is a Hebrew document written in Hebrew, and that "Yahweh" is disclosed as a principal player (and thus is a principal player). Sadly, he spends a large portion of his book arguing that Yahweh is Enki - provoking a host of collateral conclusions, based upon this (faulty) presumption.In fact, the original old testament (OT), including the book of Genesis - the creation story (which Roberts relies upon) was written in Babylon during the Israelite captivity and afterwards (cc 570 to 510 BC, during the reign of Tabopolassar II (aka Nebuchadnezzar), Cyrus). It was written by a new religious group known as the Jews, not Hebrews. (NOTE, Judaism was the product of the Babylonian captivity and is very distinct from Hebrewism.) Furthermore, it was also written in cuneiform/Aramaic - not Hebrew, and absent any reference whatsoever to "Yahweh."This is material, because the original OT wasn't written by Hebrews, wasn't in the Hebrew language and there wasn't any disclosure of any "Yahweh!"In its subsequent translation into Greek neither the name "Yahweh" nor any derivative thereof is found (Greek LLX Septuagint version, cc 250-100 BC). Naturally, one would assume if the original was devoid of any reference to Yahweh that an honest translation would also be devoid.Interestingly, in the Greek version there is also no descriptive/identification of "who" the "Lord or God of Israel" is other than "Kyrios," which translates merely as "Lord."It wasn't until well after Christ's time that the OT was translated/revised from its Greek version (not from the original cuneiform) into a Hebrew language version (Masoretic Text 700-1000 AD). Thousands of material differences exist between the two versions. It was in this later Hebrew language version that the term/personage "Yahweh" finally shows up (for the first time).Historians have several lines to establish there was no earlier Hebrew OT version. One line is that both Philo and Josephus (prominent Jewish historians about the time of Christ) quoted many passages of the Old Testament -- always directly in Greek from the Greek Septuagint, even when they wrote in Aramaic. They were scholars of the day and also very Jewish. If a Hebrew OT existed, they would have used it instead of the Greek Septuagint. At a minimum, they would have mentioned its existence, if it existed. They didn't, because it did not exist.It should also be noted, the Babylonians and Assyrians during the period of captivity (and thus the Jews who drafted the original OT) knew of a god named "Yahweh," who was a "local" lessor/low powered/low level tribal god that resided on Mt. Horeb. Mind you he was not an important regional god, much less a powerful national god, nor an omnipotent (universal/Chief) god -- but, rather a low powered/humble "local" tribal god. The indigenous tribesmen felt he could even be beaten in battle, if they could get him off the mountain into the plains.Did this low level local tribal god at the time of drafting the original OT in Babylon somehow magically become an all powerful omnipotent universal (chief) god -- when the OT was finally translated/revised into Hebrew 700-1000 AD?Compelling (virtually indisputable) extrabiblical evidence supports all the above, if one bothers to look for it and read it.Obviously Roberts didn't. So, he doesn't know the original old testament wasn't a Hebrew document not written in the Hebrew language, and absent any reference to any omnipotent god named Yahweh (until the later revision/translation into Hebrew). Roberts is essentially relying upon the modern King James revision of the OT (derived from the Masoretic text).Relying upon this conveniently available modern OT (e.g. King James) without testing its reliability/authenticity against earlier versions and extra-biblical references is (forgive me) lazy and poor scientific method/scholarship.So how valid can Roberts comparison be that Enki was one and same god as Yahweh, if Yahweh truly didn't exist as the omnipotent god of Israel, in the first instance (e.g. in the original cuneiform Babylon OT)?Perhaps the better question is who was the unnamed god Kyrios "the Lord of Israel" disclosed in the original and Greek (non-Hebrew) OT versions?On this score, the answer may be found in indisputable contemporaneous archaeology (e.g. the 2600 year old "Cyrus Cylinder" discovered 1879 in Babylon). In other words, there is archaeological evidence from the same time/place as the original cuneiform OT from the very King who released the Jews from captivity.In this remarkable stone cylinder Cyrus's very words ordering the release of the Jews from captivity and the rebuilding of the temple in Judah (which Cyrus incidentally financed) were recorded.The Masoretic 700-1000 AD text gave Yahweh credit for Cyrus's order ("I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free," Isaiah 45:13).Amazingly, in the "Cyrus Cylinder" Cyrus expressly discloses the name of the god who ordered his decision. But, hold on to your pants, it was not Yahweh, nor was it Enki, nor was it Enlil (and all were known at the time). It was none of them.Rather, Cyrus gave credit for his order to his god, the god of Babylon (who had orchestrated Cyrus's earlier conquest of Babylon without shedding a drop of blood). It was the new chief god of the pantheon -- Marduk!It was Marduk-- Marduk -- who ordered Cyrus' release of the captives and the building of the temple of Judah.So, Yahweh did not exist as an omnipotent god when the OT was drafted in Babylon, and even if he did, he couldn't have been Enki.By unquestionably assuming the validity of the Masoretic text and thus the existence/importance of Yahweh, Roberts commits fundamental error. He also makes the same mistake by assuming the validity of the Book of Genesis as provided in the Masoretic text. This of course (unfortunately) causes Roberts to create a product that grossly misleads his readers.The above are just two of the numerous foundation errors I discovered. Individually and collectively, theses critical errors undermine the credibility of Roberts entire book.Overlooking this (if you can), there is still little presented in his reptilian disclosure -- much less any "secret history" (as his book cover, title and insider endorsements would have us believe). In fact, there is a dearth of reptilian disclosure.In sum, his scholarship could never withstand any sort of scientific or peer review. His book is poorly organized/written and offends the reader. His conclusions are few (except that Sitchin, Icke, and Von Daniken are wrong). With due respect, Roberts is the lightweight here and adds nothing new to the discussion.For those seriously interested in this area, consider A. Boulay's "Flying Serpents and Dragons: The Story of Mankind's Reptilian Past." Boulay is a renown researcher and amazingly is someone who Roberts does not criticize. Based upon my reading/research Boulay is a heavyweight and frankly blows Roberts away!You might also consider Cayce's "Atlantis," which is a bit difficult to read because it is a synthesis of hundreds of separate past life readings recorded by Edgar Cayce. They tell a remarkably consistent story (of a time when technology was more advanced than today) of the struggle between the "sons of pure race" (the progeny of Seth, Adam's real DNA son) and the "Sons of Belial" (reptilian overlords) before the flood. Cayce also sheds light on the chimera and automatons created by the Annunaki in their DNA experiments and the distress this caused the sons of the pure race.Between these two books (along with Icke's and the other authors noted above), you should better glean the real "secret history" of the reptilian influence upon humanity, which respectfully is altogether missing from Roberts disclosure.P.S. While I haven't read Roberts other book ("The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim") and don't intend to, I suspect it suffers the same fatal infirmity (e.g. untested reliance upon the Masoretic version of the OT).References:-The Babylonian Genesis, Old Testament from Babel, Cuneiform parallels to the Old Testament: Rogers, Robert William (1912) ("[T]his book contains the largest body of cuneiform literature yet assembled in any language for the illustration of the Old Testament.")-The Origin of Biblical Traditions, Albert Clay, 1999-Babylonian Genesis: The Story of the Creation, Alexander Heidel (1963)-The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, by Morris Jastrow (1915)-Recent Orientalia and Judaica, B Halper - The Jewish Quarterly Review (1924) - JSTOR ("Were the early Books of the Old Testament written in Cuneiform?")-Peoples of an Almighty God: Competing Religions in the Ancient World, Jonathan Goldstein (2002)

This is a good book if you are into this kind of thing.He goes over the influence of serpent beings throughout history and looks at David Ickes teachings with a critical eye.I am glad this is not another book trying to push the views of Icke as absolute truth.I really enjoyed both of Robert's books so far and I am eager to see what else he has in store.I honestly cannot deny that some sort of beings may have had contact and influence over mankind and taken some sort of Reptilian appearance for whatever reason?I think they also may have the ability to make us see what they want us to see?

Not sure why there are poor reviews. I found it very interesting and a good book for rounding out your education if like me you are curious about all the reptile references around us through history.

I really enjoyed the material presented. I am deeply fascinated by this topic but not exactly a believer. I picked up this book with an intention of reading it like a science fiction / fake documentary but found the conclusion much more reasonable and logical than I expected.The two small criticism I have is a few grammatical errors that really should have been picked up during editing and the writer's wordiness. This second critique is purely my own preference, however. I don't think he's a bad writer but I enjoy non fiction that are concise and to the point and find myself skimming over flowery language.

Interesting book on Adam and Eve, the serpent ( devil ) and the reptilians.

The author rambles and goes off topic a lot. The book could use a good edit as the kindle edition has quite a few typos or grammatical errors.He links a few mythologies and talks in detail about the etymology of ancient texts which was interesting but it never went anywhere. There was no secret history, just a loose possibility of a serpent bloodline stemming from Cain which he never really followed up on. I was disappointed as I was lead to believe that this was the premise but the author got lost along the way.It was a few hundred pages that could've easily been condensed into an essay length piece. He makes a few links here and there (I particularly enjoyed the Irish mythology and mention of Tolkien) but there was no overarching connecting idea. He even spent a large portion of the book bashing conspiracies and simply arguing against his own title (which would be reasonable had he even presented an argument for the secret history of reptilians, but he didn't).

This book did not enlighten the reader about the secret history of Reptilians. It left one waiting for the exposé that didn't come