Nimrod, the First Pharaoh and the Conqueror of the Post-Flood World

a reply to: Degradation33

Plato and Atlantis

On this site are details that match Plato's writings of Atlantis.
greekreporter.com...
(I can't seem to place a photo on here)
(Degradation, I used your link to attach to in order to further Plato's proof of evidence)

originally posted by: FlyersFan

That's not true. He wrote a fictional story. There is nothing to suggest if he actually believed what he wrote. You are projecting. He gave details as any good story teller does. Like I said ... you might as well claim that Twilight is proof of vampires in the world because it is detailed.

You can believe that if you want, but Herodotus, the Greek Historian, included it in his historical account of the world:

Did you ever play 'telephone' as a child? 20 kids line up and whisper a few words in the ear of the next person in line. That person then whispers those words to the next person in line. By the time the words get to the end of the line, they aren't even close to what the words started out as. There is ZERO chance that a story could be passed on orally by uneducated peasants for 9,000 years and it would remain actually true to what it may have started out as.

You were making the claim that aboriginal Australians were able to maintain it for 10s of thousands of years on another thread haha. You consistently expose your bias.

Pfft.

Oral flatulence may be your best argument yet.

originally posted by: cooperton
You can believe that if you want, but Herodotus, the Greek Historian, included it in his historical account of the world:

SO WHAT? The guy lived a few decades before Plato. He might have believed it was true, even though it was fictional. That's not proof that a continent of Atlantis existed and was lost. And I don't see anything on that map showing that he thought it was a map of 9,000 bc. It's a pretty lousy map. The Nile doesn't go in that direction. And it looks like he arbitrarily put Atlantis as a city in Africa, not as a continent.

You were making the claim that aboriginal Australians were able to maintain it for 10s of thousands of years on another thread haha.

The fact is that aboriginal Australians have existed for 50,000 years and have been in Australia for 10s of thousands. They have oral traditions that they pass down. Nothing says that that those oral traditions are exactly the same ones they had 10s of thousands of years ago. Proof of them existing for 50,000 years and proof of them being in Australia for 10s of thousands of years is not predicated on oral traditions. It's established by science.

You consistently expose your bias.

That would be YOU.

Literary scholars agree, and have agreed for centuries, that Platos work on Atlantis is fictional. And to think that there would be some kind of top secret information on an historical event that was only passed down through a select group of people orally for 9,000 years and that it was accurate ... that's ridiculous. But that's you .. believing the ridiculous while ignoring the rational and obvious. Good luck on that.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: FlyersFan

You can believe that if you want, but Herodotus, the Greek Historian, included it in his historical account of the world:

And in the USA there is Atlanta ....... which proves it!


(The Atlantes were a people, as are all the names on that map - it's not the name of a place and is no more evidence of an island that sank into the ocean thousands of years previously than Atlanta is)

a reply to: cooperton

Oh look Cooperton has another fantastical flood thread!!

So how many new Egyptians did Nimrod reside over after the great flood considering he poped into Egypt after the magical flood? I think they must've worked even harder than Noah's lot building his Tardis ark to get all those buildings up????

You really do like these inbred MoFo's don't you?

According to ancient Egyptian and Babylonian traditions, his mother was Semiramis; sometimes Semiramis is referred to as the mother of Nimrod, and sometimes as his wife, leading to the belief that Nimrod married his mother. Also according to these traditions, Semiramis, who rose to greatness because of her son, was presented with a difficulty when her son died, so instead she pronounced him to be a god, so that she herself would become a goddess.

Also from "JewishEncyclopedia"
www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Two prominent theories are now held in regard to Nimrod's identity: one, adopted by G. Smith and Jeremias, is that Nimrod is to be identified with the Babylonian hero Izdubar or Gishdubar (Gilgamesh); the second, that of Sayce,Pinches, and others, identifies Nimrod with Marduk, the Babylonian Mercury. The former identification is based on the fact that Izdubar is represented in the Babylonian epos as a mighty hunter, always accompanied by four dogs, and as the founder of the first great kingdom in Asia. Moreover, instead of "Izdubar"—the correct reading of which had not yet been determined—Jeremias saw the possibility of reading "Namra Udu" (shining light), a reading which would have made the identification with Nimrod almost certain. Those who identify Nimrod with Marduk, however, object that the name of Izdubar must be read, as is now generally conceded, "Gilgamesh," and that the signs which constitute the name of Marduk, who also is represented as a hunter, are read phonetically "Amar Ud"; and ideographically they may be read "Namr Ud"—in Hebrew "Nimrod." The difficulty of reconciling the Biblical Nimrod, the son of Cush, with Marduk, the son of Ea, may be overcome by interpreting the Biblical words as meaning that Nimrod was a descendant of Cush.

Two other theories may be mentioned: one is that Nimrod represents the constellation of Orion; the other is that Nimrod stands for a tribe, not an individual

a reply to: cooperton

You were making the claim that aboriginal Australians were able to maintain it for 10s of thousands of years on another thread haha. You consistently expose your bias.

So you believe in a book where half the tale was stollen from the jews, which of itself was a mixture of Jewish, Sumarian, Babyloian, and Egyptian tales written in Hebrew, translated to greek and Latin and then English which could have had atleast 13 other "Books" before the Holy Roman Empire decided to chop it up, and claim it's an historical account but think Aboriginal history is false???
I think your high horse has a high horse!!

www.australiaunwrapped.com...
www.aboriginalheritage.org...

It’s pretty obvious to those uninitiated into or apostatised from Judeo-Christian dogma that rather than being separate tales that tell of the same truth that the Hebrews stol… I mean, “were inspired by” the Sumerian legends when they were crafting their own mythology.

originally posted by: WaESN


(The Atlantes were a people, as are all the names on that map - it's not the name of a place and is no more evidence of an island that sank into the ocean thousands of years previously than Atlanta is)

I was merely showing that the Greeks were under the impression that it was indeed a historical account... showing they believed it was history rather than mythology. Flyersfan is trying to make the argument that Plato was dictating mythology, but it is clear he was re-telling what he thought was history - regardless of whether it is true or untrue.

originally posted by: Ohanka
It’s pretty obvious to those uninitiated into or apostatised from Judeo-Christian dogma that rather than being separate tales that tell of the same truth that the Hebrews stol… I mean, “were inspired by” the Sumerian legends when they were crafting their own mythology.

A person building a city is not mythology. The Babylonians deified their primordial king, which is not surprising, a lot of cultures did this.

originally posted by: Kurokage
the second, that of Sayce,Pinches, and others, identifies Nimrod with Marduk

Thanks for pointing that out, it is good to see others coming to my same conclusion.

You really do like these inbred MoFo's don't you?

I'd rather be the inbred product of pure-hearted genetically resilient humans than the inbred product of two ape-like chromosomal mutants.

a reply to: cooperton

I was merely showing that the Greeks were under the impression that it was indeed a historical account... showing they believed it was history rather than mythology.

And the Greeks also believed that lightning was caused by a dude throwing a tantrum and throwing bolts around, and that Minatours and Cyclops excisted. So your hunt for "facts" is the same as usual...

Thanks for pointing that out, it is good to see others coming to my same conclusion

Again, I'm not coming to the same conclussion. This is cutural cross contamination and the spreading of myths and the taking and spreading of stories by groups in close proximity to each other.

pure-hearted genetically resilient humans

Where do you get your conformation bias from?? Pure-hearted? Where is the proof of that? Genetically resillient? Other than a made up book of myths and legends please post the proof of this!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
And the Greeks also believed that lighning was caused by a dude throwing a tantrum and throwing bolts around, and that Minatours and Cyclops excisted. So your your hunt for "facts" is the same as usual...

Your analysis of Greek thought shows you really haven't given it any thought at all. You sound like a 3rd grader giving a synopsis on Greek literature.

a reply to: cooperton

Thanks for the usual insults my Christian friend!!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

Thanks for the usual insults my Christian friend!!

You mocking the Greek's vast works of knowledge as being some stupid fictional work of trash is an assessment I would expect from a 3rd grader.

I believe truth is more important than merely 'acting nice', and here you need to hear the truth about your assessment of the Greeks. And also, your laughable attempt to try to shame me only shows your own shamefulness

a reply to: cooperton

Thank you so much for your charming lessons in Christianity...

I wasn't mocking the Greeks knowledge, which was vast for it's time, but I can see I hit a nerve!!
You claimed Plato's Atlantis was fact, I also pointed out other 'facts' the greeks believed, showing Atlantis could be a tall tale or misunderstanding for example, like many other Greek 'facts' including things like Humors.....

The Human body contains blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. These are the things that make up its constitution and cause its pains and health. Health is primarily that state in which these constituent substances are in the correct proportion to each other, both in strength and quantity, and are well mixed. Pain occurs when one of the substances presents either a deficiency or an excess, or is separated in the body and not mixed with others.[7] The body depends heavily on the four humors because their balanced combination helps to keep people in good health. Having the right amount of humor is essential for health. The pathophysiology of disease is consequently brought on by humor excesses and/or deficiencies.

Socrates said "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." The fact that lots of western religious scholars except the fact that the bible and Torah are a combination of many other stories and parables from many other cultures woven into their beliefs shows how understanding of these texts are changing which started back during the renaissance. It's only recently that some religious nut jobs have gone back to seeing the bible as an hstorical account.
The story of Noah for example has been show by Jewish scholars to be a combination of atleast 2 stories.

I believe truth is more important than merely 'acting nice'

There's a great line in Star Wars....

“Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

I want provable facts backed up by data, not religious 'truth'.

your laughable attempt to try to shame me only shows your own shamefulness

I'm not trying to shame you but if thats how you see it, maybe it says more about you than me?
What I do see is that you tend to like to insult people who have a very different view point to you and like to insult their intelligence to try to quash their argument.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

Thank you so much for your charming lessons in Christianity...

I wasn't mocking the Greeks knowledge, which was vast for it's time, but I can see I hit a nerve!!

You do seem to have that ability against me haha. I was reading the allegory of the cave and it is quite astonishing. Many know about the part about the cave allegory, but afterwards he goes into the depths of how to establish a utopia of people emerging from the cave. it is worth a read

Plato's cave allegory

Notice how they say explicitly that it is an allegory? Whereas with Atlantis they are referring to it as a matter-of-fact account. Like the Sumerians, they were under the impression that gods and humanity have an ability to intermingle, for gods to fall and also humans to ascend:

"Such was the vast power which the god settled in the lost island of Atlantis; and this he afterwards directed against our land for the following reasons, as tradition tells: For many generations, as long as the divine nature lasted in them, they were obedient to the laws, and well-affectioned towards the god, whose seed they were; for they possessed true and in every way great spirits, uniting gentleness with wisdom in the various chances of life, and in their intercourse with one another.

They despised everything but virtue, caring little for their present state of life, and thinking lightly of the possession of gold and other property, which seemed only a burden to them; neither were they intoxicated by luxury; nor did wealth deprive them of their self-control; but they were sober, and saw clearly that all these goods are increased by virtue and friendship with one another, whereas by too great regard and respect for them, they are lost and friendship with them. By such reflections and by the continuance in them of a divine nature, the qualities which we have described grew and increased among them; but when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power.

Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them, that they might be chastened and improve, collected all the gods into their most holy habitation, which, being placed in the centre of the world, beholds all created things. And when he had called them together, he spake as follows-*text is missing beyond this point*"

The bolded part shows that their tradition holds the same truth about the gods coming down as the Hebrews and Sumerians. We ought to start taking the Nephilim/Anunnaki story seriously because every culture seems to remember it.

I want provable facts backed up by data, not religious 'truth'.

I think it is important to consider what our ancestors said about the past, and when you dig through the deifications and such, you realize they are all referring to a similar history.

But also, with that standard of needing facts backed by data, you would have to dismiss your belief in abiogenesis, because there is no data that shows its possible through natural means.

What I do see is that you tend to like to insult people who have a very different view point to you and like to insult their intelligence to try to quash their argument.

Oh stop the pity party, when you introduce yourself to a thread with a line like this:

"Oh look Cooperton has another fantastical flood thread!!"

I know you're looking for a fight

a reply to: cooperton

Like the Sumerians, they were under the impression that gods and humanity have an ability to intermingle, for gods to fall and also humans to ascend:

The Greeks believed the gods could take many forms and 'mingle'. Like many religions, to make a certain people or tribe special you write your religious texts to show this, my God spoke to me/appeared before me so I'm special and above ordinary people. It's done many many times in many religions and texts around the world.

I think it is important to consider what our ancestors said about the past, and when you dig through the deifications and such, you realize they are all referring to a similar history.

Most western religious histories are similar purely because of cultural and religious exchange, this is known and studied.
Many have been shown to be adapted/adopted rather than wiped out by invading forces like the Romans for example. Many Jewish scholars have shown how the Torah is adaption of other religious texts. Like I said in a post above, the Noah story is an adaption of at least 2 other stories.

But also, with that standard of needing facts backed by data, you would have to dismiss your belief in abiogenesis, because there is no data that shows its possible through natural means.

There is far more data and facts on evolution and how life evolved on Earth than there is for 99% of biblical texts and proof of God.

sciencing.com...

Oh stop the pity party, when you introduce yourself to a thread with a line like this:

"Oh look Cooperton has another fantastical flood thread!!"

I know you're looking for a fight

It's not a 'pity party'.
I think in past threads you claimed to be some sort of a preacher and a man of God, but I've had more respectful talks with the old Jehovah witness guy who was a neighbour of mine before he pasted away. You attempt to be insulting about people's grammar and intelligence to get 'one up 'which if you believed the fantasy you're pedaling should be below you!!

I'm not looking for a fight, I'm looking to shine a light on your faith in God and hope it doesn't just rely on a book of fantasy stories.
Plato's cave allegory is how I see these new Creationists who blindly follow a book because they are told "it's the Truth" but aren't allowed to test that with real science and not the pesudo-science from religious websites.

It seems Historians are having trouble coming to a concensus here.

Historians, Orientalists, Assyriologists and mythographers have long tried to find links between the Nimrod of biblical texts and real historically attested figures in Mesopotamia. No king named Nimrod or with a similar name appears anywhere on any pre-biblical, extra-biblical or historic Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian or Babylonian king list, nor does the name Nimrod appear in any other writings from Mesopotamia itself or its neighbours in any context whatsoever during the Bronze Age, Iron Age or pre-Christian Classical Age.

Since the city of Akkad was destroyed and lost with the destruction of its Empire in the period 2200–2154 BC (long chronology), the much later biblical stories mentioning Nimrod seem to recall the late Early Bronze Age. The association with Erech (Sumero-Akkadian Uruk), a city that lost its prime importance around 2000 BC as a result of struggles between Isin, Ur, Larsa and Elam, also attests the early provenance of the stories of Nimrod.[11] Several Mesopotamian ruins were given Nimrod's name by invading 8th-century AD Muslim Arabs, including the ruins of the Assyrian city of Kalhu (the biblical Calah), which contrary to biblical claims was in reality built by Shalmaneser I (1274–1244 BC)[6]

A number of attempts to connect him with historical figures have been made without any success.

According to Ronald Hendel the name Nimrod is probably a much later polemical distortion of the Semitic Assyrian god Ninurta, a prominent god in Mesopotamian religion who had cult centers in a number of Assyrian cities such as Kalhu, and also in Babylon, and was a patron god of a number of Assyrian kings, and that 'Cush' is a mistranslation of Kish, a Mesopotamian city.[39] Nimrod's imperial ventures described in Genesis may be based on the conquests of the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I.[40]

Julian Jaynes also indicates Tukulti-Ninurta I (a powerful king of the Middle Assyrian Empire) as the inspiration for Nimrod.[41]

There was a historical Assyrian queen Shammuramat in the 9th century BC, in reality the wife of Shamshi-Adad V, whom Assyriologists have identified with Semiramis, while others make her a later namesake of a much earlier (again, historically unattested) Semiramis.

In David Rohl's theory, Enmerkar, the Sumerian founder of Uruk, was the original inspiration for Nimrod, because the story of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta[47] bears a few similarities to the legend of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, and because the -KAR in Enmerkar means "hunter". Additionally, Enmerkar is said to have had ziggurats built in both Uruk and Eridu, which Rohl postulates was the site of the original Babel.

More recently, Yigal Levin (2002) suggests that the fictional Nimrod was a recollection of Sargon of Akkad and also of his grandson Naram-Sin, with the name "Nimrod" derived from the latter. He argues that:

The biblical Nimrod, then, is not a total counterpart of any one historical character. He is rather the later composite Hebrew equivalent of the Sargonid dynasty: the first, mighty king to rule after the flood. Later influence modified the legend in the Mesopotamian tradition, adding such details as the hero's name, his territory and some of his deeds, and most important his title, "King of Kish". The much later editors of the Book of Genesis dropped much of the original story and mistakenly misidentified and mistranslated the Mesopotamian Kish with the "Hamitic" Cush, there being no ancient geographical, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, genetic or historical connection between Cush (in modern northern Sudan) and Mesopotamia

That's what the amalgamation of academia says.

I have this one main problem with Marduk, however.

Marduk was a god. But he ascended up the pantheon just like Ba'al did with the Canaanite.

* I use Wikipedia because it cites the most peer-reviewed sources.

Marduk, along with the city of Babylon, was unimportant[13] and sparsely attested in the 3rd millennium BCE. The earliest mention to Marduk comes from a fragmentary inscription, most likely dating to the Early Dynastic II period. It is left by an unnamed ruler of the city of BAR.KI.BAR (likely Babylon) who constructed a temple for Marduk

Marduk is later considered the son of Enki/Ea.[18] If so, this could be evidence that Marduk was already part of the pantheon of Eridu in the Ur III period.

Marduk also started to appear in theophoric names, which would become more frequent in the following decades but would remain rare, appearing in less than 1% of names, although it would grow to 1-2% under Hammurabi.

A key development during the Old Babylonian period was the association of Marduk with the pantheon of Eridu. Marduk was syncretized with Asalluhi in the later half of the Old Babylonian period, and the opening of the Code of Hammurabi identify Ea as the father of Marduk,[29] a genealogy that would remain canonical. God lists from the Old Babylonian period place him within Enki's circle, sometimes as an intrusion by another scribe.

In the Kassite period, theophoric names containing Marduk grew to over 10%, and the local temple to Marduk in Nippur was firmly integrated and well established.[25] The Kassite kings sometimes gave Marduk pompous epithets,[25] showing Marduk's growing popularity, however Enlil still ranks as the most important Mesopotamian god.

By the time of the Isin II dynasty, an established syncretism of Babylon and Nippur (and by extension Marduk and Enlil) was in place. The names of the city walls were switched, with Imgur-Enlil and Nimit-Enlil in Babylon while Imgur-Marduk and Nimit-Marduk were in Nippur.[41] A first millennium bilingual hymn to Nippur links Babylon and Nippur together:

Nonetheless, beginning from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, acknowledgement of Marduk's supremacy over other gods was now the norm. 

Now, while I'm not trying to compare or draw the conclusion of historical analogs, because honestly, I get hazy with ancient cultute prior to 1200, Babylon switches allegiance a lot.

What I want to point out is that. You have a story that never remains constant. Marduk ascended into its monolatrous prominence.

The myth in all this may be that the Neo-babylonians were Polytheistic. Monolatrous may a better term because clearly they elevated Marduk into something more analogous with a monotheistic god.

Across the extended area, at 1000 BCE, polytheism was already twitch; Canaanite (Phoenician), Hebrews, Babylonian, Persian were all NOW exalting Ba'al, YHWH, Marduk, and Mazda are the highest of Gods.

To myself, the writings of the second temple (The completed Pentateuch) was an attempt the rectify and streamline ALL OF THE PREVIOUS, While simultaneously making one of THEIR mythological character RETCON the Messopotamian version. Which is argued to be Gilgamesh, Sargon, and even Marduk.

I think NIMROD is a total amalgamation for preexisting civilization, to line it up with a very consanguineous version of events. Where the builder of it ISN'T a god.

Nothing stays the same. But the invention of Eschatology as a major component of religion was perfected in Christianity. The "loss of belief clause" that is Revelations effectively scares people away from dropping the narrative as supreme, because that means its the endtimes.