Bible is a recent hack job mystery solved

Originally posted by Marduk

its an akkadian text
the bible is babylonian

It's a babylon text written about an akkadian figure , based on earlier akkadian texts.

that's why the name is different, but the stories are very similar.

the bible, in written form, is babylonian. the contents predate babylon, not only in mainstream texts of their time, but as an oral tradition amongst the slave populations and common people; something you have already admitted existed but which you seem to think now, could not have possibly had their own thoughts on the matter or bothered to recall. did you think they didn't talk about the events between themselves nor remembered how the events actually transpired instead of the royal versions?

the epic of gilgamesh is a story not a factual recording of events
the character Gilgamesh is based on the real king Gilgamesh who did not have gods as parents

the epic of gilgamesh is a factual recording of events with dramatization added. i didn't say his parents were gods. i said he was the same as nimrod and it appears nimrod was modified after he was born. i believe this is hinted at in the epic of gilgamesh, in the form of enkidu, who is his exact carbon copy, created to fix something that was wrong with "gilgamesh"

I have already proven that idea to be totally false
for Nimrod to have been gilgamesh you have to explain why some of the cities he is claimed to have an affinity with in the bible didn't exist in the time of Gilgamesh

the cities you refer to would be contingent on the accepted timeframe of gilgamesh, vs. the actual timeframe of gilgamesh. accepted does not necessarily mean accurate. Interesting that Enmerkar is at Uruk, though, isn't it? "The Sumerian King List makes Enmerkar the second king of Uruk after the Flood which would place his reign at the time when the building of Enki's temple at Eridu reached its apogee." (Eridu = Babel, where the Tower of Babel was built)

you have not succesfully linked nimrod to gilgamesh

www.ancientdays.net...

you have not even linked nimrod or enmerkar to gilgamesh

faculty.mdc.edu...

therefore any claims that anyone was modified are rubbish
the bible is the only text that Nimrod appears in

It's language, Marduk. You know how language varies over time and between one culture and another?



[edit on 8-4-2007 by undo]

The trick was to realise that the element 'kar' in Enmerkar was the Sumerian word for 'hunter'. Thus the king of Uruk's name consists of a nomen plus epithet - Enmer 'the hunter'. This was precisely the epithet Genesis uses to describe Nimrod. The next step was straightforward. Ancient Hebrew was originally written without vowels (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Vowel indications were only added into the Masoretic manuscripts from the 5th century AD onwards. So, in early copies of Genesis the name Nimrod would simply have been written 'nmrd'. The name Enmer would also have been transcribed into Hebrew as 'nmr' - identical to Nimrod but for the last 'd'. The Bible is well known for its plays on words. The Israelite writers often translated foreign names into familiar Hebrew words which they felt had appropriate meaning. In this case they changed Sumerian 'nmr' to Hebrew 'nmrd' because the latter had the meaning 'rebel' - a perfect description for the king who defied God by building a tower up to heaven.

faculty.mdc.edu...

````````````````````````````
replaced quote with 'ex' tags for external material

[edit on 8/4/07 by masqua]

last time i'm going to say this
Gilgamesh dates from 2300bce, which makes it akkadian
it is based on a sumerian king who founded Uruk

posted by someone whos lost their fragile grip on reality
he epic of gilgamesh is a factual recording of events with dramatization added

it is a fictional story
the King Gilgamesh did not travel to the underworld and talk with a long dead flood hero neither did he have a wild man friend named enkidu
he didn't defeat any guardians of a cedar forest and he didn't go on a quest for immortality
you really are clutching at straws
of course you need to because you don't know what youre talking about at the best of times. not once have i seen you come up with anything credible in any of your rants about "our alien heritage", even when you are told the facts and they are backed with credible references you still don't get it

btw the claim that Kar means hunter is crap that david rohl invented when he was making it up like you do
heres epsd
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
show me where Kar means hunter
and for the last time

now like I've asked you several times
this rubbish is off topic
its science fiction
if you are incapable of starting your own threads to discuss your personal beliefs then thats fine
but please stop derailing mine with this obvious garbage
thanks

Originally posted by undo
They aren't both passed down through oral tradition. The mainstream version was chiseled into stone, embedded into cylinder seals. It didn't have to be an oral tradition because they had the ability to record all of it - et.al the time and resources and influence.

But why is there no mention of Noah in the mainstream version?

If they were all desendents of Noah then why would they worship other Gods all of a sudden if they knew that God had destroyed the earth exactly because of that and other worse crimes?

Why change the story from the bible version? They would also be relatives of Noah in direct descent would they not?

Why would they blemish his story in such a way?





[edit on 8-4-2007 by Fett Pinkus]

i'd also love to see the stone that it was embedded into
I was under the impression that they wrote on clay
and the claim that they were writing on cylinder seals is a bit incredible
as cylinder seals were generally less than about 4 inches long

Okay here's how this is going to work folks.

No one will be derailing this thread from here on.

There will be no name calling, no personal attacks and most importantly you will not use the bible to insult other members of this thread.

If you can use the bible or the old testament to further your own argument fine, if you're planning on using any religious text in this thread to attack another member then you're crossing the line.

So let me sum up. If I come back in here and find this thread derailed one more time by anyone it will be closed.

And that would be a shame as I think people in here are (when not taking time to attack others) making some very interesting points.

Civility or close.

Your choice.

Spiderj

And undo I read all your posts

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus


But why is there no mention of Noah in the mainstream version?

There is mention of him. It's just a different name because it's a different culture telling the story. The royal version installed their kings and rulers in place of the biblical equivalents. Or you could argue the opposite - that the biblical version installed their favorite slaves and other common folk of import in place of the kings and rulers.

If they were all desendents of Noah then why would they worship other Gods all of a sudden if they knew that God had destroyed the earth exactly because of that and other worse crimes?

Well i don't think Noah was one person. I don't think there was one ark, but several. The reason I believe this is because originally Adam and Eve were known as The Adam (plural). The amount of animals to be placed on the ark was many times larger than most people realize. It wasn't just 1 male 1 female of each. It was 7 males 7 females of each clean. 1 male 1 female of each unclean. And 7 males 7 females of each bird. It would take more than one ark to carry that many animals. this also would solve the problem of Cain having a wife who seems to literally appear from nowhere. Cain was a group of people, not just one. Abel was a group of people not just one. the battle between Cain and Abel was based on an agricultural society vs. a shepherding society. They went to war. Abel society lost. Cain society was forced to migrate. The entire story is probably much more complex and indepth than what any of the current ancient texts describe. The book of Genesis is a highly condensed version, for ease of memorizing, no doubt.

As far as the problem of worshipping other gods. Nimrod went wacko with power. He was the first post flood Emperor of the Known World. He wasn't around to experience the flood. Probably thought his mom and dad were stupid. He pledged himself to Enki, who is the equivalent of the biblical Satan, and proceeded to rebuild Enki's E.ABZU at Eridu. This building was called The Tower of Babel, and later became known as the Etemenanki.

Interesting Tower of Babel info
www.livius.org...




[edit on 8-4-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by Marduk
i'd also love to see the stone that it was embedded into
I was under the impression that they wrote on clay
and the claim that they were writing on cylinder seals is a bit incredible
as cylinder seals were generally less than about 4 inches long

Just a figure of speech, a generalization. I visualize them chipping away at some lapis lazuli cylinder, engraving little cuneiform wedges in it.

Originally posted by undo
The reason I believe this is because originally Adam and Eve were known as The Adam (plural).

the reason you believe this is because you are making it up as you go along

Originally posted by undo


Just a figure of speech, a generalization. I visualize them chipping away at some lapis lazuli cylinder, engraving little cuneiform wedges in it.

all of your stuff is neither a figure of speech or a generalisation
its sci fi and you know it
i have asked you several times not to derail this thread
you ignored me
a moderator has asked you not to derail this thread
you ignored him
this thread was about provable facts
not what your imagination tells you about the ancient world combined with what you saw on the sci fi channel
enki was the template for satan was he, then explain how Enki ceased to be worshipped 1300 years before the Jews invented Satan at a time when Judaism didn't exist.they'd never even heard of enki
you are basing that on the biblical name for satan (great red dragon) and one of Enkis epithets when in reality the same epithet was used by every single god in the pantheon. was Dracula satan
was puff the magic dragon satan
was apep satan (at least the Israelites claim to have been in Egypt when he was worshipped
was Tiamat satan
you can't see how the symbol of the dragon was what the Akkadians used to name the Sumerian culture in the first place because you simply don't want to and because it doesnt match what you have dreamed up without doing any credible research
Su.Mir means red mythical dragon Beth
are you claiming that any sumerian was satan


I will now ask the mod to close this thread
well done

a moderator has asked you not to derail this thread

I wasn't sure if he/she felt it was off topic or not.
It all seems related to me.
But I can see this is just aggravating you and frankly,
I'm not in the best of health yet, and aggravating
people is not my idea of good conversation. So,
I'll leave you to some other brave soul.

Maybe I'll be back when I figure out how to discuss this
without including my own theories

Originally posted by undo
Maybe I'll be back when I figure out how to discuss this
without including my own theories

you just discuss the facts Beth
this isn't skunk works


and you want to know why you're aggravating
its because you don't listen to anyone but yourself
heres an example of that
you posted

The trick was to realise that the element 'kar' in Enmerkar was the Sumerian word for 'hunter'

i posted

heres epsd
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
show me where Kar means hunter

that would be very easy for you to do
and I've no doubt you looked
and now realise that the only sumerian word there is for hunter is ludubĝara
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
i.e. not Kar or even remotely like it
and yet
you just carried on pretending it hadn't happened
now that might work in pseudohistory
but this thread wasn't about pseudohistory
it was about the established facts

heres another example
you posted about Gilgamesh

It's a babylonian text, anyway

you know full well that it isn't even remotely babylonian
it was written during the Akkadian civilisation and there are fragments from several different versions. the full version is derived mainly from assyrian sources. theres even a hittite version thats been used to fill gaps
the fact that it was still popular during the Babylonian civilisation and you claiming it dates from then is like claiming that Dracula written by Bram Stoker is a contemporary work because its still popular today and the fact that it is over 100 years old is irrelevant
this kind of jumping around history to collect evidence is not permitted
its not good research
and its not credible as evidence
Sitchin does it all the time
its something that I would expect from someone like Robert Bauval who has his bank account riding on his claim that the OCT is supported by the pyramid texts despite the fact that they didn't exist for at least 200 years after Giza was built
but not something I would expect from someone who genuinely has an interest in the truth
you can lie to other people
you can even lie to yourself
but don't expect to get away with lying to me
no one else does



[edit on 8-4-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Marduk]

No in fact I did not ask undo to stop derailing this thread.

I asked everyone including you marduk to stop derailing this thread.

So everyone say bye bye.

Bye bye.

Thread closed.