Gilgamesh Tomb Believed Found at Uruk!

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Harte

 

^the above post of mine is for nephiyl

this is for naphal, the root word etymology of nephiyl

As Heiser correctly points out, the word naphil does not exist in Biblical Hebrew. Word morphology of the Hebrew of that time requires the root word of Nephilim to be naphil, not naphal. Were naphal the root word of nephilim, then nephilim would be spelled nephulim. The word naphil does, however exist in Aramaic. Meaning -"giant."

Nephilim, then, actually has as its root word the Aramaic word naphil. Meaning "giant."

Harte

edit on 3/1/2013 by Harte because: (no reason given)

but naphal is a hebrew word that means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, to fall upon, to attack
nephiyl only means giants if it's in its plural form - nephilim
its root form is naphal, which means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, etc.

hebrew is complicated. i'm guessing the word is a composition of earlier terms that each meant something different but descriptive, and they were combined to create the final term, nephilim = giants, but with the understanding that they were giants who fell down, were cast down, who came down to the earth, just as it is mentioned in the book of enoch. and by giants, we can assume it meant powerful, although if they were in space craft that was larger than a man, the word giant could apply in the sense of LARGE. this could indicate a case of combining the entity with some feature of the entity for which the entity is popularly known, such as the example of referring to the immense size of the constellation orion and applying it to an earthly king.

reply to post by Hopechest

Maybe this is why the Pope decided to step down...will this finally be the unraveling of the truth????

Probably not...but here's to dreamin'!

reply to post by Harte


i suspect heiser is trying to make room for the concept that some mighty men of old, some gibborim, were not fallen. he probably would've been better off to stick to gibborim exclusively on that, as the nephilim are intimately intertwined in root word form and in actual textual reference, to beings who came down to earth from the sky, such as the watchers of the book of enoch and the fact the root form of nephiyl is naphal. the reason he may want to stipulate the difference is directly related (i know this from having interviewed him on my radio program a few years ago) to the reference in which king david receives assistance from mighty men (gibborim) while in battle, one of which killed some 800 guys by himself.

IN OTHER WORDS, he's trying to separate the concept of "good giant" from "evil giant" and giant who came from the sky and did good, from giant who fell from the sky and did mischief but he's doing so by ignoring the differences between these things, and wishes to make the root etymology of nephiyl, inconsequential to the overall meaning. i'm not sure why either other than to draw the reader into the understanding that not all gibborim were evil.

Originally posted by Hopechest
You know that the religious community are going to be extremely nervous about this. That's all they need is more writings to prove the Bible was ripped off of Sumerian text.

Did you ever wonder how the bible could be a rip off of the sumerian text......when the dang stuff has only be recently dug up. And only a very small fraction of the book, very small, has any likeness to sumerian myth.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Hopechest
You know that the religious community are going to be extremely nervous about this. That's all they need is more writings to prove the Bible was ripped off of Sumerian text.

Did you ever wounder how the bible could be a rip off of the sumerian text......when the dang stuff has only be recently dug up. And only a very small fraction of the book, very small, has any likeness to sumerian myth.

sumerian stories = early torah.
more than a small fraction of sumerian stories are in the bible.

for example, the story of the tree of life as a food source is in the sumerian texts
so is the creation of man.
so is the noah story.
so is the story of babel.
so is the bottomless pit of revelation 9
so is jesus.
etc,
don't underestimate the ancient writings of the sumerians and akkadians. it may not sound related on first glance but it is.

So, is this the real "weapons of mass distraction" President Bush was after?

Stargate?

reply to post by undo


All this amounts to several chapters of the first book. There are 66 books. And I have read the early accounts in both cases as have others. Dont assume anyone is underestimating anything.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Harte

 

i suspect heiser is trying to make room for the concept that some mighty men of old, some gibborim, were not fallen. he probably would've been better off to stick to gibborim exclusively on that, as the nephilim are intimately intertwined in root word form and in actual textual reference, to beings who came down to earth from the sky, such as the watchers of the book of enoch and the fact the root form of nephiyl is naphal. the reason he may want to stipulate the difference is directly related (i know this from having interviewed him on my radio program a few years ago) to the reference in which king david receives assistance from mighty men (gibborim) while in battle, one of which killed some 800 guys by himself.

Gibgor simply means strong or mighty. Now it may go back to roots but the guys with David were not super freaks of nature like the men of old. It is more likely that in the case of the guy that killed 800 that he was in the spirit of samson who also killed many hundreds in one sitting but wasnt a 'gibborim".

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Hopechest
You know that the religious community are going to be extremely nervous about this. That's all they need is more writings to prove the Bible was ripped off of Sumerian text.

Did you ever wounder how the bible could be a rip off of the sumerian text......when the dang stuff has only be recently dug up. And only a very small fraction of the book, very small, has any likeness to sumerian myth.

sumerian stories = early torah.
more than a small fraction of sumerian stories are in the bible.

for example, the story of the tree of life as a food source is in the sumerian texts
so is the creation of man.
so is the noah story.
so is the story of babel.
so is the bottomless pit of revelation 9
so is jesus.
etc,
don't underestimate the ancient writings of the sumerians and akkadians. it may not sound related on first glance but it is.

edit on 1-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

You do understand that Abraham was from Ur? It is said in history that his dad worked for Gilgamesh at his court.

It has also been show, for whatever its worth, that the sumerians and akkadians cannot be differentiated save for the fact that they spoke two seperate and unrelated languages. Can anyone say tower of babel?

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by undo

 

All this amounts to several chapters of the first book. There are 66 books. And I have read the early accounts in both cases as have others. Dont assume anyone is underestimating anything.

they could only account for the history of sumer, up until it was devastated by the black sea flood. in that time frame, they more than satisfy their shared history. rather than saying they are not meaningfully related or that one ripped off the other, i like to view it as one is the mainstream version and one is the version maintained by the hebrews.

reply to post by Logarock

It is more likely that in the case of the guy that killed 800 that he was in the spirit of samson who also killed many hundreds in one sitting but wasnt a 'gibborim".

it actually uses the word gibborim.

reply to post by Arken


S & F for you.

This is pretty friggin' awesome! I don't have time now but I will most definitely try to chime in latter.

reply to post by Arken


Well if that's him Arken then the alien theory goes right out the window as he looks completely human in every way. Oh well.

reply to post by Logarock


well it is the same word in each case. for example

Gen 6:4 There were giants 5303 in the earth 776 in those days 3117; and also after 310 that 3651, when 834 the sons 1121 of God 430 came in 935 unto the daughters 1323 of men 120, and they bare 3205 [children] to them, the same 1992 [became] mighty men 1368 which [were] of old 5769, men 582 of renown 8034.

1368 = gibbowr

2Sa 16:6 And he cast 5619 stones 68 at David 1732, and at all the servants 5650 of king 4428 David 1732: and all the people 5971 and all the mighty men 1368 [were] on his right hand 3225 and on his left 8040.

1368 = gibbowr

check for yourself
www.blueletterbible.org...

Originally posted by EnigmaAgent
On the first picture, it looks like he's wearing a wrist watch.

There are bracelets on both wrists and on the wrist of the man in the tablet on the left of the screen. Jewelry has always been popular. Even the cave dwellers wore bones and leather and feathers.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Logarock

 

It is more likely that in the case of the guy that killed 800 that he was in the spirit of samson who also killed many hundreds in one sitting but wasnt a 'gibborim".

it actually uses the word gibborim.

edit on 1-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

Isnt that a passive perfect participle like saying someone is being "heroic" but not really a hero in the real and ancient meaning?

reply to post by Logarock


see my last post above.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


The other kind of DNA is nuclear DNA. From the Y Chromosome. (Male) MtDNA is the easiest to analyze and is passed down the mothers line. Nuclear DNA comes from Dad but is harder to analyze and takes much longer to isolate.

reply to post by undo


No I believe you. I think they are simply using the word. Like the car called "mustang" or "jaguar" or a sports team called the"spartans".

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
from the link ...

Gilgamesh was believed to be two-thirds god, one-third human

this is an intresting part of the gilgamesh epic that has been picked up on .

it shows that, at that time, they had a knowledge of DNA and how it works,
(more than i do), as the mother contributes 100% to mitochondrial DNA and the uhh.. other kind of DNA is 50/ 50% between mother and father meaning that if the mother was a 'god' and the father was a man ... a 2/3 to 1/3 ratio would be close but appropriate.
kinda dumps on our patriarchal/ monotheism belief system.

How does this show they had any knowledge of DNA ? Sheesh saying that he gets his blue eyes from his Dad and his brown hair from his Mom doesnt show any knowledge of DNA. It shows that they have eyes to observe something. That doesnt bespeak of any deep knowledge at all. We are only now learning exactly what information can be stored in Deoxyribonucleic acid. The study before that was actually a study in genetics and in ancient times women were held accountable if they could not produce a boy child which we know today rests firmly in Daddy's contribution to the mix so that shows just how much they really knew.