It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Noice. Noice! Noice? I assume we are referring to the same thing, lol. Anyway, hasn't it been established that the earth is only 4,000 years old? No? Fine. I do find it perplexing that the list would switch between myth and reality, from outrageous numbers to more realistic numbers, but I think it is plausible that these numbers representations of some kind. I think one possibility that I did not see mentioned in the article is the idea that these large reigns represented multiple rulers, likely descendants from the previous ruler, all who held the same name or title. The number would represent the aggregate. That would be a lot of rulers though.
I had never heard the idea of the Biblical ages being representations of importance, but that actually makes a lot of sense. The parallels between pre-Biblical history and the history in the Bible have always intrigued me, and it could be indicative of the Bible being based on earlier accounts, or could simply suggest that the same history was recorded by two different peoples at different times. This may or may not shed light on the authenticity of such claims, depending on how one views the issue.
originally posted by: HomerinNC
There is some error in the translation here as well. There is no way ANYONE could live to 200 years, much less 28,000 years. The body naturally breaks down and decays. I'm going to go with the lunar cycles instead of solar cycles here as well, or they measured years much differently then we do today
originally posted by: CAPT PROTON
You guys forget, the Sumerians used a base 60 number system and not the base 10 like we use today. Our clocks still run on base 60. So for accurate times, you need to convert those lengths of time into base 60, or maybe they are in base 60 and need to be converted to base 10. So, those lengths of time should drop dramatically when converted to our modern system. The Sumerians probably never thought someone would be using a non base 60 number system when reviewing their records.
originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: amazing
That is why even to this day, so many refuse to believe that Zecharia Sitchin was a fraud and a puppet for the elite.
It's pretty clear Sitchin was a psy' op' as he was groomed at the London School of Economics.
originally posted by: Telos
According to other researchers, the Sumerian King Lists have two main existing versions, the surviving tablets being known as Weld-Blundell (W-B) 62 and 144 respectively, and both are thought to have been originally compiled around the start of the second millennium BC. There is also a third version, a much later compilation by Berossus from the third century BC.
Not only do these lists contain a record of all the post-flood kings of ancient Mesopotamia through to the time of their compilation, but, at the beginning, we once again find a list of antediluvian rulers—and this time their total period of kingship does appear to stretch way back into antiquity.
The Lists Translated
The most recent and detailed translation that I have consulted is of W-B. 144, which was prepared by Samuel Kramer (we all know that he is the father of Sumerian language in the modern era) in The Sumerians. Unlike some others it is uncluttered by any attempts to place absolute dates on the more recent reigns, and is a straightforward rendering of the original text. The pre-flood section reads as follows
After kingship had descended from heaven, Eridu became (the seat) of kingship. In Eridu Alulim reigned 28,800 years as king; Alalgar reigned 36,000 years—two kings reigned 64,800 years. Eridu was abandoned, (and) its kingship was carried off to Badtibira.
In Badtibira, Enmenluanna reigned 43,200 years; Enmengalanna reigned 28,800 years; Dumuzi, the shepherd, reigned 36,000 years—three kings reigned 108,000 years. Badtibira was abandoned, (and) its kingship was carried off to Larak.
In Larak, Ensipazianna reigned 28,800 years—one king reigned 28,800 years. Larak was abandoned, (and) its kingship was carried off to Sippar.
In Sippar, Enmeduranna reigned 21,000 years as king—one king reigned 21,000 years. Sippar was abandoned, (and) its kingship was carried off to Shuruppak.
In Shuruppak, Ubartutu reigned 18,600 years as king—one king reigned 18,600 years.
(Total) five cities, eight kings reigned 241,200 years.
The Flood then swept over (the land).
When compared to Genesis, this list contains only eight rulers instead of ten, but with reported reign lengths that are far more exaggerated, and a total elapsed time of 241,000 years before the flood. Moreover, if we refer to Figure 2 in which the details from W-B. 62 and Berossus are also summarized, although they record ten kings once more, they almost double the total elapsed time to 456,000 and 432,000 years respectively
I got the above snippet from Ian Lawton's 2002 paper who despite the strong spiritual spin, still comes up with some interesting points. I'd suggest to read all his paper on the subject: