It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A hidden code in the Bible revealed

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
It's easy to see that they were both probably the same flood. Most of the old stuff written in the bible is from passed down oral knowledge that was recorded much later. I suppose everyone of the time claimed this event as their own.

I believe there was some sort of a big flood event, I do not think it was worldwide and I also do not think that Noah and his bunch were the only ones to survive. That whole area may have been effected but probably not the world. To them it would have appeared it was worldwide though. I think that the religions may have claimed this event for their own and modified things, like naming noah, to provide evidence to verify what they were saying. It would be easy to assign a known name of an ancestor to an event in an area..




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
i can appreciate you drawing a connection between the story of Noah and the way things as the same book says were at the beginning.

I'm not saying its not exactly correct because I don't know but I've been working with the theory that the source of the book must have been describing things as he saw them after witnessing God's (or what he came to call God) throne in heaven.

an object, shaped like a trapezoid in the midst of the chaos...ultimately being the moderator of the force that restrained chaos, creating order.

but...the biblical version of the story contains far more information about the flood itself and the biblical version is connected to other stories...

the sumerian flood is a stand alone version and its lack of connection to variations of a higher order suggest that the Sumerian is the bootleg copy despite archeologists saying Sumerian is the more ancient civilization; thus, the parent.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
i can appreciate you drawing a connection between the story of Noah and the way things as the same book says were at the beginning.

I'm not saying its not exactly correct because I don't know but I've been working with the theory that the source of the book must have been describing things as he saw them after witnessing God's (or what he came to call God) throne in heaven.

an object, shaped like a trapezoid in the midst of the chaos...ultimately being the moderator of the force that restrained chaos, creating order.

but...the biblical version of the story contains far more information about the flood itself and the biblical version is connected to other stories...

the sumerian flood is a stand alone version and its lack of connection to variations of a higher order suggest that the Sumerian is the bootleg copy despite archeologists saying Sumerian is the more ancient civilization; thus, the parent.





i think the sumerian version is the source of the 32 animals account (royal barnyard) as upnapishtim, who is the equivalent of :

Ziusudra (also Zi-ud-sura and Zin-Suddu; Hellenized Xisuthros: "found long life" or "life of long days") of Shuruppak is listed in the WB-62 Sumerian king list[citation needed] recension as the last king of Sumer prior to the deluge.

in other words, the biblical flood account is a mixture of 1) the epic cataclysm that made the whole planet tohu and bohu and 2) the flood account of the sumerian civilization. this would've coincided with the black sea flood. there's a good series on that flood. that means both accounts are accurate, just one of them is not nearly as bad as the other.

apply that thought to the rest of what you know about the genesis creation account.


edit on 24-10-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
i'm not surprise concerning the multiple stories on the same concept as a form of validation...there are multiple Judgment Days in the Genesis alone:

Adam and Eve and the Serpent.
Cain and Abel.
Noah and Shem and Ham and Jephthah.
Abraham and Sarah and Hagar and Eliezer.

probably more...i think the repetition was to illustrate the difference between the story telling style of human beings, who know how to read and write and what talking monkeys write.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Does that relate to what is known as the Gap theory ? I cant say that it changes any of the rest of the scriptures but might allow ones mind to wonder . a reply to: undo



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

i'd consider it to refine the details, but the framework won't change. the Sumerians entire point of view and style differed from the Semitic.

the Sumerians focused on telling stories about the individual, the Semitic equivalents are telling stories about groups of people.

Gilgamesh was an actual person, as was Sargon....Nimrod was not, nor was Shem.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
Gilgamesh was an actual person, as was Sargon....Nimrod was not, nor was Shem.


Source?

This is my take on these types of theories BTW:


Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
The deception is getting deep out there. You have to look at the sources of these "theories". 90% of the time they are coming from gnostic Lucifarian think tanks such as free masonry, rosicrucianism, cabalistic and talmudistic zionism,the theosophical society, and even from ecumenal (counterfiet) christianity.


The OP's linked source appears to be extremely sketchy to me as well...



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
i'm not surprise concerning the multiple stories on the same concept as a form of validation...

This is the best explanation I have seen on this to date:


There are many similarities between these Sumerian writings and to the biblical accounts of the creation of man and Noah’s flood.

Some people think this is due to the writers of the Bible copying the earlier Sumerian writings. This is problematic because even the critics who specialize in this style of ancient literature say there is no evidence of literary borrowing[14], in fact just the opposite. They propose that they must be referring to a common source for the information.

One paper by A. Heidel, A.R. Millard and D. Damrosch concludes this way:

“Literary dependence cannot be demonstrated. Here, as in most of the parallels in the primeval history, it is considered more likely that Mesopotamian and biblical traditions are based on a common source. Some understand this common source to be a piece of more ancient literature, while others consider it the actual event.’ Hill & Walton, ‘A Survey of the Old Testament’, p. (2010).

Add to this that it is not just the Sumerian texts and the bible that are talking about the same basic story, but obvious elements of this story can be found in almost every early culture, regardless of its location.

Anunnaki | Ancient Aliens Debunked]



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Does that relate to what is known as the Gap theory ? I cant say that it changes any of the rest of the scriptures but might allow ones mind to wonder . a reply to: undo



yeah it does, but it builds on the concept that the word "become" (proper tense "became"), identifies the opening scene as the end of a flood type cataclysm that wiped the planet (i do believe this event triggered or was part of the ice age). the biblical account is almost entirely about the "human dispensation" . there were other dispensations before ours, such as the dispensation of the angels but we haven't been given much data on it in the biblical record.

notice also that what is happening is the lifeforms are not being necessarily created for the first time (except for homo sapiens), but re-created to re-terraform the earth, following that cataclysm. those are the animals, and other forms of life, being re-birthed, as it were. i think that's the global flood account, which is occasionally referenced in noah's story. then you see the black sea flood account, which is a much less dramatic flood, in the sumerian account.

i think noah and crew, are the ones who experienced the global flood and upnapishtim/ziusudra, experienced the black sea flood and both accounts are in noah's flood story, i'm not sure why.
edit on 24-10-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

don't have a source...just a memory of reading a Sumerian Kings list saying that Gilgamesh was a King of Uruk...Sargon had an entire Dynasty, which coincidentally had a great deal in common with the 5/6/or 7 Dynasties of Egypt.

can't recall the source...but Gilgamesh is the Sumerian, whereas Enkidu was the Akkadian.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux


nimrod was Enmerkar of the story Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

he was also narmer, founder of post black sea flood pharonic egypt.
set up housekeeping at abydos, egypt, built the osirieon there.
some get him confused with the original "osiris" in the sense of "the god",
although he did take that as one of his titles - he was not the original.

edit on 24-10-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

Fair enough, I was just curious.

My mind is always going, well why do you believe that...

I recently read here that the Sumerian texts corroborate the book of Genesis.

If this is true, why would you not believe that Nimrod and Shem were actual persons?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: michaelbrux


nimrod was Enmerkar of the story Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...

he was also narmer, founder of post black sea flood pharonic egypt.
set up housekeeping at abydos, egypt, built the osirieon there.
some get him confused with the original "osiris" in the sense of "the god",
although he did take that as one of his titles - he was not the original.


I thought Nimrod was the Hunter of men's souls...dressed and looked like Shaka Zulu...appeared to me as a cop at the Albuquerque Police Department named Tillman in November 2005.

if you say so...you read the books so it must be the case.

its good to know that Genesis spoke of material things as opposed to eternal things...like I was led to believe.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid

they are spirits....if they ever were...they still are.



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
i suppose that means, I never saw the Spanish hooker, a White Dwarf or the Wandering Jew that day?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
this Enmerker took something you say?

i bet he claims he builds Pyramids too.



people claim many things....what happens when they are forced to Prove It?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
the sumerian have waited a long time...and have now decided to attack.

planting linguistic 'evidence' to support their attempted 'coup'.



Is that what you really believe? Are you being literal here?

You honestly believe that people are planting evidence in order to make Mesopotamian texts appear older than they are? Is this kind of like how Satan planted dinosaur bones to trick Christians?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo

I believe people will spare no expense to win control of the earth and everything on it.

do you believe something different?




edit on 24-10-2014 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
deception is the purpose and intent of these discussions. all of the time.

Agree...

The sad part is that all those who propagate these lies not only believe them...

But they are also deceived BY them themselves.

Which actually gives them the appearance of credibility which in turn propagates them even MORE.

Have you read anything by David Livingston?


Many scholars teaching in seminaries train ministers and rabbis who, in turn, teach things similar to the above. We hope the reader will discern the error in their interpretation. Many today consider the Bible's Creation Story a "myth." They believe it has "evolved" and is written for the same basic purpose as the truly mythical creation accounts of the Ancient Near East. These scholars seem incapable of understanding that the Bible is history and the myths of the ancient near east are little more than political propaganda.

The Genesis Creation Story does not owe anything to the creation myths of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The latter were written for a completely different purpose. They are not really about the creation of the universe at all. They are related to the "genesis" of a certain king's reign. Priest-scribes wrote them to establish the king's (and his god's) supremacy. Each myth is different with its local adaptations. The Biblical history has unity, never changing, as the myths do with each succeeding king.

The Genesis creation account was almost certainly written first. The Master of Deceit then led ambitious and unscrupulous men to counterfeit the truth. Parallels may be discovered between the principle of manipulated religion, used to govern these ancient kingdoms, and the opposite of that principle in the Bible. Religious history and secular history are related. They cannot be separated. In order to understand history, one must comprehend God's working in history first, then examine how the opposition works through the deceit of the Adversary.

Comparison of Genesis with Creation Stories of the Ancient Near East

There is absolutely no evidence of any Sumerian document dates earlier than about 2000 BC. Sumerian texts 6,000 years old? Er, yes... And I’m the Easter Bunny. Now we shall address the question as to whether parts of the Bible are “borrowed” from the Sumerians and Akkadians, as our friend suggests.

DID THE BIBLE “BORROW” FROM THE SUMERIANS?

IT IS CLAIMED: The biblical tales of Creation, of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Deluge, the Tower
of Babel, were based on texts written down millennia earlier in Mesopotamia, especially by the Sumerians.

IN REALITY: This was the predominant view in biblical scholarship nearly 150 years ago, but the idea now has been abandoned.

Despite this, it is still peddled by some writers, including Sitchin, who appear to be unaware of discoveries since.

SITCHIN FICTION



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Cuervo

I believe people will spare no expense to win control of the earth and everything on it.

do you believe something different?



I suppose I do. I guess, to put it bluntly (and at the risk of sounding dramatic), I support the return of the gods.

The Abrahamic faiths have already had control of Earth for millenniums. I see no problem righting an ancient wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join