Ethiopia, Sumerians, Nimrod, Ark of Covenant, Hitler, Berghof, Lost Tribes Connected?

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

See where you made this mistake Sag-gig-ga-meš "Mes" maybe the problem
Akkadian şalmat qaqqadi meant the same keep in mind the Akkadians were a tribe of nomads they took over from the Sumerians and were Semitic speakers,so there where very intermixed after Sargon and they took over their mythologies and religions. in any case the link above have translated version to the original.

You know... funny that you mention that tree of Nimrod not being right... because it shows Noah and Nimrod on different sides. Perhaps that isn't a direct descendency chart as we expect, because Noah to Nimrod is known. It's either a different format, or a large inconsistency.

That's why I warned you about trying to confirm mythology and folk lore through science ,it rarely ever works.

a reply to: Spider879

Well, I have seen trees from Nimrod that are seemingly more correct, but I haven't located that again.

I was absolutely FLOORED last night, as I watched and read some more information about Nimrod.
What I am found seems to be a deeper explanation of the movie "Zeitgeist". In that movie, they propose that most religions are patterned after sun religion. It is proposed that this religion was the Babylonian mystery religion.

In this video, the guy takes a while to explain his point and his theory, but he does well to back up his assumptions and to explain his thought processes. www.youtube.com...

After the video, I read more on Semiramis and her being the focus and origin of satanism. This directly corresponds to the anti-christ and the false prophet...... absolutely fascinating! ldolphin.org...

I would love to hear anyone's opinions of these two links.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

If I don' t respond it's not because I abandoned the thread I am gonna be very busy but rest assured I'll get back to you after checking your links, gimmie about a day or so.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

I would love to hear anyone's opinions of these two links.

I have disagreements with the vid, with Nimrod as the first Sun god,yes there is a tie in with all the civilizations down to today, example the fashions of the middle age Europeans is designed from Persia including the crown, the caduceus is of course Sumerian.

a reply to: Spider879

I've realized that the video is just a man reading the chapter from the book that I linked, with his opinions added. The book contains many cited sources from other publications, and it draws some eerie similarities.

I have heard that about the Ethiopians and the ties to Israel.

As far as the family research there are several things to understand:

The reason for the 2 different last names is simple: 1) People did not know how to spell. The unified spelling systems are a recent thing. That is why you will find names, for example like: Green and Greene, or Stuart and Stewart. Both are of the same family lines, just depends on where one was from. 2) People when moving to a new region, would end up changing their names to make it easier to live in a region. You see a lot with records when it comes to immigrants going through say Ellis Island, and people with traditional cultural names would be changing to a more unified forms.
Surnames can also indicate political allegiances as well. Point in case would be the family Welf. They were of one political/religious affiliation, however an offshoot, changed their name to Guelph. Guelph was known to support the Pope and the holy Roman Emperor.
Also back then, being Jewish was not a good thing and many would have a family member convert to keep ahold of wealth and property, if the local lords decided to remove such from Jewish families, as was the case all too often back then.

The Netherlands were an independent country in the 1800’s, before that it was a part of either Germany, or France. Even the people were descendants of the Salian Franks and the Saxons.

The Crest would be a strong indication that he was either a part of the crusades or was there in service to the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

are you trying to say the biblical adam and eve were both black ?
thats a new one

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The Netherlands were an independent country in the 1800’s, before that it was a part of either Germany, or France. Even the people were descendants of the Salian Franks and the Saxons.
The Crest would be a strong indication that he was either a part of the crusades or was there in service to the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Not quite accurate.
A number of duchies and counties, adding up to much of what is now "Benelux" were brought together under the Burgundian dynasty during the fifteen century. One Duke had ambitions of erecting a kingdom out of it, but the Emperor would not play ball.
Before then, "the Netherlands" were nothing more than a geographical expression. It is very implausible that the motto would have a crusades connection, because in the crusading era people would not identify themselves with "the Netherlands". Their loyalty would be to the local unit, like Holland or Flanders or Hainault.
Marriage transferred the whole Burgundian collection to the Hapsburgs. The family arrangements which Charles V made when he retired (1556) had the effect of handing over the Netherlands to a king who decided to base himself in Spain.

Later in the same century, there was an eruption of revolt against what was now Spanish rule.
THAT, I think, is the obvious setting for a motto about freedom and the Netherlands. An older motto would surely have been in Latin.
Two historical accidents determined the modern shape of the region.
One was that the rebels were strong enough to maintain themselves in the north, but could not drive the Spanish out of the south. For practical purposes, that was what split the region into the modern Netherlands and the modern Belgium, and determined the frontier between them.
The other accident is that the French decided to ge involved in a religious civil war, which prevented them from being strong enough to take back the French-speaking areas like Flanders. So they remained under Spanish control, and that is the reason why modern Belgium has a linguistic divide.

Yes, the region was nominally part of the very loose Holy Roman Empire at the time. But in the case of the Netherlands, even that legal connection was disssolved in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
What was happening in 1815 is that both countries regained their independence after being submerged in Napoleon's regime. They were re-unified briefly, and then parted company again.

originally posted by: blacktie
a reply to: ThreeDeuce

are you trying to say the biblical adam and eve were both black ?
thats a new one

The Tigris and Euphrates and the
Ghion and Pishon as the white and Blue Nile

Well the Bible didn't say so but if one was to extend the Biblical Eden as not only somewhere in Iraq but arched all the way into Africa they could very well be.

The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.

And the name of the second river is Gihon; this is the same that compasses the whole land of Ethiopia.

biblehub.com...

If so then the Bible is pretty accurate as to the cradle and disbursement of early man through Bab el Mandeb in Ethiopia. if you take the narrower view of Eden in Iraq only, it wouldn't rule out Adam and Eve as non Blacks but just put more distance between them and Africa.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I was looking at the coat of arms.
The doves symbolizes purity.
The sword would have symbolized military prowess.
And the 6 pointed star would be a symbol of Quality from above.
The actual shield itself is an identification of the person, kind of like a dl would be to identify a person today. Usually the granting of such would have been given to either a noble man due to birth or a person who distinguished themselves to the nobility. So hence I would say the person was probably one who either was on one of the crusades in the Holy lands or had served in the holy lands under the king there.

Yes Burgundy did control that part of the area, however for a long time that area was passed back and forth between different people, sometimes sold off parts. As the symbols on the crest would be considered to have some religious significance, I would say that the person who wielded it, would have had probably been within the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor at that time frame. And that area was heavily under the Emperors influence if not his direct control. Back then many counties like that would have sought a powerful ally to keep what they had, or else risk losing to another.

As I was pointing out, it was not its own country until the 1800’s when it became a kingdom. And if you look at the time frame, it would have been considered a part of the Holy Roman Empire.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Usually the granting of such would have been given to either a noble man due to birth or a person who distinguished themselves to the nobility.
So hence I would say the person was probably one who either was on one of the crusades in the Holy lands or had served in the holy lands under the king there.

The second sentence I've quoted above doesn't follow from the first.
There were many, many other ways of gaining royal approval and armorial rights besides crusader service.

As the symbols on the crest would be considered to have some religious significance, I would say that the person who wielded it, would have had probably been within the influence of the Holy Roman Emperor at that time frame.

Again, the second part of that sentence does not follow from the first.
The whole continent of Europe was heavily religious at the time.
Nothing about "religious significance" demands a connection with the Emperors.
Being "holy"(in contrast with the original Roman Empire) did not give them any monopoly on holiness.

And that area was heavily under the Emperors influence if not his direct control. Back then many counties like that would have sought a powerful ally to keep what they had, or else risk losing to another. ..
As I was pointing out, it was not its own country until the 1800’s when it became a kingdom. And if you look at the time frame, it would have been considered a part of the Holy Roman Empire.

And as I was pointing out, it became legally its own country, being detached from the Empire, through the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which brought an end to the Thirty Years war.
Until then, they were in rebellion against their "lawful rulers" of the Hapsburg dynasty, and they must have been technically in rebellion against the Empire as well. During that period, their enemies were the two branches of the Hapsburg family (Spain AND the Empire), and their allies were Protestant rulers- and also the French, for reasons of their own.
Between the rebellion and the wars of the French Revolution, they were a republic under the semi-monarchical guidance of the stadtholders of the house of Orange.
The effect of the treaties of 1815, as I said, was to restore their previous independent status, and to upgrade the house of Orange into a royal dynasty.

I am descent of house of orange also, from another branch.

Well that is what I was wondering about the Crest. Affiliation before or after the marriage with Verdon.

Also Verdon is descendant of Burgundy