Ancient History, what is the real story?

Well, my firend (Marduk) and I were having a discussion of sorts in a Pyramid Topic, so I wish to offer this here, since it is not relative to the Pyramid anylonger, (Specifically). It may get back to it, but that's a long road to hoe.

Some questions began to arise about langages, and Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew became discussed and we now have this need to get a grip, so to speak.

It would be, with this inmind, that I would ask any to offer whatever thoughts they may share, and direction to relevant material for review.

The Following Conversation, is continuing from the previous topic, and we can pickup from there, Marduk, if you wish to.

I do infact find the topic is a interesting one, but I also believe Truth is the important thing, and should be promoted, no matter the ends,

But I'd like to have some "Known" views considered, and put the evidence out their to review.

Thanks for the read, and hope you take part in the question, because I think it is important to understand the real story.

Originally posted by Marduk

Where do you think the Sumerians come from? They are decendants of Noah

you seem to be confused

Well Marduk, this maybe the case, although there does seem to be a lack of detail in respects to the Sumerians.

Sumer a derivative of Sumu, (Shem), in the Akkadian? (I am asking)

The Map below, also places them in line with the Indo Euro Peoples which come from Japheth.


And there is also a consideration, they came through the Flood unscathed, which is possible, but places the premise of their Origin into a discussion revolving around the Decendants of Adam, which I would not wish to go into here. (Immeadiately anyhow)

I will only note now, some of the Ancient Sumerian Names of their Leaders "COULD" be constrewed to indicate Antideluvian Origins. Enoch, Enmduranki and Adapa, have very curious commonalities.

Then there are some that feel Nimrod is infact Enmerkar.

Robl believes that the biblical king Nimrod, son of Cush was in fact,Enmerkar. He continues:

Cush (son of Ham and grandson of Noah) fathered Nimrod who was the first potentate on earth. He was a mighty hunter in the eyes of Yahweh, hence the saying, 'Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter in the eyes of Yahweh'. The mainstays of his empire were Babel, Erech and Akkad, all of them in the land of Shinar.

Shinar is Sumer

Anyways, these do seem to be "SOME QUESTIONS" as to their exact heritage.

If the Adamic lineage was an accurate assessment, that would prove to be an interesting consideration

Noah is a Hebrew name.

Well No, It's an English Name. His name noted in the Gilgamesh Epic was Utnapishtim. His Hebrew name was Noach which means rest. You note his Sumerian name later.

Here's a refresher on those whom you had been an evil god over. www.ancienttexts.org...

And it is through Noah's son Shem, your "People" came from.

"The progenitor of all the Semitic races. The name, Shem, is rendered as Sumu in the Akkadian inscriptions."
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

And here's some alternative sites with some relevance to them.

www.wsu.edu:8001...
The Akkadians were a Semitic people living on the Arabic peninsula during the great flourishing period of the Sumerian city-states.

the hebrew language didn't exist until 1200BCE at which point the sumerian civilisation had been dead and buried for over 1500 years

The Rule moved over to the Akkadians, but the langage and people did not disappear. Their langage did infact spread the breath of the Mid East, even under Akkadian Rule.

and Marduk is a babylonian name. Bel Marduk is a babylonian god.

He was before Nebuchadnezzar turned his back on him and embraced the Lord God of Shadrak, Meshak, Abendigo and Daniel.

But he was "MORE" than just this.

NIMROD, MARS AND THE MARDUK CONNECTION
by Bryce Self
www.ldolphin.org...

The ancient Babylonian deity Marduk was associated with the planet Mars and was the origin of the legends and lore of that planet as well as many later gods and heroes. Marduk originated as the apotheosis of the biblical Nimrod. The book of Genesis lists Nimrod as a descendant of Ham, the third son of Noah........

It goes on to note

After establishing his kingdom in the Tigris/Euphrates region Nimrod consolidated his power by establishing a state religion. He constructed a religion that included deification and worship of the emperor (himself), worship of Satan and his demons, and star-worship (corrupted from a pure antediluvian astronomy).

And this was neat

It has been suggested that Nimrod spent some time in Egypt before moving up to Mesopotamia and that while in Egypt he studied the Egyptian mystery religion perpetuated there from before the flood by the wife of Ham, whom tradition takes to be a descendant of Cain.

And you have asked if I am Confused? What would ever give you the impression anyone figured this was confusing.

i expect that you think every kid in mexico called Jesus is the messiah as well ?

Come on, That's just assinine.

try and get a stronger grip on reality
your last post could well be entered in the A.M.A journal as evidence that psycological damage is a result of listening to too many priests

Hello, My Name is Shane. I am me. I have a grip.

You, your Name is Marduk. You are not you. You think I need a Grip? hmmmm

oh and in case you didnt realise it the sumerian version of Noah (i.e. the original) Ziusudra didn't have any children.

And thank you for confirming what I have been offering.

Who else but the decendants of Noah would have had the Original? Who's Tower of Babel was it that perversed the langage and caused the Babel/Confusion? Nimrod's. So no wonder the Langages and tales are similiar. Just expressed with alternative words and minor variances, but all meaning the same thing.

Still, it is argueable that maybe I have a grip, and the notation offered, Is valid.

What are your views outside of my diagnosis?

Ciao

Shane



So, All, would it be an interest to find out who these people really are.

Like I noted above, I'd like to know, and it would seem important if we all had the same facts inorder to make that decision, since there appears nothing concrete to thier background.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Shane
Where do you think the Sumerians come from? They are decendants of Noah

Heres a link referencing the matter, and at the Bottom, is an excellent reference map of the Region.
www.freemaninstitute.com...

Oh dear. You oughta take that link with a whole bucketload of salt.

And this is my point, I TAKE IT ALL, with the preverbal grain my friend. Even some of your thoughts are heaped within that same Bucket Byrd.

You see, I am not suggesting I have the Answers. I know how to look for things, and in this topic here, there is just such a mass of conflicting evidence, which could be looked at and compiled to wash away the babel and reveal the truth.

The Sumerians, who didn't think they were descended from Ham or Shemp or even Curly (but were made by the council of gods) were around before Noah. They were leaving each other little love notes in Akkadian for centuries before Noah got caught in the river when he forgot to stop and ask directions.

So, as amazing as this sounds from you, you have really no idea what it is you are noting here. Akkadians are from Shem, They are my Semetic Cousins.

Granted, Sumerians are possibly decendants of Adam, but is not Nimrod a Sumerian King? Nimrod is also a Decendant of Noah.

en.wikipedia.org...
Enmerkar, according to the Sumerian king list, was the builder of Uruk, and was said to have reigned for "420 years" (or 900 as some copies).

It adds that he brought the official kingship with him from the city of Eana, after his father Mesh-ki-ag-gasher, son of Utu, had "entered the sea and disappeared".

Enmerkar is also known from a few other Sumerian legends, most notably "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta", where a previous confusion of the languages of mankind is mentioned. Here, he himself is called 'the son of Utu' (Utu was the Sumerian Sun god). In addition to founding Uruk, he is said here to have had a temple built at Eridu.

David Rohl has claimed parallels between Enmerkar, (-KAR meaning "hunter"), founder of Uruk, and Nimrod the Hunter, founder of Erech (the Biblical name for Uruk) according to Genesis 10, and builder of the Tower of Babel in post-Biblical legends. Rohl has even suggested that Eridu near Ur was the original site of Babel, and that the incomplete ziggurat found there, by far the oldest and largest of its kind, are none other than the ruins of the Biblical tower.

So, this humourous retort, may infact have you caught in the river without a paddle.

And they were all speaking and writing the same languages (different than Hebrew) before and after Moses announced that his deity had gotten mad at everyone and sent a worldwide flood to wipe them out.

And again, OF COURSE THEY WHERE. We all spoke ONE langage once upon a time.

Again, NIMROD!!! Come on Byrd. You can not presume to reflect any crediblity if you are only willing to embrace some lore, while ignoring other. That's called denial, and that's not what ATS is about is it?

You have half a story to offer, but despite that half of a story encompassing these matters as well, you suggest those thoughts are for the Salt Shaker.

Biblical scholars say it didn't happen to Nebuchadnezzar; that this particular name has been mistranslated in the Bible. The real groveler-converter seems to be Nabonidus:
www.livius.org...

So I think the pagan deity will say "nice try, but Neb never converted!"

Well, I find more to support this than Nabonidus.

Who revived the Worship of Marduk? Nebuchadnezzer, under the suggestion of his advisors. Who is his son? Amel-Marduk, and named obviously in place of the Recently revived worship of Marduk.

What does Amel Do? Releases Jehoiachin, king of Judah, who had been a prisoner in Babylon for thirty-seven years
en.wikipedia.org...

He is replaced by Neriglissar

Neriglissar: king of ancient Babylonia, ruled 559-556.
www.livius.org...

Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 and was succeeded in by his son Amel-Marduk, who was almost immediately murdered and replaced by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who is probably identical to an officer of Nebuchadnezzar known from the Bible (Jeremiah 39.13) and had maried princess Kasšaya. The new king invaded Anatolia, was victorious in Cilicia, and -according to Chronicle 6- even crossed the Taurus in 557/556. King Appuašu was removed.

But in spite of his success, Neriglissar's reign was but brief. He was succeeded by his son Labaši-Marduk, who was immediately removed by a coup d'état by a powerful Babylonian nobleman named Belshazzar and several officers.

They put the old scholar Nabonidus on the throne.

The reason for this coup may have been that Neriglissar and his son were commoners - rich, certainly, but without noble blood.

Now what is it that God told Nebuchadnezzer about his kingdom.

Exactly what has transpired here. It would fall. This is just the account of that downfall.

No Byrd, I have said it before, and I will never stop saying it again and again. When faced with what a Scholar has to say, and what the Word of God has to say, I will always side with the Word of God. Scholars are selling THEIR OWN DOCTRINES, not the Scriptural Teachings.

So, Here are some consideration as opinions expressed. What say you for view and opinions?

Ciao

Shane

: Originally posted by Harte

: Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Alright enough is enough...

Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.

So of you read some material and think you know the truth of the matter, but you really don't. Just because an Egyptologist says soemthing is true doesn't mean that it is. Just because these 'experts' are the only show in town doesn't make them right.

Pardon me?

Please, Outerspacewhatever, "experts" are called "experts" for a reason. And though you're right that it "doesn't make them right," at least not all the time, it most certainly doesn't make them wrong.

It seems clear to me that the longer a person looks into a thing, the more that person has a chance to learn something about that thing. Now, looking deeply into Hancock's, Cremo's, vonDaniken's, Hapgood's, or Sitchen's books, will give you the opportunity to learn something alright. You'll have an opportunity to learn something about Hancock, Cremo vonDaniken, Hapgood and Sitchen.

It's the people that actually take the time to achieve the necessary goals that allow them to actually examine the artifacts, and hunt (and find) more artifacts, that are in the best position to theorize.

Come on my friend. Just becuase that is stated, does that make Donnolly an expert?

Anyone on Earth that disagrees with that logic is just blowing smoke.

Or maybe not exhaling

Byrd has shown herself to be extremely well informed on the subject of ancient civilizations. What, beyond your own ignorance, have you shown?

And yes, this is true. I completely agree, although it is SELECTIVE.

If you joined ATS "...in the interest of learning and talking and things...", then you've accomplished the last parts first. Please begin work toward accomplishing the first part.

I again agree with you Harte.

People, please contribute with your opinions. We need to see something other than just speculation based on your own views. Something that at least offers some direction to consider.

: Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Its amazing how little we know about ancient times, and even more amazing how much we claim to know based on conjecture, situation and circumstance.

What's amazing is that so many people that know so little about ancient times get so huffy when their parrotings of the pseudoscientific "theories" of admitted liars and con men are shot down by people that actually know a thing or two here on ATS.

: Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
For instance, a geologist says the Sphinx was made in 7,000bc or before, yet nobody will accept that because of the history current day man has laid out...doesnt matter if the history is accurate, it would be too much to switch things around and recognize the truth. Historians don't want history re-written, especially the dawn of civilization becuase it would ruin all the work they have done.

Schoch's estimate of the age of the Sphinx, which only applies to the front of the monument, incidentally, has other explanations. Are we to ignore these other explanations? Why? Because you like freckles?

I can not believe it, but again, your point ECHOS something I wish to also see. And I QUOTE "Are we to ignore these other explanations?"

What makes you say here that "nobody will accept that..."? Who is "nobody" and why do you believe this?

Historians have yet to write the history of Man. They have only written what has been deduced. But this is true of all history, even modern history. Besides, if "historians don't want history rewritten...." then why are historians still, to this day, rewriting history? What is the use of even being a historian if you don't want history rewritten? That's all historians do!

Maybe you should scout around this section of the site before you wade in shooting from the lip at an acknowledged expert in residence here. Think of it this way, you (or somebody) should come up with ideas that are not so easily disproven. Then perhaps the ideas won't be so quicklly dismissed.

Harte

And as surprising and "Difficult" as this may sound, your are 100% correct in this as well.

Your a Fine Linguist, or have a flair for that, and you also have some credible offerings to make in respects to this topic. I know this from the fun we have had, but let's make sure we do follow your comment.

AND I QUOTE AGAIN "Are we to ignore these other explanations?"

Give us what you know, or presume to believe. I would like to ensure EVERYTHING is offered to be considered.

Thank's Harte

Ciao

Shane



[edit on 19-8-2006 by Shane]

Sumer a derivative of Sumu, (Shem), in the Akkadian? (I am asking)

the akkadian version of Sumer is Shumer
it is Shumer that the Hebrew word Shinar is derived from
Sumer is never derived from Akkadian
Sumerian is its own language and Akkadian is derived from it and not the other way round because Akkad rose from the chaos that was mesopotamia after the fall of the sumerian civilisation
unless of course you are factoring in time travel to your research
the Akkadians are not descendants of Shem or any other fictional biblical character
and nimrod is also a gestalt entity

the name of Sumer itself is actually derived from the sumerian word SU.MIR
Red psd.museum.upenn.edu...
mythical snake psd.museum.upenn.edu...

note the sumerians never used this to describe themselves
they called their country KI.EN.GIR "the land of the civilised lords"

so it has nothing whatever to do with Noah, any of his sons or the Hebrew language none of which existed until more than 1500 years after the sumerians were all dead and buried
the sumerians were not semites, the land they occupied was a semitic homeland occupied by the semitic Ubaidian peoples who at that time were just starting to urbanise when they were taken over . over the years the semites began to outnumber the sumerians in their cities until Sumerian kingship ended with the rise of the semitic king Sargon the great.

the rest of your research appears to be based on the bible

Traditionally, the Book of Genesis was believed to be one of five books written by Moses, but the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship is that the book came into existence over several centuries and resulted from the blending of several traditions. One of those traditions probably took written form around 950 BCE. Another tradition probably took written form about 100 years later and was joined to the first around 725 BCE. Other traditions were added and the final written form of Genesis probably came into existence around 450 BCE.

www.eureka.edu...

The Epic of Gilgamesh
written around 2000 B.C.E. about a Mesopotamian king who lived around 2700 B.C.E.)

www.calstatela.edu...


the epic of Gilgamesh is over 1000 years older than the book of Genesis

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

as the bible is so late in the day it isn't relevant and should not be considered a historical document when contemporary accounts tell a completely different story
the sumerian flood for instance does not cover the whole earth but it is the original.
when you have read actual sumerian text without religious blinkers over your face you will realise this
when you learn to stop using Sitchin as a source i will maybe decide to enlighten you as to the real history of the country
when you learn not to insult me by pretending that I am a god and not a human being i might even like you
till then.............


[edit on 19-8-2006 by Marduk]

Originally posted by Marduk

Sumer a derivative of Sumu, (Shem), in the Akkadian? (I am asking)

the akkadian version of Sumer is Shumer
it is Shumer that the Hebrew word Shinar is derived from
Sumer is never derived from Akkadian
Sumerian is its own language and Akkadian is derived from it and not the other way round because Akkad rose from the chaos that was mesopotamia after the fall of the sumerian civilisation
unless of course you are factoring in time travel to your research
the Akkadians are not descendants of Shem or any other fictional biblical character
and nimrod is also a gestalt entity

Well maybe we are confusing each other.

First, Yes, Sumer is the Original thru which all else follows ( in specific to the Region).

The Akkadian example of Shem, which is Sumu in Akkadian, and part of their background, "Could be" suggestive of Sumer, in some way. Myself I do not buy this either, but is makes more sense than some fabrications to date. That was solely a question of the Word and if it could apply. Not to suggest it did.

I leave the Akkadians to deal with correcting this for you. Their own records confirm they are of Shem, SUMU, but who am I to question what THEY had to say as offered earlier.

www.wsu.edu:8001...
The Akkadians were Semites, that is, they spoke a language drawn from a family of languages called Semitic languages (the term "Semite" is a modern designation taken from the Hebrew Scriptures; Shem was a son of Noah and the nations descended from Shem are the Semites). These languages include Hebrew, Arabic, Assyrian, and Babylonian. After the final end of Sumerian power and civilization around 2000 BC, the area came under the exclusive control of Semitic peoples for centuries.

Richard Hooker

If we are having difficulties with terms, maybe we should see them being applied as above.

What else is there to say about this statement. Is this, in anyway inaccurate? I am asking here.

so it has nothing whatever to do with Noah, any of his sons or the Hebrew language none of which existed until more than 1500 years after the sumerians were all dead and buried the sumerians were not semites, the land they occupied was a semitic homeland occupied by the semitic Ubaidian peoples who at that time were just starting to urbanise when they were taken over . over the years the semites began to outnumber the sumerians in their cities until Sumerian kingship ended with the rise of the semitic king Sargon the great.

Now, here I feel it's you that are confused. Where does this ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE, come from? You have gone to great lenghts to even name him in other Cultures.

Noah predates Uruk.

Noah was not a Hebrew. Where does this nonsense come from. He is the Founder of many nations and peoples as we know them to this day. Obviously somethings change, but many are left, if you only look for them.

Abraham, who is seven generations removed from "Nimrod", or ten Generations from Noah is the father of the Tribes of Israel, (which are the Hebrew) as well as the 12 Kings thru Ishmiel

I am having no difficulties here my friend.

This is clearly expressed. This" King" of Sumer was Enmerkar who founded Uruk, was he not? He was the first to consoldiate the peoples in this region and start that "Civilization" with urban centers.

And thanks for the Linguistics, which I found quite interesting. Evidence of what I did not wish to really push, but evidence none the less. We've had that Adam, chat, and I trust we now agree that Adam, means Ruddy Complexion, and here, Su (red), mir (snake). Maybe it's the wrong Enoch. Maybe's it's Cain's Enoch.
The Red Son of the Serpent. Hmmmm

the rest of your research appears to be based on the bible

Actually if you took the time to review some other things I have posted, in other areas, I like to rely on Secular Reports and News. They are a good source of material. I will note the Biblical references as well for consideration, but I do not really need to rely solely on the Bible.

Traditionally, the Book of Genesis was believed to be one of five books written by Moses, but the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship is that the book came into existence over several centuries and resulted from the blending of several traditions. One of those traditions probably took written form around 950 BCE. Another tradition probably took written form about 100 years later and was joined to the first around 725 BCE. Other traditions were added and the final written form of Genesis probably came into existence around 450 BCE.
www.eureka.edu...

Well that's just wonderful.

Which came first?
www.answersingenesis.org...
Enemies of biblical Christianity assert that the biblical account borrowed from the Gilgamesh epic. Followers of Christ cannot agree. So in line with the Apostle Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 10:5, it’s important to demolish this liberal theory.

Genesis is older
It makes more sense that Genesis was the original and the pagan myths arose as distortions of that original account.

and it goes on

The Bible teaches that mankind was originally monotheistic. Archaeological evidence suggests the same, indicating that only later did mankind degenerate into idolatrous pantheism.

So with Archaeology as support, that should answer the concern you noted here. It is a Valid Concern, but nothing based upon fact surrounding the situation.

Although, not many will argue that the Sumarian Account is not the Oldest version recorded. It is, exactly that. Nothing more.

The Epic of Gilgamesh
written around 2000 B.C.E. about a Mesopotamian king who lived around 2700 B.C.E.)
www.calstatela.edu...

And Noah predates this.

the epic of Gilgamesh is over 1000 years older than the book of Genesis

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

as the bible is so late in the day it isn't relevant and should not be considered a historical document when contemporary accounts tell a completely different story
the sumerian flood for instance does not cover the whole earth but it is the original.
when you have read actual sumerian text without religious blinkers over your face you will realise this

And again, this means little, other than it was presented Orally to Moses, and recorded sometime after this in Text. The Hebrews became a New and Distinct group of people way, way after the event (12 Generations at least). In my humble estimation, the Events outlined in the Noah Story took place about 1500 to 2000 years prior to the Gilgamesh Epic, (5600 BC).

when you learn to stop using Sitchin as a source i will maybe decide to enlighten you as to the real history of the country
when you learn not to insult me by pretending that I am a god and not a human being i might even like you
till then.............

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Marduk]

Funny, I have never ever noted anything of Sitchen's, nor am I familiar with much of his work. Heard the Name, but that's about it.

And I'll lighten up on the Marduk remarks. You are being a good contributor and I appreciate your efforts.

I did say it was in fun of your evil moniker. It certainly can not be that your parents gave you that name. I used the one I was Given.

"Beloved by God" = Shane

Ciao

Shane

answersingenesis.com
roflmao

just for a minute there i almost took you seriously


[edit on 22-8-2006 by Marduk]

While I'm not going to be quite so light-hearted as Marduk, I agree with him that "Answers in Genesis" is one of the poorest Christian sites to use as a source in the search for truth in history.

Christian professors have written many rebuttals to his claims, including this one:
www.iscast.org.au...=%22christian%20%22answers%20in%20genesis%22%20full%20of%20errors%22

Other Christians, concerned about the errors in that site, set up the "No Answers In Genesis" site: home.austarnet.com.au...

Interestingly, this led to more outrage than if an athiest had set up "No Answers In Genesis.": jmm.aaa.net.au...

Now, if you're going to base your information on the Bible, you might do better to cite the Biblical Archaeology Society. www.bib-arch.org...

I'll be using them and their recommended resources in my replies to you.

Originally posted by Shane
Where do you think the Sumerians come from? They are decendants of Noah

The Sumerians were non-Semitic inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia who first invented the cuneiform script, used widely in the ancient Near East, and who created the earliest civilization known at present. Their culture was dominant in Mesopotamia from about 3500 to 2400 B.C. Though conquered by the Semitic ruler Sargon of Akkad (c. 2371–2316 B.C.), they continued to play an important role in Mesopotamian affairs until the end of the eighteenth century B.C. Most of the Sumerian literary texts from Nippur, including the flood tablet, were found in the archaeological layer belonging to the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur and the Isin-Larsa Period (c. 2113–1800 B.C.), but the myths the tablets record are almost certainly much older. They reflect social and governmental institutions which had disappeared among the Sumerians long before the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Thus, it is thought that an original Sumerian flood story provided the inspiration for the various Old Babylonian accounts (which in turn served as the models for the Assyrian versions). www.bib-arch.org...

First, they point out that the Sumerians are non-Semetic. Noah was Semetic. They can't be his descendants.

Second, they point out that the flood myth is not as old as the civilization itself.

And, although they don't point it out, had the Sumerians been descendants of Noah, there would be some trace of the Jewish religion in the Sumerian religious practices (because the presumed global flood would have wiped out all other religions and the only foundational religious ideas left would have been Noah's.

Sumer a derivative of Sumu, (Shem), in the Akkadian? (I am asking)

Doesn't seem to be.

I will only note now, some of the Ancient Sumerian Names of their Leaders "COULD" be constrewed to indicate Antideluvian Origins. Enoch, Enmduranki and Adapa, have very curious commonalities.

I think that's stretching things a bit.

"The progenitor of all the Semitic races. The name, Shem, is rendered as Sumu in the Akkadian inscriptions."
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Another site that perhaps you want to strike OFF your list of references. "Sumu" means "name" in Akkadian, and there were at least two rulers who had "Sumu" in their names. Niether was even vaguely like Shem in terms of history, descendants, and parentage:
usapedia.com...

Attempts to assign nations to the mythic sons have proved to be futile:
en.wikipedia.org...

After establishing his kingdom in the Tigris/Euphrates region Nimrod consolidated his power by establishing a state religion. He constructed a religion that included deification and worship of the emperor (himself), worship of Satan and his demons, and star-worship (corrupted from a pure antediluvian astronomy).

And this was neat

It has been suggested that Nimrod spent some time in Egypt before moving up to Mesopotamia and that while in Egypt he studied the Egyptian mystery religion perpetuated there from before the flood by the wife of Ham, whom tradition takes to be a descendant of Cain.

Neat, but doesn't match the facts. The story comes from a source called "Pseudo-Pilo" who seems to be recording gossip and legends from about 50 AD or so.
en.wikipedia.org...

"Satan" is not in the Bible. There was no concept of Satan to be worshipped.
members.bib-arch.org...=3fPubID=3dBSBR&Volume=3d6&Issue=3d6&ArticleID=3d8&UserID=3d0&< br />
The "mystery religion" idea comes from an even less reliable source.

Who else but the decendants of Noah would have had the Original? Who's Tower of Babel was it that perversed the langage and caused the Babel/Confusion? Nimrod's. So no wonder the Langages and tales are similiar. Just expressed with alternative words and minor variances, but all meaning the same thing.

The "similarity of languages" has only a limited application. The Semitic languages are similar to each other, but they are not similar at all (showing a common origin) to the language of the Australian Aborigines, the !Kung, the Japanese, etc, etc.

pretty good byrd
but biblical sources always underestimate the date of the start of the sumerian civilisation because it far outstrips Bishop Ushers best guess
the 3500bce is actually the start of the Uruk period and completely misses out the kings of kish of which there were 23 with at first seemingly silly life spans (sound familiar). If you want to know the main reason for that its because the sumerians used base 60 for recording time
so a recorded reign of 1200 years in base 60 is in fact just 20 years in base 10
which means that were a later race (guess) to copy the lengths thinking it was in base ten theyd make a lot of silly errors which ultimately means that Methusleh had just passed his 16 th birthday when he died
see here
www.amazon.co.uk...=sib_rdr_bc/202-2030102-1267039?ie=UTF8&p=S06C&j=0#reader-page

In this book Professor Woolley one of the worlds foremost archaeologists, shows quite clearly that when the egyptian civilisation began the civilisation of the sumerians had already flourished for 2000 years

3100BCE
+2000 years
--------
5100BCE
he does prove that as well quite significantly

this book was written by Sir Leonard Woolley a very devout christian who went to Sumer originally to find the flood and excavated more in the country than anyone else had before or since
when he got back home years later he never went to church again
and he never found the flood either.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by Marduk]

Byrd, you do know I like you eh? I enjoy our banter, and in a lot of cases your points are well made and lead to very good considerations that I would never have placed within the Topic for discussion. Things I would normally overlook.

But my friend. You are truly funny sometimes.

Originally posted by Byrd
First, they point out that the Sumerians are non-Semetic. Noah was Semetic. They can't be his descendants.

Nice statement, despite it being an OUTRIGHT LIE.

Noah was Adamic, not a Semite.

The desendants of Shem are Semites. and yes, the Sumerians are not decendants of Shem. (This is of course when you use your Curly, Larry and Moe humour)

Your Lack of understanding of the Bible amazes me, for someone who has a wealth of valuable insights and has obviously studied many things in life.

Unfortunately, the Bible seems to have been overlooked, either intentionally or just having not enough time as of yet. I truly hope it is just the latter.

Second, they point out that the flood myth is not as old as the civilization itself.

And, although they don't point it out, had the Sumerians been descendants of Noah, there would be some trace of the Jewish religion in the Sumerian religious practices (because the presumed global flood would have wiped out all other religions and the only foundational religious ideas left would have been Noah's.

Here again, YOU ARE INDICATING A FALSEHOOD.

Noah was Adamic. He is not Jewish. The Decendants of Judah, are Jewish.

Next you'll try to tell us the Israelites where Jewish. No they where Hebrews, who, Judah was part of. (1/12th to be somewhat accurate)

"The progenitor of all the Semitic races. The name, Shem, is rendered as Sumu in the Akkadian inscriptions."
www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Another site that perhaps you want to strike OFF your list of references. "Sumu" means "name" in Akkadian, and there were at least two rulers who had "Sumu" in their names. Niether was even vaguely like Shem in terms of history, descendants, and parentage:
usapedia.com...

8034 shem shame a primitive word (perhaps rather from 7760 through the idea of definite and conspicuous position; Compare 8064); an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character:--+ base, (in-)fame(-ous), name(-d), renown, report.

7760 suwm soom or siym [seem]; a primitive root; to put (used in a great variety of applications, literal, figurative, inferentially, and elliptically):--X any wise, appoint, bring, call (a name), care, cast in, change, charge, commit, consider, convey, determine, + disguise, dispose, do, get, give, heap up, hold, impute, lay (down, up), leave, look, make (out), mark, + name, X on, ordain, order, + paint, place, preserve, purpose, put (on), + regard, rehearse, reward, (cause to) set (on, up), shew, + stedfastly, take, X tell, + tread down, ((over-))turn, X wholly, work.

Shem (שֵׁם "renown; prosperity; name",
en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe you actually need to quit being closed minded, and stop picking and choosing, "Sites" based on what others have to say, and review them for yourself.
You would also have known Shem means Name. Just like the Akkadians noted.

Neat, but doesn't match the facts. The story comes from a source called "Pseudo-Pilo" who seems to be recording gossip and legends from about 50 AD or so.
en.wikipedia.org...

"Satan" is not in the Bible. There was no concept of Satan to be worshipped.
members.bib-arch.org...=3fPubID=3dBSBR&Volume=3d6&Issue=3d6&ArticleID=3d8&UserID=3d0&< br />
The "mystery religion" idea comes from an even less reliable source.

And this is just the thing Satan has worked in his ever devious way to instill in the mindset of people. He does not exist.

That is his greatest con thus far. And he has you spinning for him as well.

So be it.

Ciao

Shane

I am not about to pretend that I am any kind of an expert on most of this, but as far as The Epic of Gilgamesh is concerned, my newest novel comes out next month, and is centered around this story. One little piece I would like to contribute, that may perhaps put at least this piece of the puzzle into perspective, is that Utnapishtim in Hebrew spells out "He who walks as a pillar of righteousness". Just some food for thought, if you wish to consider that Gilgamesh predates Noah. We also have to consider the flood accounts themselves, and the descriptions of the arks, as well as the timeframes discussed. I've gone into this fairly deeply on several occassions and on several different threads.
Noah vs. Utnapishtim
This one goes into several different aspects of the conversation, and in many instances mirrors Shane and Marduk in their discussion. Including my theory of early Hebrew migrations as a nomadic people, and the similarities between theirs and the Phoenician languages. There is also a detailed article on the schematic comparisons of the two arks. Shane, I would recommend this thread if you are looking for other opinions

Originally posted by Marduk
pretty good byrd
but biblical sources always underestimate the date of the start of the sumerian civilisation because it far outstrips Bishop Ushers best guess
the 3500bce is actually the start of the Uruk period and completely misses out the kings of kish of which there were 23 with at first seemingly silly life spans (sound familiar). If you want to know the main reason for that its because the sumerians used base 60 for recording time

Yeah, I know.

I had better arguments, but in debating these things with very strong Christian believers, you have to use Biblical scholar resources. I agree that there are much better resources out there -- BAS was the best of the "Bible Only" sites.

Originally posted by Shane
Byrd, you do know I like you eh? I enjoy our banter, and in a lot of cases your points are well made and lead to very good considerations that I would never have placed within the Topic for discussion. Things I would normally overlook.

But my friend. You are truly funny sometimes.

Originally posted by Byrd
First, they point out that the Sumerians are non-Semetic. Noah was Semetic. They can't be his descendants.

Nice statement, despite it being an OUTRIGHT LIE.

Noah was Adamic, not a Semite.

Argue semantics with the biblical scholars and the Biblical archaeologists. They're the ones that I got the terms from.

Your Lack of understanding of the Bible amazes me, for someone who has a wealth of valuable insights and has obviously studied many things in life.

Unfortunately, the Bible seems to have been overlooked, either intentionally or just having not enough time as of yet. I truly hope it is just the latter.

I've read it more often than most Christians (cover to cover at least 8 times) and in a number of translations (I like the old KJV, but the New English Bible is also interesting.)

Here again, YOU ARE INDICATING A FALSEHOOD.
Noah was Adamic. He is not Jewish. The Decendants of Judah, are Jewish.

Really?

Then why was he practicing the Jewish religion?

Maybe you actually need to quit being closed minded, and stop picking and choosing, "Sites" based on what others have to say, and review them for yourself.
You would also have known Shem means Name. Just like the Akkadians noted.

Were you responding to someone else? I told you that "Shem" means "name."

And this is just the thing Satan has worked in his ever devious way to instill in the mindset of people. He does not exist.

Again, I linked to the Biblical Archaeology site. There were no ancient gods that resembled Satan. There's a lot of things written about Satan after the first century AD or so, however.

Shane, is it your position that, whenever there is a conflict between an assertion made in the Bible and a statement by some other authority, that other authority must always be wrong, because the Bible is always right?

If so, then why ask what the 'real story' is with regard to ancient history? Is it just a rhetorical question, thrown out to pique people's interest and attract them to this thread so you can educate them about the 'real answers' (which you have learnt from your study of the Bible)? Or are you asking it out of a genuine desire to add to your knowledge?

History is -- this is just a working definition off the top of my head -- the study of humanity's past. We know a great deal about the very recent past, but even with the massive body of recent historical knowledge at our disposal, there appears to be room for people to believe obvious falsehoods -- that the moon landings were faked, that the Holocaust never happened.

The truth is harder still to establish, and to defend once established, when we cast the net of inquiry further back through time, because our catch of fact necessarily becomes smaller. When we come to ancient history, the history of times 1500 years or more before our own, what we know is pretty limited. The 'real story' cannot always be established with certainty. This gives theorists (and fantasists) much greater imaginative latitude; it is far easier to deny the rape of the Sabine women than it is to deny the Holocaust.

However, the latitude is not infinite. It is bounded by a set of incontrovertible facts derived from the archaeological record as well as from contemporary documents that have survived and come down to us. These facts, and the theories that fit them, are what we know as 'ancient history'. This is the 'real story'.

If you really want to know what the 'real story' is, it isn't hard to learn. Take an adult-education course in history, or read a few books by 'real' historians. The information is widely and cheaply available. Ancient history is not a secret.

You will find, if you do this, that there is much in the Bible that historians have come to regard as true. That is because other sources of information confirm it. For example, we know that there really was a Temple of 'Diana' at Ephesus, the one in front of which Paul preached, because there is plenty of other evidence, both archaeological and documentary, for its existence. I believe they've even found a statue of the goddess, which looks pretty weird because it has about a dozen breasts.

Unfortunately, there are just as many things in the Bible that historians regard as untrue, because they are contradicted by the facts of the archaeological record or by other sources of proven reliability. For this reason, no genuine historian regards the Bible as an infallible historical authority.

If you're looking for 'the real story', I'm afraid you will have to seek it outside the Bible. Marduk and Byrd have been, in their different ways, pointing you in the right direction. But if you cannot accept that the story is different from the one you've read in the Bible and that the Bible, whatever its merits as a spiritual guide, is not a historical document, then you must continue to make do with legends and fantasies.

Originally posted by Shane

Neat, but doesn't match the facts. The story comes from a source called "Pseudo-Pilo" who seems to be recording gossip and legends from about 50 AD or so.
en.wikipedia.org...

"Satan" is not in the Bible. There was no concept of Satan to be worshipped.
members.bib-arch.org...=3fPubID=3dBSBR&Volume=3d6&Issue=3d6&ArticleID=3d8&UserID=3d0&< br />
The "mystery religion" idea comes from an even less reliable source.

And this is just the thing Satan has worked in his ever devious way to instill in the mindset of people. He does not exist.

That is his greatest con thus far. And he has you spinning for him as well.

So be it.

Ciao

Shane

When reading this part of your post it sounded too my that you are implying that satan had his hand in writing the bible to make people think that he doesnt exist.

How can it be if satan is not mentioned in the bible ? I always thought the bible was written by christians inspired by God and not satan , the devil etc.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Fett Pinkus]


[edit on 23-8-2006 by Fett Pinkus]

[edit on 23-8-2006 by Fett Pinkus]

There seems to be a bit of a problem with this thread - and that is Shane's assumption that Noah was a real person.

Just because he appears in a story based on a story based on a story based on (possible) real events does not mean that a person called Noah ever existed, nor that the events in the story occurred as told.

Robinson Crusoe was based on a real person. But no person of that name ever existed nor did the events described in the story ever actually take place. Albeit some similar experiences may have befallen the person on whom the charcter was based.

Thus it is with Noah. And, indeed, most of the other characters mentioned in the various stories of the Pentateuch.

If you accept the Pentateuch for what it is, you'll find it a lot easier to understand. It is to the Jewish people what Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britaian is to the British: a collection of origin myths and related stories, worked together into a linear narrative. Some may be loosely based on real people and real events but that is all. Such mythologies are common to most cultures.

To believe that Abraham and Noah and the events they experienced were real is akin to believing that Romus and Remus were suckled by a wolf and that Brutus the Trojan founded the city of London.

To prove such people existed and events occurred you will need to find colloborative evidence from outside the origin myth.

Thus it is with Noah

Andy
put the bible down and step away
it is starting to affect your syntax

Originally posted by Astyanax
Shane, is it your position that, whenever there is a conflict between an assertion made in the Bible and a statement by some other authority, that other authority must always be wrong, because the Bible is always right?

It's not quite this that is the problem.

The problem I am obviously having with many here is a simple matter of conception of a thought.

That being, There is an assumption, that say for example, The Gilgamesh Epic, or the Sumerian Accounts of the Flood when considered against the Biblical account, that there are differences that somehow equate plagerizism and theft of the concept, and that in someway, shape or form, the HEBREW accounts that came thru Abraham, and the Israelites via Moses, is a ripped off story.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, This is not accurate.

It is the recollection of the event, passed originally in an ORAL TRADITION, and at some point, when the intelligence reached a level to afford these VARIOUS PEOPLES that ability to utilized their own Written Practises, they recorded that Tradition.

Also there is the additional aspect that the Bible is a collection of Text, that only where produced in or around 1000 BC which therefore means the Sumerians or "Other Ancient Cultures" have the story and again the Bible is ripped from these other people's past.

Again, this is not accurate. The Bible is nothing more than the history according to the Hebrew People, (In the Written Form).

The Gilgamesh Epic is the same thing based of the Semetic People of mid east.

The Sumerians, again have this same story.

This is not a difficult thing to understand.

If so, then why ask what the 'real story' is with regard to ancient history? Is it just a rhetorical question, thrown out to pique people's interest and attract them to this thread so you can educate them about the 'real answers' (which you have learnt from your study of the Bible)? Or are you asking it out of a genuine desire to add to your knowledge?

It is these two things here

1: Based on the mass of Posts offered Here, and elsewhere, even including the seculatistic Christian Cults Sites, (that have a dogma and doctrine to protect], there seems to be a large amount of, IGNORANCE, about what is actually offered in the Bible, and told. So this is a difficult thing alone, from this point of view.

2: I would like to think we can all learn with a genuine desire to add to Our Knowledge. I am not Byrd, who has a good background in some topics, that relate to these things. I am not Harte, who seems to have Languages as an interest, and a good backgorund in Sciences, so some extent.

We can all learn something from each other.

But this does not occur, to the greater part, because in every topic, the same crap is spewed. Noah is a figment of Imagination. Sumerians started Everything, Curly Larry and Moe. Same arguements are offered continuously and never ending, and over and over again, the topics result in a clash, apposed to something constructive.

It is a situation where, nothing is accomplished to promote understanding.

Look, Byrd has offered above TWO very BAD THOUGHTS, based on Biblical Ignorance.

Noah is a Semite
Noah is a Jew

Noah was neither a Semite nor a Jew. He was perfect in his generations, (according to the Hebrew Texts), from Adam. He was Adamic. There were no Jews, and there were no Semites then.

1/3 of Noah's Grandchildren BECAME Semites, and 12 or 13 Generations later, we find our first Jewish People, along with another 11 Tribes that make up the Israelites, and also there are the 12 Kings of the Arabs Peoples thru Ishmael.

But, this is the problem. No one cares for the truth, as just noted, and in the weeks and months to follow, Byrd will again, and again, claim Falsehoods such as Noah was a Semite or Jew. Or that other cheeky response for the difficult thoughts. CHANNELED SOURCES.

Makes no sense to me.

But this is what is presumed by fairly intelligent individuals like Byrd. Makes we wonder sometimes Hmmmm

History is -- this is just a working definition off the top of my head -- the study of humanity's past. We know a great deal about the very recent past, but even with the massive body of recent historical knowledge at our disposal, there appears to be room for people to believe obvious falsehoods -- that the moon landings were faked, that the Holocaust never happened.

It would be much easier to think of things in this manner.

It is all HIS Story. Get IT? Hahahaha Christian Humour Hahahaha.

Just trying to lightenup, but your point is well made.

The largest problem is Dating, as far as I am concerned. Dating Noah for example, or Sumer, or Babylon, without any consideration of what they mean. The Hebrew Text was made in 1000 BC, or nearer 100 BC, so then it's wrong? This is not a truth, based on 1 very important thing. This was when there was Hebrews. There where no Hebrews in 3000 BC.

It's stupid things like this that deflect the conversation.

Unfortunately, there are just as many things in the Bible that historians regard as untrue, because they are contradicted by the facts of the archaeological record or by other sources of proven reliability. For this reason, no genuine historian regards the Bible as an infallible historical authority.

And this is interesting. Let's dwell on these. Give these examples, and lets review.
Look, Evolutionist's and Creationists have been at it for a while now, but the Creationists refuse to pickup a Bible to actually learn what it has to say. This is the Second Earth Age, we live in today. The first earth Age accounts for Dinosaurs according to Scripture.

And I WILL AGAIN STATE HERE. No side is Right. Christians are misled just as "Others" are. This is a fine example.

There is valid information within the Bible. Let's just look at it in an Honest Manner.

If you're looking for 'the real story', I'm afraid you will have to seek it outside the Bible. Marduk and Byrd have been, in their different ways, pointing you in the right direction. But if you cannot accept that the story is different from the one you've read in the Bible and that the Bible, whatever its merits as a spiritual guide, is not a historical document, then you must continue to make do with legends and fantasies.

And here is the kicker. I am not denying their Historical Commentary. I fully agree with what is offered by both of these individuals. There is just so much more that when considered, makes perfect sense. and furthers understanding of those Ancient Cultures.

It is the denial that the Bible also addresses these matter, in much the same way, but of course carries the perspective from those who followed GOD. It's information respecting these Ancient Matters that is just as valid, but not accepted by anyone.

Choosing Sources of Information in such a selctive manner seems intolerant. I hope that this can change.

But that remains to be seen

Ciao

Shane

I muist have flustered you my Dear,, since you posted this twice

Originally posted by Byrd
Argue semantics with the biblical scholars and the Biblical archaeologists. They're the ones that I got the terms from.

Well obviously they are not what they claim to be. Try asking me. I'll guide you to where the Bible makes references to a matter, and let YOU DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.

It is, (according to the Lore of Christians and Hebrews), a letter made just for you.

Do not, NEVER rely on someone else to tell you what is in the Bible, myself included. I'll go one step further than the Church. I'll offer an example of the thought, and you review the Context from where it came.

I've read it more often than most Christians (cover to cover at least 8 times) and in a number of translations (I like the old KJV, but the New English Bible is also interesting.)

Then I apologize for that comment, since I WOULD AGREE. YOU HAVE READ IT MORE TIMES THAN MOST CHRISTIANS.

I have a simple yes or no question. Are you One?

Then why was he practicing the Jewish religion?

The Jewish religion dwells upon symbolisms and very "Specific" Items for worship.
The Breast Plate
The Ark
The Whole temple Institute thing.
www.templeinstitute.org...

Noah did not worship like this. He would have kept the practises as Adam, and the balance of Sixth Day man kept. Even Cain followed these, until the Killer in him was loosened

And this is just the thing Satan has worked in his ever devious way to instill in the mindset of people. He does not exist.

Again, I linked to the Biblical Archaeology site. There were no ancient gods that resembled Satan. There's a lot of things written about Satan after the first century AD or so, however.

Granted, that is part of the New Testament. Whats your point? Christ had nothing to offer in respects to direction and guidance? I do not get what you are suggesting.

Exactly when did you expect Christian Teachings and Text to have discussed this, Prior to Christianity?

Much like the arguement you offer about Sumerians and Egyptians having things before the Hebrews. Of Course they did. They predate the Hebrews.

This is what you keep forgetting, for some reason. I just do not get it Byrd.

Anyways

If the Simple question above, was/is responded to in a positive manner, Ask God for Guidance and read it one more time JUST for Me. (King James 1611 Please. Not a King James, but the Original)

www.jesus-is-lord.com... For you!

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Fett Pinkus

When reading this part of your post it sounded too my that you are implying that satan had his hand in writing the bible to make people think that he doesnt exist.

How can it be if satan is not mentioned in the bible ? I always thought the bible was written by christians inspired by God and not satan , the devil etc.


[edit on 23-8-2006 by Fett Pinkus]

Your observations about what I have suggested is very accurate.

Your comment to the matter is not.

Can I ask you 1 Thing???

Who ever told you crap like this my friend. I mean you no disrespect and as is plainly seen, even people I like and respect have said stupid things like the following:

Originally posted by Byrd
"Satan" is not in the Bible. There was no concept of Satan to be worshipped.

And now you ask. "How can it be if satan is not mentioned in the bible ?"

Satan is referenced first in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and last in Revelation 20:7.

I can not quite makeout the number exactly, but I would hazzard to estimate it exceed 50 Times.

Now, How is it, Satan is references 50 Times or more "SPECIFICALLY", but questioning like this, can occur?

Ignorance of the Bible.

And I can assure you, Byrd has read it 8 times.

Just here in the Topic, that is her claim, but obviously, she is misleading people with intent, or being mislead by things she refers to as Scholars.

I would call them Wolfs, but I would be paraphrasing God.

Anyways, it is always nice to see, Biblical Knowledge is something NO ONE IS CONCERNED ABOUT, yet Spewing Biblical Ignorance is all the rage.

Hows that for Denying Ingorance.

Ciao

Shane

Edit: There are 54 References to Satan in the KJV 1611 Bible. (19 Old Testament, ALL Strongs Hebrew word #7854, 35 New Testament, ALL Strong's Greek Word #4567)

In Hebrew

7854 satan saw-tawn' from 7853; an opponent; especially (with the article prefixed) Satan, the arch-enemy of good:--adversary, Satan, withstand.

And the Root

7853 satan saw-tan' a primitive root; to attack, (figuratively) accuse:--(be an) adversary, resist.

And in the Greek

4567. Satanas sat-an-as' of Chaldee origin corresponding to 4566 (with the definite affix); the accuser, i.e. the devil:--Satan.

And the Root

4566. Satan sat-an' of Hebrew origin (7854); Satan, i.e. the devil:--Satan. Compare 4567.

Just to clear THAT UP.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Shane]

Oh and I found some of his other associated names covered nicely as well in the Greek.

476. antidikos an-tid'-ee-kos from 473 and 1349; an opponent (in a lawsuit); specially, Satan (as the arch-enemy):--adversary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
623. Apolluon ap-ol-loo'-ohn active participle of 622; a destroyer (i.e. Satan):--Apollyon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
954. Beelzeboul beh-el-zeb-ool' of Chaldee origin (by parody on 1176); dung-god; Beelzebul, a name of Satan:--Beelzebub.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
955. Belial bel-ee'-al of Hebrew origin (1100); worthlessness; Belial, as an epithet of Satan:--Belial.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1228. diabolos dee-ab'-ol-os from 1225; a traducer; specially, Satan (compare 7854):--false accuser, devil, slanderer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2190. echthros ech-thros' from a primary echtho (to hate); hateful (passively, odious, or actively, hostile); usually as a noun, an adversary (especially Satan):--enemy, foe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2725. kategoros kat-ay'-gor-os from 2596 and 58; against one in the assembly, i.e. a complainant at law; specially, Satan:--accuser.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2888. kosmokrator kos-mok-fat'-ore from 2889 and 2902; a world-ruler, an epithet of Satan:--ruler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3789. ophis of'-is probably from 3700 (through the idea of sharpness of vision); a snake, figuratively, (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, especially Satan:--serpent.

In the Hebrew, there are no associated terms of reference applied for Satan.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by Shane]