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.

 

Ancient History, what is the real story?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Thank you, Shane. Your position is now clear.

The Bible is your ultimate historical authority. Whether or not you will accept a particular view or interpretation of history depends, ultimately, on whether or not it accords with Holy Writ -- though I'm sure you're willing to leave some room for interpretation.

Moreover, the events recounted in the Bible are real and immediate to you. You regard Biblical characters like Noah as you would flesh-and-blood people whose words and deeds are full of personal meaning; you respond to them as though they were members of your personal community, people with whom you interact every day. Some of them are your friends or heroes and you react to a slight against them as you would to an offence against yourself or a member of your immediate family; others, no doubt, are adversaries, wicked folk whose comeuppance you regard, if not with pleasure, then at least with a certain Christian satisfaction.

Less admirably, their ethnicity is also important to you. Noah mustn't be a Jew -- he has to be 'Adamic', or 'perfect' -- I quote your use of the word. Is the implication that Jews are somehow imperfect? Never mind. I don't really want to hear the answer.

What it all adds up to is that no-one debating a point with you can have recourse to any other authority save the Bible (except, of course, where that authority supports what the Bible says). Byrd has understood this, hence her decision to support her statements only with material from Bible-related sites. But even this isn't working, because Biblical support for an argument is only acceptable when the interpretation accords with yours (you speak repeatedly about Christians who don't 'get it').

I wonder if you realize that this means you can only discuss anything with people who agree with you (allowing, once again, some room for interpretation with regard to minor points)? And that, as far as anyone who subscribes to a different viewpoint is concerned, there's really no point arguing with you at all?

The 'real story' is still out here, waiting for you.

But with that outlook, you're never going to hear it.




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Thank you, Shane. Your position is now clear.


And your welcome.


The Bible is your ultimate historical authority. Whether or not you will accept a particular view or interpretation of history depends, ultimately, on whether or not it accords with Holy Writ -- though I'm sure you're willing to leave some room for interpretation.


No, it's also a Historical Authority as valid as anyother. It is afterall, telling the same story quite accurately as Marduk and Byrd denotes from their own sources, and they view as authorative.


Moreover, the events recounted in the Bible are real and immediate to you. You regard Biblical characters like Noah as you would flesh-and-blood people whose words and deeds are full of personal meaning; you respond to them as though they were members of your personal community, people with whom you interact every day. Some of them are your friends or heroes and you react to a slight against them as you would to an offence against yourself or a member of your immediate family; others, no doubt, are adversaries, wicked folk whose comeuppance you regard, if not with pleasure, then at least with a certain Christian satisfaction.


I regard the Bible at a Source of Information with as much relevance as any other "Source" of information.

I do regard those denoted in the Bible, with that same regard as those depicited by Hawass in Egypt, or by archaeologist, in other areas. There is also the point that many of those "Legendary Finds" of importance in the understanding of Mankind have come thru the details depicited in the Bible. It has a record of being an accurate tool in Archaeology, in many cases, so whats the problem?

But there is something that is missing and overlooked still. It's who people are.

It's nice to see Cyrus made a cylinder in 3000 BC. Thats just Cyrus's account of things. It's his narrow application of his recollections, and reflects specifically to this alone. It is nice to see the Sumerian and Akkadians and Babylonians as well, have the recollections.

But they are all related, and interwoven from the Past, for which, it seems there is no account of.

This was where I wished to push this topic, since it seems to be a DEAD END from "Current" Mainstream Understandings.

This is where Ms Byrd, and her expertise is being sought.
This is where Harte, and his Sumerian Comments and understanding, needs to be brought into the theme.
EdenKaia, is an extremely bright person, and has placed some of the best posts in this Forum.
This is where others, with interests and knowledge can discuss it as well.
Uncle TAZ, if he ever finds this topic, would certainly WAKE up the Crowd.
Marduk, has a good grasp on many matters in relations to this.

NONE OF WHICH I HAVE INDICATED IS NOT VALID.

BUT NO, Everyone (excuse me, YOU haven't), wishes to make misleading and incorrect statements based on heresay and fables about the Bible, which should not be allowed for.

I can not expect to say the Egypt, was a totally differ group of people in 8000 BC than what "Today" Hawass and Byrd and others believe them to be. That is heresay. It is not correct. According to Byrd, the "RECORDS" show differently.

But applied from Biblical Stand Point, these same things do not apply? Anyone can say anything, becuse they have a mouth, and if I happen to know differently, I can not express it without being seen as intolerant?

Excuse me, but that is Ignorant. According to the BIBLE, the "RECORDS" show differently. And many wish to jump down my neck for pointing out those errors.

That is a biased onesided view that does not assist in understanding anything.

But you, my friend, have been quite polite and eloquant in your expressions, and I understand what it is you are saying.

I can assure you this, I am not Narrow Minded. I have a great many things that I find very interesting, and would love to understand better. I would really like to know who built "THE GREAT PYRAMID".

The "Other Pyramids" are a great feat in themselves, and my friend Harte and I are awaiting the Tunnels to be excavated since they seem to think Imotep maybe located. But these are all similiar to eachother. The Great Pyramid is not. It is the closest thing on this planet ever constructed, that was PERFECT.

I would like to know who built Stonehedge. I believe it was a Clock, and told the Time of the Seasons and the Ages. Other seem to believe it was a Religious Center. Many things here, could be considered.

The Iranians are finding lot of things in their lands today. Centers that point to some of their Zoroasterian lore.

And then there is Atlantis.

This is all fascinating. Interesting. Exciting.

What does this have to do with suggesting Noah is a figment of imagination, that had no bearing on things.

What the Bible offers about Noah is not very much in the long run.

Here's my take on Noah.

He was the King of the Minoans. Thats what I keep finding when I look at this topic, but I leave that for further investigation and a "understanding" of the Minoian Scripts to Claim someday soon.

See now here is something anyone can argue, since there is no evidence SPECIFICALLY saying so, but to twist the concept of the Lineage to suggest Noah was somehow a Son of Judah, is a strtetch. 13 Generations After Noah, and now he is no longer the son of Lamech, but of Judah, is simply not recorded in the Bible.

This is similiar to the Semetic premise.

This is course much closer to Noah, since Shem was one of his sons, but how does Noah, become a Semite?

Or do those from Ham, suggest he was Hametic, or Japethic, if the other son is thrown in there?

It just does not record, anywhere in the Bible, that Noah was a Semite or Jew. That is all that is being replied to, since this is wrong. According to the Bible.

And Scholars mean nothing. They are selling their own meal ticket. They have mouths and open them. They rarely, "In the Cases of Biblical Scholars" even use the Bible, since they have their "Concerns" that overide the Scriptures.

If someone wishes to make a claim that the Bible says, when it does infact NOT, or as in the case of "Satan" not being mentioned in the Bible, when infact he is, 54 Times in Specific, and countless others in associated terms, then this need to be addressed, so "Others" can know this and not continue to mislead, (as noted earlier) with intent, or through ignornace.

Anyways, Thanks for your comments and the time your took to make them. Have a good day.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   


It is afterall, telling the same story quite accurately as Marduk and Byrd denotes from their own sources

now you are putting words in my mouth Shane
the bible does not tell anything accurately at all in comparison to the sumerian original
Eden in sumerian is a descriptive term not an actual place
Adam is a descriptive term and not an actual person
Satan is a phrase and not an actual personality
the flood in sumerian stories was not global
the Ark in sumerian stories was not made of wood
Heaven in Sumer is a mountaintop not some place in the sky above our heads
there is no hell in sumer it is called the underworld and is situated to the east (geographers should be able to figure that one out)

the only thing that is at all similar is God
in sumer they called him Enlil
in Judaism he is YHWH
in christianity he is Jehova
but in all cases he is depicted in the robe with the beard


but basically at the end of the day he was based on a series of very human kings
so by claiming to be a person of faith you are in fact placing that faith in a long dead aristiocratic pagan



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShaneNo, it's also a Historical Authority as valid as anyother. It is afterall, telling the same story quite accurately as Marduk and Byrd denotes from their own sources, and they view as authorative.


Actually, no, it doesn't. It tells one set of beliefs but they often don't match the historical records. Witness the problem in trying to identify "the" Pharaoh of the "exodus."


I do regard those denoted in the Bible, with that same regard as those depicited by Hawass in Egypt, or by archaeologist, in other areas. There is also the point that many of those "Legendary Finds" of importance in the understanding of Mankind have come thru the details depicited in the Bible. It has a record of being an accurate tool in Archaeology, in many cases, so whats the problem?


Actually, it isn't considered an accurate tool in archaeolgy. It suggests places that people are interested in digging... but so do any other ancient texts.


It's nice to see Cyrus made a cylinder in 3000 BC. Thats just Cyrus's account of things. It's his narrow application of his recollections, and reflects specifically to this alone.

That specific one, yes. But there are also accounts from other people and there's the records that were written AFTER his death, and archaeological evidence that supports the account or other variations of it.


This was where I wished to push this topic, since it seems to be a DEAD END from "Current" Mainstream Understandings.


It's a continuously growing and expanding field. History is hardly dead. What we find is that no one source... not modern nor ancient... has the full truth.


But applied from Biblical Stand Point, these same things do not apply? Anyone can say anything, becuse they have a mouth, and if I happen to know differently, I can not express it without being seen as intolerant?


You can, but you have to dismiss a lot of other records, including the Midrash; the Jewish commentaries on the Old Testament. This is one area where the Biblical Archaeological Society differes from the literalist Christians. You also have to accept that the changes made to the original Jewish texts to turn them into the Old Testament and the narrow selection of books are "corrections" that fix errors in the original texts.

This is a bit of a contradiction, because if it was "god-given" then it should have been right the first time and not needed correction by the Christians.
www.crivoice.org...


He (Noah) was the King of the Minoans.


That really contradicts what's in the Bible.


It just does not record, anywhere in the Bible, that Noah was a Semite or Jew. That is all that is being replied to, since this is wrong. According to the Bible.


Apparently there's some misunderstading of these terms.


[edit on 25-8-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
...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.


Well, now I'm offended!


Curly is "crap?"
The way you defame Curly here, you certainly aren't me!

Shane, thou shalt not take the name of Curly my Lord and God in vain, you elitist snob! Moe? Okay, even soitanly. Larry? Eh, whatever. But what did Curly ever do to deserve such treatment? By all accounts he was a wonderful man, a family man, a ladies man (believe it or not.) And he made me laugh until I saw burning wheels within wheels, and a beast with ten heads arose up out of my recliner and handed me a beer, or maybe it was nectar.

A Curly reference is a welcome reference. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!


Originally posted by Shane
The largest problem is Dating, as far as I am concerned. Dating Noah for example...


Yeah, dating sometimes was a problem for me too. But then I got married and that issue became moot. But I can see where dating Noah could be a problem. I mean, I know some young chicks dig the older guys and everything, but, let's face it. Noah didn't have the money required for such dalliances.


Originally posted by Shane
It's stupid things like this that deflect the conversation.


Oops! I typed the above before I saw this part. Guilty as charged!


But seriously, I did get what you were trying to say about Noah not being Jewish. It's just that my belief goes a step farther, that's all. My belief is that not only was Noah not Jewish he wasn't even real!

Of course, that's just my opinion. You're welcome to yours as well, as I'm sure you know.

Harte



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Wow I got so tired reading this tread I feel like death. This tread has some good points and insights on really interesting stuff. What I got from it is that many people have many interpretations of “ancient history”. It would be cool if those interested who had something to say started their own tread with their view and why they think it is the way they say it is. Since no one is going to have the “real truth” we can at least clarify to people that come in to read what we THINK is how things went down.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   


What I got from it is that many people have many interpretations of “ancient history”

this thread if it tells you anything at all should tell you that there are two versions of ancient history
1) the biblical version propunded by people that don't know anything
2) the true version propounded by people that do

apart from anything else the bible with a compilation date of around 650bce isn't in fact ancient.
so in this case it is totally irrelevant




posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I guess it really depends how you see the bible. I think those that see it as a “historical book” are in a grave mistake because it is not its goal. The bible is a book of faith and not of science or history. However it does make claims about historical events, but it is not concerned if you agree with it or not, if it did the authors would have gone to much greater lengths to “prove” what they are saying is accurate.

That being said we can’t rule out it being wrong, but if we want to use it as “proof” as anything historically we often find ourselves trapped.

And to think that anyone anywhere KNOWS anything about the past is making a really bad mistake. If we don’t know of the real facts of today with all technology we have imagine facts that took place 4000+ years ago.

What I like to see if good healthy discussion and ideas of how things happened.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   


the authors would have gone to much greater lengths to “prove” what they are saying is accurate.

The Authors were saying that YHWH is the one true god and that anyone who isn't a strict religious Jew is going to hell
they did their very best to prove that was true
to themselves
which religion are you Licio ?
because you either agree that they were correct in which case you should immediately convert to judiasm and have a certain painful operation or you are going to hell



That being said we can’t rule out it being wrong,

It has been proved wrong over and over again


And to think that anyone anywhere KNOWS anything about the past is making a really bad mistake

ok so historians and archaeologists are all talking out of their asses or the truth is Licio that you don't know anything a great deal about the past do you
have you heard of Occhams razor ?

making claims like Nebuchadrezzar was more influential than Sargon the great and thinking that the bible can't be disproved clearly shows you have a huge flaw in either your logic or your belief system or your knowledge base
just recently the catholic church itself has admitted that parts of the bible are wrong
www.timesonline.co.uk...

in other words
historians archaelogists and the church say the bible is wrong
and you are in a minority of one saying it isn't ?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I don’t know why you want to know what religion I am, shouldn’t that be irrelevant? Who said that I am religious at all?
The “authors” are claiming spiritual laws, they are saying that what happens in the physical world is only a result from spiritual world. They can be right and they can be wrong right? They or anyone can’t prove to me or anyone anything spiritual, for the simple fact that it is spiritual.
A lot of people think they have disproved the bible and that’s fine by me, people can have their opinion and I respect them as I expect people to respect mine.
I just think that “the truth” will never be know, because if we cant know the truth about that happens today how can we pretend to think we know what happened so long ago? If you want to believe in archaeology over the bible or the bible over archaeology good for you. And if “Occam's razor” should be applied to discredit the bible then don’t use it on your “ancient history view”. I just think forcing your view on other people goes against the principles of this website.
But going back to the tread; I just thought it would be cool to have anyone that care to explain how they “think” ancient events went down. We are probably not going to be able to establish “the truth”, but I just like to know people’s views on the subject, since a lot of people have really interesting views.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
the bible isn't about spiritual law
its about YHWH
did you actually read it to get that wrong ?



I just think that “the truth” will never be know, because if we cant know the truth about that happens today how can we pretend to think we know what happened so long ago? If you want to believe in archaeology over the bible or the bible over archaeology good for you.

the truth is known
YHWH didn't exist
he is a supernatural middle eatern cult figure, nothing more
science has eliminated him
for you not to know that you have to ignore all the evidence to the contrary
you may have heard that to believe in the word of God you have to have faith
i.e. don't believe all the evidence to the contrary because it is overwhelming



posted on Aug, 30 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
the truth is known
YHWH didn't exist
he is a supernatural middle eatern cult figure, nothing more
science has eliminated him

Tetragrammaton will get you for that one, Marduk!

Harte



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   


Tetragrammaton will get you for that one, Marduk!

pfft

Tetragrammaton nothing
you can't even say it

en.wikipedia.org...

i bet only the biblical scholars will get that one eh



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I really like the information on this subject in two books by David Rohl, A Test Of Time and Legend. He makes a good case for a way to rectify the date difference between Egyptian and Biblical timelines. Also, he gives some theories on Sumerian history and proposes that they migrated to and founded the Egyptian civilization. I don't know how correct he is, but he offers lots of information. As far as who preceded who, my view is that the Hebrews borrowed quite heavily from Sumerian mythology while they were there. They got the garden of paradise story, the earthling hybrid 'Adam', the flood story, and the seven day week while there. That is just my take on it. I don't think it is that big a deal who came first, except for the purposes of accuracy. The Bible tells of Abram leaving Ur (Sumer), and eventually settling in the middle east by way of Egypt. The three civilizations were no strangers. They were, in my view, kin, intermarrying with each others royal families, ie Moses, Joseph.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
the bible story is just that
A story
the bible says that Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees.
Chaldea didn't exist until almost 800 years later
the bible says that Abraham lived to be 175 years old
this is clearly impossible as are all the ages of the biblical patriarchs
the fact that on the sumerian king list some kings are listed as having reigned up to 1200 years is the reason that these claims were made to start with
it runs along the lines of
"ok if the sumerian kings of kish could live for hundreds of years then we can claim that our kings (pariarchs) did the same"
the problem of course comes when you realise as any sumerologist could tell you that the dates on the sumerian king list were recorded in base 60
when the Hebrews were writing their bible around 650bce they didn't know this
here is an excerpt from the sumerian king list of the first three kings of the dynasty
Kiš
Ĝušur ruled 1200 years
Kullassina-bēl ruled 960 years
Nanĝišlišma ruled 670 years

1200 in base 60 is in fact 20 in base 10
so adjusting the dates to base ten would show the list like this
Kiš
Ĝušur ruled 20 years
Kullassina-bēl ruled 16 years
Nanĝišlišma ruled 11 years
nobody told the Hebrew scribes this as they were writing almost 2000 years after these dates were recorded. when Sumer collapsed around 2800bce the akkadian empire took over and the akkadians were semites and used semitic base ten for recording their kings reigns


this means of course that the oldest man in Hebrew history
Genesis 5:27: "And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died"
Methuselah who reached the age of 969 years was in fact a little over 16 years old when he died.
so as you can see the lives of the patriarchs were fictitious accounts based on a misunderstanding of an accounting system used by the sumerians whose mythology they heavily plaguiarised to fill their holy book with a cosmology that they up until that point didn't have. this is the reason why when you read the old testament you discover that every story that isn't derived from Mesopotamian mythology is actually set there with the one exception being the exodus account which most reasonable people regard as fictitious anyway

it is well known by everyone reading this and most of the people in the world that the sumerians used base 60 for measuring time
it was after all the sumerian system of recording time that we still use today
with 60 minutes in each hours and 60 seconds in each minute





[edit on 2-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
'the bible says that Abraham lived to be 175 years old
this is clearly impossible as are all the ages of the biblical patriarchs '
Marduk
I disagree. There is a record in China of a herbalist master who died in the late 1700's at the age of 256. I don't necessarily accept methuselah et al, but I don't say 175 is impossible.
The bible likely contains many embellished, editted, and fabricated stories. It also contains events and people who are also recorded in other places, and for whom we have physical evidence today to support the claim that they existed.
Dates and ages of figures from the days of Abram are almost sure to be off a bit, at least, and maybe even by centuries.
Or on the other hand, Ur could have had a different name previously and when the name changed the account was updated to express the new name of the place where he originated. Thats just my pure speculation and may be totally wrong. But, I don't discount all of the bible because of some inaccuracies. and that goes for the Quran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita, etc.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   


I disagree. There is a record in China of a herbalist master who died in the late 1700's at the age of 256.

well unless you can prove that he was actually that old then i think i'll take that with a pinch of salt
the human body is very well known to science
very few people are capable of walking without the aid of a stick after they reach a century let alone running around the desert proclaiming the power of the lord as is claimed for abraham
the city of Ur did exist before it was taken over by the chaldean empire around 900bce
but the writers of the bible didn't know that did they
or they would have pointed it out.
they did for other cities in different areas like for instance when they point out that the city of heliopolis used to be called the city of On where they were claiming that they build it in exodus 11:1.
it was renamed Helipolis by the greeks so they were well aware of the change of name.
what they didn't realise in that case was that the city of On was completed well before the israelites were claimning they were in egypt

so it is a story loosely based on the evidence at hand
and the fact that the other biblical patriarchs of which there are 23 in total all have ages older than Abraham should tell you something smells dodgy
especially when you realise that there were also 23 sumerian kings of Kish
all of whom had their lengths of reign recorded in base 60
a method of accounting that fell into disuse well before the Hebrews existed so that they were not aware of it

the other little detail that both Abraham and his only son Ishmael are actually recorded as kings of Isin in the sumerian kings list kinda destroys the fact that they were out doing the work of YHWH when the sumerian records depict them doing the work of Enlil and never leaving home
the claim that Isaac was saved from being barbecued by his father because a goat got caught in a thicket is also another indicator of the fabrication of the whole story
see the goat caught in the thicket was excavated by Sir Leonard Wololley during the 1920s

it is a statue

and it was found in a sumerian tomb
in the royal cemetary of sumerian Ur



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
quote:
I disagree. There is a record in China of a herbalist master who died in the late 1700's at the age of 256. BG13

'well unless you can prove that he was actually that old then i think i'll take that with a pinch of salt ' marduk

Of course I can't prove it, and even if I could, why should I? It doesn't matter enough to me whether or not you are convinced. I'm not sure it's true, but there is lots of literature on it. He didn't have a US or UK birth certificate so he won't be going into the Guinness book anyway.

To me, it is possible. He was said to be a vegetarian who conserved his strength to an extreme degree, only travelling the distance from his room to his classroom and back, and only eating a very small amount of certain leafs and herbs a day. Take it with a pinch of salt by all means. And thanks for all the information, you clearly know much more about ancient Sumer than I do.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   


To me, it is possible. He was said to be a vegetarian who conserved his strength to an extreme degree, only travelling the distance from his room to his classroom and back

vegetarians usually die much younger than their carnivorous fellows
but considering he only went from one room to another his whole life i think if he did live that long he probably regretted it every day

hint might help if you actually mentioned his name ??


[edit on 2-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
vegetarians usually die much younger than their carnivorous fellows
but considering he only went from one room to another his whole life i think if he did live that long he probably regretted it every day


lol. I wouldn't enjoy that life myself. I climb mountains and such, which is likely to shorten my life, but that is okay with me. Rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead. As for the lifespan comparison, that is interesting. I have known some very old and healthy vegetarians. In reading about this herbalist I recall that he said eating meat makes the blood angry. Sounds about right. Many vegetarians have chronically nutritionally deficient diets. It is a diet that requires a lot of knowledge to follow and still get all your vitamins, minerals, etc.
That said, if you do know what you're doing, you don't have to be anemic to be a veggie. I'm not one, just for the record, but lived with one for five years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join