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.

 

Are Myths True?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Depends upon who you ask, Sofi.

If you ask Aristotle or Socrates, they will give you two different interpretations of what "truth" is.

Personally, there is no "truth" but that which you take/view/percieve/acknowledge as "truth."

In short: "truth" is a matter of perception, and since 'perception' is relative, it boils down to personal opinion that makes "truth." Math is governed by rules, thus its version of truth is absolute and sure, only changing when the rules are changed.

All this is like asking: Can God change the rules of Chess?
Answer: Sure He can, but in doing so, the original game of Chess changes> Chess is no longer called 'Chess' but 'Chess01,' etc.




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


Originally posted by soficrow

What is truth?



Depends upon who you ask, Sofi.





lol

It was a cheap question I know, but it had to be asked and you did set it up nicely.




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
like the poster on Agent Mulders X-Files office proclaims; I Want To Believe



I know as an adult, & mildly sophisticated person, that Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and ToothFaries are Myths...so what's the harm?

Myths, have a value beyond 'Truth' or Fact/Fiction
myths serve a beneficial purpose, on many levels, and throughout our lives.

Atlantis, NWO, Bigfoot, UFO, Stargates and all the other conspiracies discussed here may well be myths,
true or not is just one important point, its also the journey, discovery, and the sharing the myth which may lead to each individuals growth & their personal views & values in life.

[whoa...that sounded weird]
so i'm adding imho



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio

true or not is just one important point, its also the journey, discovery, and the sharing the myth which may lead to each individuals growth & their personal views & values in life.

[whoa...that sounded weird]
so i'm adding imho



No St Udio, that did not sound weird.

imho.


...So is the journey to find truth more important than the 'truth' one might find?


???



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I think that ancient legends may be stories from the far past that are based in some reality. Think of all the cultures that have the flood myth. I believe that something happened in our distant past for so many cultures to have this flood myth.

The problem with ancient stories is how many times they may have changed before they were first written down. In theory when we write down a story, it should become static...as in the main points not changing. Some future historian could reference our story and keep the facts straight.

But what happens to a story that is passed down from generation to generation. After the death of the last person to live through the event the story tellers no longer have anyone to correct them if the "facts" drift a little.

Hence we have floods that covered the entire earth... Where is all that water now?



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I think that ancient legends may be stories from the far past that are based in some reality.

Hence we have floods that covered the entire earth... Where is all that water now?




Hmmm.

Locked in ice at the poles?

Maybe?



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
1. I am NOT claiming that Gilgamesh rebuilt human civilization. I am saying that his own record makes the claim.


Just to clarify this:

Gilgamesh and Fu Hsi: Similarities

1. Both were human-God hybrids according to the myths, and kings in their time.

2. Both ruled after a mythical flood.

3. Both were responsible for re-building human civilization.


Moving on.


Agreed, and obviously, Uruk is not the whole of civilization.
I'm just saying Gilgamesh spun it that way.


He didn't, you are misreading the passage. I agree with Marduk. You have to take the entire passage in flow. The author is stating that Utnapishtim rebuilt human civilization. And on a less imperative note, the King Gilgmesh that ruled around 2700 B.C. would not have written this epic, as the tablets are not dated that far back. We know that the earliest recording of this story would have been in Sumerian around 2000 B.C. That's 700 years after Gilgamesh was supposed to have reigned. The most complete version we have for this story is the Akkadian 12 tablet set written by Shin-eqi-unninni. These were found in the ruined library of Nineveh, where Ashwbanipal had been King of Assyria around 650 B.C. I believe the city was destroyed thirty or forty years later by the Persians, which is why the tablets are damaged.



The point is that we have no idea if anything in this Epic is true, aside from the fact that a man named Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk around 2700 B.C, which we derive only from the Sumerian King's list which before 2600 B.C, is sketchy at best.


First Dynasty of Uruk
Mesh-ki-ang-gasher of E-ana, son of Utu: 324 years.
Mesh-ki-ang-gasher went into the Sea and disappeared.

Enmerkar, who built Unug: 420 years
Lugalbanda of Unug, the shepherd: 1200 years
Dumuzid of Unug, the fisherman: 100 years. Captured En-Me-Barage-Si of Kish.
Gilgamesh, whose father was a "phantom", lord of Kulaba: 126 years.
Ur-Nungal of Unug: 30 years
Udul-Kalama of Unug: 15 years
La-Ba'shum of Unug: 9 years
En-Nun-Tarah-Ana of Unug: 8 years
Mesh-He of Unug: 36 years
Melem-Ana of Unug: 6 years
Lugal-Kitun of Unug: 36 years


Rule is measured in sars, or that is to say, periods of 3600 years.




Gilgamesh is awesome to perfection.
It was he who opened the mountain passes,
who dug wells on the flank of the mountain.
It was he who crossed the ocean, the vast seas, to the rising sun,
who explored the world regions, seeking life.
It was he who reached by his own sheer strength
Utanapishtim, the Faraway,
who restored the sanctuaries (or: cities) that the Flood had destroyed!
... for teeming mankind.



In my reading - Gilgamesh gives Utanapishtim/Noah credit for saving humanity/ repopulating the earth, but he (Gilgamesh) takes credit for himself for "opening the mountain passes," digging "wells on the flank of the mountain," exploring "the world regions, seeking life," and (thus) for restoring civilization.


If you read the Epic, you will understand what is meant when it says Gilgamesh cleared the mountain passes and explored the world regions, crossed the seas,...etc. The mountain passes were filled with lions while he traveled in search of Utnapishtim. If he wanted to pass through, the lions had to be killed. The death of the lions is most often interpretted as the fall of Gilgamesh's pride in the onslaught of his grief and fear of death. As for the "exploring the world regions", he wandered for years over the deltas around the two great rivers and also far west toward Megiddo. He then entered into a cave that brought him down beneath the earth and out again in the "garden of the gods on the edge of the sea". Judging from the description of Utnapishtim's home and the "waters of death" described, one could fairly accurately deduce the author was referring to the early Persian Gulf. (There were small volcanic islands active in those waters during the time this would have been written. Water in and around active volcanoes can become highly acidic leading up to an eruption.) This also explains the "crossing of the seas".
My point is simple. If you actually read the Epic you are quoting, all of this will make more sense to you. Gilgamesh was not responsible for rebuilding human civilization, and no one has ever claimed he was.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
A myth is not a legend or folkloric tale. A myth is pretty much defined as a fictional story. Legends and folk tales are almost always based in fact handed down as verbal stories from the past because- 1. cultures telling them did not have written language 2. all members of the society could not read 3. written histories were lost.

Casting a jaundiced eye on folkloric accounts is bad science since most have shown to be founded in fact.

The Epic Of Gilgamesh and contemporary tales of those times unfortunately are the turds in the punchbowl of scholars who have their reputations built on the accepted accounts of the way history has allegedy unfolded. Questions create problems.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   


The Epic Of Gilgamesh and contemporary tales of those times unfortunately are the turds in the punchbowl of scholars who have their reputations built on the accepted accounts of the way history has allegedy unfolded. Questions create problems.

not really
Scholars are the first to realise that these texts in many cases are not actual accounts but popular stories that were read to the generally illiterate populace on temple festival days
in the same way we do the same
who hasn't seen the "great escape" or the "sound of music" on a public holiday
you think in 4000 years people will be wondering whether or not captain Von trapp was a real person.??
the real reason that these stories are thought of as mythical is because people read the authorised translations rather than reading the original text.
the truth of the matter is both rather distressing and quite simple
the authorised texts have been translated with the world view of the translator(i.e.judaeo- christian)
and as such it really is the fault of organised religion and the beliefs that this sort of belief engenders on present society that causes no one takes any notice of the past
because it conflicts with their present view of reality
but still
if it stops people killing each other thats a good thing right
problem is it doesn't




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

which language was it that needed to be confused ?

sumerian ?

Hi SofiCrow ,


here is something interesting perhaps :


NAME OF SUMERIAN EPIC STORY GILGAMESH (BILGAMESH)

One such specific Sumerian name is the name DINGIR GILGAMESH. It should be noted that the title GILGAMESH is not the original. The original title was DINGIR BILGAMESH [18]. This is clearly indicated by John L. Hayes, in his book entitled ["A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", Undena Publications, Malibu, 1990, p. 129, Lesson 12.]. He writes:

"THIS IS NOW THE PREFERRED READING (OR AT LEAST THE MORE ORIGINAL READING) OF THE NAME MORE FAMILIARLY KNOWN AS "GILGAMESH". THE APPARENT MEANING OF THE NAME IS: "THE OLD MAN (BIL-GA) IS NOW A YOUNG MAN )MESH)". IT IS NOT KNOWN WHEN THE CHANGE OF THE INITIAL /B/ > /G/ TOOK PLACE; AN OLD BABYLONIAN OMEN TEXT HAS THE SPELLING DINGIR GE-EL-GA."

Evidently the Akkadian or other intermediaries changed the name in line with their own agenda when they were changing and usurping everything Sumerian as their own. Thus the wrong name GILGAMESH has been perpetrated all this time. Yet the word TENGIR BILGAMESH (TENGIR/TENGRI BILGAMESH) is a totally Turkish word meaning "God BILGAMESH" which makes the Sumerian BILGAMESH (so-Called Gilgamesh) epic story to have its roots in Central Asia (Turan). The only difference between the names BILGAMESH and GILGAMESH is the first letter, that is, B versus G where B has been changed to G. The Akkadians are known for their Semitizing of the Sumerian language.

Actually both BILGAMESH and GILGAMESH have the same Turkic meaning. When the missing vowel a in front of GILGAMESH is inserted, it becomes aGILGAMESH which is the same as BILGAMESH. Thus it is unquestionably clear that both of these words are Turkic in grammatical structure and also meaning. This cannot be explained by coincidence. The Turkish word "BIL-GA-MESH / BIL-GE-MESH" meaning "he who has attained knowledge" and "AGIL-GA-MESH" meaning "he who has become a learned wise one" are one and the same. BILGAMESH and "aGILGAMESH" are two different Turkic phrases describing the same concept. Evidently some people manhandled the original form of this Sumerian Turkic word and alienated it from Turkish by changing the first consonant B to G and at the same time "omitting" the first vowel a in front of G. As we explained earlier this is called "anagrammatizing".

Here the suffix 'mesh' is also the Turkish suffix mash/mesh/mish/mush/müsh/mîsh/mosh that makes adjectives from verbs [19] [Tahsin Banguoglu, Türkçenin Grameri", Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Türk Dil Kurumu Yayinlar: 528, Ankara, 1986, p. 272, item 52. mish sifatlari]. Additionally mesh/mish are the suffix that is used to make a story-telling mode of speech from a verb stem, as in Turkish gel-mish ([it is said that] he has come), git-mish ([it is said that] he has gone), etc.. But in addition to these meanings of the Turkic suffix "mesh", there is another important meaning associated with it that I will discuss in the next part of my response.

Like the word 'AGILGAMISH / AKILGAMISH' and 'BILGAMESH' meaning "wise, enlightened, knowing, sagacious", there are other Turkish words such as 'ÖGÜLGEMISH' meaning "much praised". In the Sumerian so-called Gilgamesh epic, Gilgamesh represents such an enlightened character. The Gilgamesh epic appears to have parallel motifs with the Turkish OGUZ-KAGAN epic. Even the famed Turkish epic "KUTADGU BILIG" by Yusuf Has Hacib [20] [Yusuf Has Hacib, "Kutadgu Bilig", Çeviri: Resid Rahmeti Arat, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara, 1974. has the character name 'Ögdülmish' (ög-edülmis, kutlanmish, övülmüsh) meaning "praised, adulated, sagacious, judicious, kudos (< kut/kud-os, ogus)".

Thus, it is clearly seen that the Sumerian epic so-called GILGAMISH in actuality had the name BILGAMESH .



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Hmmm.

Again, I am not claiming that Gilgamesh rebuilt human civilization - I am synopsizing the claims made in the Epic/stories. ie., From a local perspective, building Uruk was tantamount to rebuilding civilization. In film, it's called a POV (point of view).

Odd that the distinction seems so difficult for so many to grasp.





The Epic of Gilgamesh

Tablet I

He who has seen everything, I will make known (?) to the lands.
I will teach (?) about him who experienced all things,
... alike,
Anu granted him the totality of knowledge of all.
He saw the Secret, discovered the Hidden,
he brought information of (the time) before the Flood.
He went on a distant journey, pushing himself to exhaustion,
but then was brought to peace.
He carved on a stone stela all of his toils,
and built the wall of Uruk-Haven,
the wall of the sacred Eanna Temple, the holy sanctuary.
Look at its wall which gleams like copper(?),
inspect its inner wall, the likes of which no one can equal!
Take hold of the threshold stone--it dates from ancient times!
Go close to the Eanna Temple, the residence of Ishtar,
such as no later king or man ever equaled!
Go up on the wall of Uruk and walk around,
examine its foundation, inspect its brickwork thoroughly.
Is not (even the core of) the brick structure made of kiln-fired brick,
and did not the Seven Sages themselves lay out its plans?
One league city, one league palm gardens, one league lowlands, the open area(?) of the Ishtar Temple,
three leagues and the open area(?) of Uruk it (the wall) encloses.




So in light of the question "Are myths true?" the answer might be, it depends on your perspective. For example, if Uruk was a real city built by an actual person named Gilgamesh (or Bilgamesh), then the people of Uruk might have perceived that he did, indeed, rebuild human civilization.



Hey 23432,

If Bilgamesh was actually Turkish, what are the implications?


.



posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Hello SofiCrow


Effects are not easy to guess ; for example , the Etruscans have genetically been shown to be very close to today's Anatolians , i.e Turks .

Politically speaking , this would never see the day light for the obvious reasons .

People would like to think that history only extends 2006 years , it makes it easy to deal with .

I am afraid the answers are all in Vatican Library , burried amongs all those scripts from the ancient world which the Romans have collected from .

One thing for sure , Truth has / is been suppressed .

I have about 300 sumerian words which are undoubtly in Turkic origin , if true , it would mean that the central asia was a home to all of today's europeans & anatolians .

At some point , the central asian myth tells us that there was a drought and an inner sea dried within 100 years thus people around this inner sea was deprived of livelyhood i.e fishing .

It would be interesting to knit together an anatolian and central asian myth ; or even a mesopotamian one too .

It may create something which is greater then sum of all it's parts .





posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 23432

It would be interesting to knit together an anatolian and central asian myth ; or even a mesopotamian one too .

It may create something which is greater then sum of all it's parts .




Indeed.

...So you're saying that myths originate from actual histories, usually oral (?), and that those histories have been recorded/rewritten/changed to reflect political agendas.

How very radical! And of course, unthinkable.




...It sounds like you have at least the outline of an integrated myth in mind. Would you care to share it?


.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Hmmm.

Again, I am not claiming that Gilgamesh rebuilt human civilization - I am synopsizing the claims made in the Epic/stories. ie., From a local perspective, building Uruk was tantamount to rebuilding civilization. In film, it's called a POV (point of view).

Odd that the distinction seems so difficult for so many to grasp.


The distinction is not at all difficult to grasp, but to use your own phrase, "you didn't spin it that way." Even from the local's perspective, Gilgamesh was not responsible for rebuilding human civilization, but rather was responsible for building a wall the size and grandeur of which had not been seen before. The citizens of Uruk were not ignorant to life outside of their own city. Granted, Mesopotamians were not aware of much outside of Sumer, but Kish, Nippur, Babylon, all of these contained just as much majesty and power, some even greater than monuments that Gilgamesh built. They never would have given Gilgamesh credit for rebuilding human civilization. Even from their "POV". Besides, what was to rebuild? "Human Civilization had already been given centuries to rebuild itself. The most they might have said about Gilgamesh is that he built a wonderful city. Case closed. It's a weak argument, sorry.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   
.

I agree with those here who say that:

1. Myth reflects actual history; but
2. Records have been suppressed/repressed, and extant interpretations are designed to support the current paradigm and political-economic powers;

Hence,

3. The 'truth' is difficult to find.


In terms of the Gilgamesh-Fu Hsi comparison, my main observations were:

Gilgamesh ruled hard over his subjects, pushed them to produce and serve a (modern) 'industrial-economic' system, and left behind a lapis lazuli tablet celebrating himself and his life.

Fu Hsi shared knowledge that made his subjects economically and spiritually independent, and left behind the I Ching, the repository of his knowledge and wisdom, for human posterity. ...Fu Hsi taught his people skills that made them independent of a larger economic system.



.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Records have been suppressed/repressed, and extant interpretations are designed to support the current paradigm and political-economic powers


I can agree with that on certain occassions. Any particular examples? Gilgamesh would not be one of them, I hope?


Gilgamesh ruled hard over his subjects, pushed them to produce and serve a (modern) 'industrial-economic' system, and left behind a lapis lazuli tablet celebrating himself and his life.


We are just going from the Epic here, but if you've read it completely, in the second half of his rule, you would see that Gilgamesh was beloved by his people, whom he had also made economically and spiritually independent. The cedar brought back from Lebanon would have given them a powerful edge in the trading market, and expansion of the city brought with it new economic stature with job placement and work. Granted, the system was a bit different, but priests were needed to run the temples and daily rationings, artisans would have been needed to paint the thousand of tiny cones to make up the mosaics in the rounded walls,...etc. It would not have turned out so bad.

Here, from the final chapters:


"For Gilgamesh, son on Ninsun they weighed out their offerings.....for Gilgamesh....heart of Uruk......O Gilgamesh, lord of Kullab, great is thy praise.."



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by EdenKaia


Gilgamesh ruled hard over his subjects, pushed them to produce and serve a (modern) 'industrial-economic' system, and left behind a lapis lazuli tablet celebrating himself and his life.


...in the second half of his rule, you would see that Gilgamesh was beloved by his people,

Here, from the final chapters:


"For Gilgamesh, son on Ninsun they weighed out their offerings.....for Gilgamesh....heart of Uruk......O Gilgamesh, lord of Kullab, great is thy praise.."





Predictable, given that Galgamesh exiled all who did not produce, or think(?) according to the demands of his rule.






...whom he had also made economically and spiritually independent.






Only within the context of a "civilized" industrial-economic system. If then.

An extremely narrow perspective imo.



.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
okay soficrow so what is it that you have against Gilgamesh exactly

did he pee in your beer ?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Predictable, given that Galgamesh exiled all who did not produce, or think(?) according to the demands of his rule.


Where did you get that from? And did this exile of yours happen before or after Enkidu came to reside in Uruk with him and he changed his disposition? Please, tablet or chapter, if you would be so kind.


Only within the context of a "civilized" industrial-economic system. If then.

An extremely narrow perspective imo.


As opposed to an "uncivilized" industrial-economic system? What exactly are you saying here? That if the people dont have control over the decisions made in producing the architecture then they are considered "civilized"? This doesn't even make sense. And just for the record, considering your claim that Gilgamesh "rebuilt human civilization", even if only from the "POV", to use your term, of his own people, I wouldn't be going around accusing others of narrow perspective. Just a suggestion.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
okay soficrow so what is it that you have against Gilgamesh exactly

did he pee in your beer ?






Just a quick response - be back tomorrow.

Briefly - I see Gilgamesh as representing - if not spearheading - the worst of Western civilization (industrial-economic "development" leading to environment degradation).

While controversies certainly exist, viewing him in this way is not unprecedented. Ie.:



What constrained the proliferation of the Bronze Age, however, was lack of fuel, just like our current crisis. Richard Cowen describes the situation well in his essay on the Bronze Age:

...perhaps the most famous documentation of the shortage of wood around the ancient Mediterranean is the Epic of Gilgamesh ... Stripped of sex and violence, the Gilgamesh epic is about deforestation. Gilgamesh and his companion go off to cut down a cedar forest, braving the wrath of the forest god Humbaba, who has been entrusted with forest conservation. It's interesting that Gilgamesh is cast as the hero, even though he has the typical logger mentality: cut it down, and never mind the consequences. The repercussions for Gilgamesh are severe: he loses his chance of immortality, for example. But the consequences for Sumeria were even worse. It's clear that the geography and climate of southern Mesopotamia would not provide the wood fuel to support a Bronze Age civilization that worked metal, built large cities, and constructed canals and ceremonial centers that used wood, plaster, and bricks. ...The loss of Gilgamesh's immortality may be a literary reflection of the realization that Sumeria could not be sustained.




Also, The Epic of Gilgamesh is...the ancient prototype for the development of civilization... - E. Otha Wingo. Southeast Missouri State University


That's it for now. Sorry - no time today.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join