Bible is a recent hack job mystery solved, page 11
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times


reply posted on 8-4-2007 @ 01:21 PM by undo
Originally posted by Marduk

its an akkadian text
the bible is babylonian



It's a babylon text written about an akkadian figure , based on earlier akkadian texts.

that's why the name is different, but the stories are very similar.

the bible, in written form, is babylonian. the contents predate babylon, not only in mainstream texts of their time, but as an oral tradition amongst the slave populations and common people; something you have already admitted existed but which you seem to think now, could not have possibly had their own thoughts on the matter or bothered to recall. did you think they didn't talk about the events between themselves nor remembered how the events actually transpired instead of the royal versions?



the epic of gilgamesh is a story not a factual recording of events
the character Gilgamesh is based on the real king Gilgamesh who did not have gods as parents



the epic of gilgamesh is a factual recording of events with dramatization added. i didn't say his parents were gods. i said he was the same as nimrod and it appears nimrod was modified after he was born. i believe this is hinted at in the epic of gilgamesh, in the form of enkidu, who is his exact carbon copy, created to fix something that was wrong with "gilgamesh"



I have already proven that idea to be totally false
for Nimrod to have been gilgamesh you have to explain why some of the cities he is claimed to have an affinity with in the bible didn't exist in the time of Gilgamesh


the cities you refer to would be contingent on the accepted timeframe of gilgamesh, vs. the actual timeframe of gilgamesh. accepted does not necessarily mean accurate. Interesting that Enmerkar is at Uruk, though, isn't it? "The Sumerian King List makes Enmerkar the second king of Uruk after the Flood which would place his reign at the time when the building of Enki's temple at Eridu reached its apogee." (Eridu = Babel, where the Tower of Babel was built)




you have not succesfully linked nimrod to gilgamesh


www.ancientdays.net...


you have not even linked nimrod or enmerkar to gilgamesh


faculty.mdc.edu...


therefore any claims that anyone was modified are rubbish
the bible is the only text that Nimrod appears in


It's language, Marduk. You know how language varies over time and between one culture and another?



[edit on 8-4-2007 by undo]


reply posted on 8-4-2007 @ 02:55 PM by undo
Originally posted by Fett Pinkus


But why is there no mention of Noah in the mainstream version?


There is mention of him. It's just a different name because it's a different culture telling the story. The royal version installed their kings and rulers in place of the biblical equivalents. Or you could argue the opposite - that the biblical version installed their favorite slaves and other common folk of import in place of the kings and rulers.


If they were all desendents of Noah then why would they worship other Gods all of a sudden if they knew that God had destroyed the earth exactly because of that and other worse crimes?


Well i don't think Noah was one person. I don't think there was one ark, but several. The reason I believe this is because originally Adam and Eve were known as The Adam (plural). The amount of animals to be placed on the ark was many times larger than most people realize. It wasn't just 1 male 1 female of each. It was 7 males 7 females of each clean. 1 male 1 female of each unclean. And 7 males 7 females of each bird. It would take more than one ark to carry that many animals. this also would solve the problem of Cain having a wife who seems to literally appear from nowhere. Cain was a group of people, not just one. Abel was a group of people not just one. the battle between Cain and Abel was based on an agricultural society vs. a shepherding society. They went to war. Abel society lost. Cain society was forced to migrate. The entire story is probably much more complex and indepth than what any of the current ancient texts describe. The book of Genesis is a highly condensed version, for ease of memorizing, no doubt.

As far as the problem of worshipping other gods. Nimrod went wacko with power. He was the first post flood Emperor of the Known World. He wasn't around to experience the flood. Probably thought his mom and dad were stupid. He pledged himself to Enki, who is the equivalent of the biblical Satan, and proceeded to rebuild Enki's E.ABZU at Eridu. This building was called The Tower of Babel, and later became known as the Etemenanki.

Interesting Tower of Babel info
www.livius.org...




[edit on 8-4-2007 by undo]


reply posted on 8-4-2007 @ 03:28 PM by Marduk
Originally posted by undo
The reason I believe this is because originally Adam and Eve were known as The Adam (plural).

the reason you believe this is because you are making it up as you go along


Originally posted by undo


Just a figure of speech, a generalization. I visualize them chipping away at some lapis lazuli cylinder, engraving little cuneiform wedges in it.

all of your stuff is neither a figure of speech or a generalisation
its sci fi and you know it
i have asked you several times not to derail this thread
you ignored me
a moderator has asked you not to derail this thread
you ignored him
this thread was about provable facts
not what your imagination tells you about the ancient world combined with what you saw on the sci fi channel
enki was the template for satan was he, then explain how Enki ceased to be worshipped 1300 years before the Jews invented Satan at a time when Judaism didn't exist.they'd never even heard of enki
you are basing that on the biblical name for satan (great red dragon) and one of Enkis epithets when in reality the same epithet was used by every single god in the pantheon. was Dracula satan
was puff the magic dragon satan
was apep satan (at least the Israelites claim to have been in Egypt when he was worshipped
was Tiamat satan
you can't see how the symbol of the dragon was what the Akkadians used to name the Sumerian culture in the first place because you simply don't want to and because it doesnt match what you have dreamed up without doing any credible research
Su.Mir means red mythical dragon Beth
are you claiming that any sumerian was satan


I will now ask the mod to close this thread
well done


reply posted on 8-4-2007 @ 03:50 PM by Marduk
Originally posted by undo
Maybe I'll be back when I figure out how to discuss this
without including my own theories

you just discuss the facts Beth
this isn't skunk works


and you want to know why you're aggravating
its because you don't listen to anyone but yourself
heres an example of that
you posted


The trick was to realise that the element 'kar' in Enmerkar was the Sumerian word for 'hunter'

i posted


heres epsd
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
show me where Kar means hunter

that would be very easy for you to do
and I've no doubt you looked
and now realise that the only sumerian word there is for hunter is ludubĝara
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
i.e. not Kar or even remotely like it
and yet
you just carried on pretending it hadn't happened
now that might work in pseudohistory
but this thread wasn't about pseudohistory
it was about the established facts

heres another example
you posted about Gilgamesh

It's a babylonian text, anyway

you know full well that it isn't even remotely babylonian
it was written during the Akkadian civilisation and there are fragments from several different versions. the full version is derived mainly from assyrian sources. theres even a hittite version thats been used to fill gaps
the fact that it was still popular during the Babylonian civilisation and you claiming it dates from then is like claiming that Dracula written by Bram Stoker is a contemporary work because its still popular today and the fact that it is over 100 years old is irrelevant
this kind of jumping around history to collect evidence is not permitted
its not good research
and its not credible as evidence
Sitchin does it all the time
its something that I would expect from someone like Robert Bauval who has his bank account riding on his claim that the OCT is supported by the pyramid texts despite the fact that they didn't exist for at least 200 years after Giza was built
but not something I would expect from someone who genuinely has an interest in the truth
you can lie to other people
you can even lie to yourself
but don't expect to get away with lying to me
no one else does



[edit on 8-4-2007 by Marduk]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Marduk]
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11  >>    ^^TOP^^



Ancient Aliens & The Riddle of the Missouri Mystery Mound
  Posted 18 days ago with 75 member flags
Amazing, X-Ray probe of Antikythera Mechanism (Video)
  Posted 16 days ago with 58 member flags
Eye of Horus is actually an early math system?
  Posted 13 days ago with 45 member flags
Pi, Golden Ratio and Speed of Light encoded into Great Pyramid
  Posted 7 days ago with 33 member flags
A Tribute to Native Americans
  Posted 19 days ago with 30 member flags
Why is the Ancient Alien Theory difficult to accept?
  Posted 11 days ago with 26 member flags
Unknown ancient language found on unearthed Assyrian tablets
  Posted 15 days ago with 21 member flags
"The Venus Blueprint"
  Posted 10 days ago with 14 member flags