Howdy Undo

there's archaeological evidence that the semitic people were in Sumer before it was wiped by the black sea flood.

Hans: No quite sure what your claim here is Undo?

so my position on it is, that they are both telling the same story.

Hans: Of what? The world deluge myth?

the biblical version is from the perspective of the slaves and the offiical version is from the perspective of the hybrid nephilim of Sumer, who were the rulers of the known world before the flood.

Hans: Rulers of the known world, means what exactly? So if I understand you think the Bible is one version of the deluge myth and the Sumerian version a different one and instead of the biblical one being based on the Sumerian?

(p.s. it wasn't a myth in the sense of "Flood" although it's harder to prove the entire planet was flooded. it does coincide with the black sea flood. sumer itself, was only found in last century, buried under 8 ft. of flood silt. )

Howdy again Undo

there were semitic people in the area in the ubaidian period, which preceeded the official sumerian civilization.

Hans: Which source do you base the idea on that the Ubaidians or 'proto-Euphratic peoples were semite? The non-native words in Sumerian have various origins, including borrowings from Semitic and Indo-European, as well as a residue that clearly belong together but do not represent any known language phylum.

You've used the term 'official', not sure what that is suppose to mean, could you explain? Official what?

they were enslaved by the "god men", the nephilim (hybrid) offspring of the "gods."

Hans: Not as far as we know, this seems to be following the Sitchin Tsarion theme, which isn't supported by their literature or archaeology.

Many many examples exist in the various pseudipigraphia and other ancient texts from the sumerian period forward.

Hans: The Pseudepigrapha were written thousands of years later, well after the Sumerian started being the civilization Sumerians.

The example you gave is the early version on which the bible version is thought to have been based on.

Going back to the original question what did the Black sea fill-in have to do with the Sumerians? Are you suggesting they once lived in that area and moved to Mesopotamia? Ah you added a message while I was writing this. I'll address that reply in the next message.






[edit on 23/12/08 by Hanslune]

Howdy Undo

it wasn't a myth in the sense of "Flood" although it's harder to prove the entire planet was flooded.

Hans: I'd say so since we've known for over a hundred years that there was no world wide deluge.

it does coincide with the black sea flood.

That fill-in was around 5,500 BC the Mesoptomian river floods occurred between 4,000-2000 BC, after the cities had been built up.

sumer itself, was only found in last century, buried under 8 ft. of flood silt

.

Hans: I think you mean the 19th century and not the 20th, nor were the five principal cities found under silt. There had been floods in the past and cities had been rebuilt on top of the silt layers.

You've used the term 'official', not sure what that is suppose to mean, could you explain? Official what?

the actual text i read on the subject said something to the effect of, the only occupants of the area prior to the rise of sumerian civilization in the ubaidian period, were hunter gatherers and wandering nomadic tribes of semites.

i say official because the historians draw a dividing line between various periods and when ubaid ends, sumer begins. there's a little wiggle room in there, however. my opinion is that it's all sumer, just some of it is the rise of sumer, before it's recognized as a fully fledged civilization.

as regards their enslavement - there's a bit of confusion on what should and shouldn't be called a sumerian text. for example, some texts are called sumerian even though they are akkadian because the events described in them were said to have happened in "the olden days." some are called sumerian because the gods described are said to initially derive from sumer.

and further, some are called sumerian because they are written in a similar style or seem related somehow to earlier concepts that may or may not have been sumerian. it appears to be a case of compounding problems related to ignoring some aspects of the stories in favor of other aspects that prove or disprove a point the scholar is attempting to make -- this is especially true with stories from the akkadian period, primarily because they bare so much resemblance to biblical texts. had it not been said for some 600 years that the biblical texts had no archaeological or written foundation, this would not be such a problem.

anyway, there are many examples. the god kings did not build their own cities.

Originally posted by undo
I've been researching the topic of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian and Babylonian water gods, for quite some time, specifically after finding and following the trail of the Sumerian "Enki." And my research has discovered something is seriously wrong! When I say wrong, I mean WRONG, with the current data available on the subject.

To understand why I believe there's a huge discrepancy in the data, it's necessary to define the the etymology (the root languages) of the associated words and some of their back history.

With very little effort, it is possible to identify at least 2 of the Sumerian gods with biblical equivalents. This relation is particularly obvious with the Sumerian gods known as Enki and Enlil. Enlil appears to be the equivalent of Jehovah, while Enki appears to be the equivalent of the Serpent in the Garden.

Enki, who's name originally meant LORD EARTH (En=Lord, Ki=Earth), had become associated with the water god. He was Lord of the Abzu (Abyss). This attribution is found in his later akkadian personification of EA, the water god. Further tracking of this water god, revealed his story in later incarnations such as Triton, Poseidon and Dagon.

The real puzzler appeared when I learned that the prefix "AB" meant water, and that the word "EL" meant god. Ab+el. Abel. That bothered me immensely. There was a riddle in the peculiar spelling of Abel, who was one of the first offspring of Adam and Eve in the biblical account. Why would they name their child after the water god, if by all accounts, the water god appeared to be the "Serpent in the Garden?" Clearly, the translation of the words along the way, had some sort of.....problem.

Ab is Father. As in Abba. This is mirror a fold. Ab el "Father of El" is Habel meaning "Haughty"/"Arrogent".

Ckhan/Chiam/Kahn/Han/Cain = Lance/Hot/Hunter the older. He is to serve the younger...the ground which swallows up arrogents blood. He is marked that any finding him should not kill him, the cross.

"I did not come to be served but to serve"

Peace

edit for the chicken and the egg...who came first.

"Luke (white) I (vader/black, self reflective backward) am your father (pater/rock)."

"I command you NOT to do these things" "Listen to my commandments and DO them and you shall live"

It's a fold. A Generation

Do what I say not what I did.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by letthereaderunderstand]

Ab is Father. As in Abba. This is mirror a fold. Ab el "Father of El" is Habel meaning "Haughty"/"Arrogent".

Ah yes, Abba! I was going further back in the etymology of the words. Abzu, Abyss, Babel, Bel, etc

further deliberation on the topic suggests that the real issue here is regional and local spelling variations. this always seems to be the case with mesopotamia! we're absolutely positive that the spelling we are most comfortable with MUST be the correct one and any current interpretation of it, also must be the ultimate interpretation. the question i have is, is there more to it? and have any errors been made along the way?

for example, while i was studying the etymology of the word "images" in the old testament, i found that it was from the word mastabah. a mastabah is an egyptian burial tomb. calling it an image in the english language, doesn't seem specific enough. i don't think english lends itself very well to translation of hebrew and aramaic.

furthermore, to say the word abel is not related to the earlier etymology of similar words is suggesting that the language used in the biblical text developed independently on some faraway island where it shares no similar etymology with the surrounding cultures. such a concept seems disengenious at best.

Here's an example from an earlier post of mine in another thread:

"ba'al" was a generalized term that translated, simply meant "Lord" and could be applied to a god, an angel or a human being of elevated social status. since the hebrews were in captivity at the time of their adoption of phoencian words and concepts (which you can see later echoes of in psalms), some researchers have taken the english translation of the word and assumed that it was originally less offensive than it was later presented as. oy. untangling this stuff is like pulling teeth.

the etymology of ba'al appears to be enlil, who appears to be jehovah. i did a big etymological study on it. this is further evidence that what started out as a word that applied only to enlil, ended up being applied to whoever. lol thus we end up with "babilu" for enki's gate. he had usurpred enlil's title.

etymology is

IL
EL
AL

see variations.

to the phoenicians, in the case of ba'al, the name could be applied to the hebrew jehovah as is. to apply to other gods, additional words were added - ba'alzebub, for example. to differentiate, the hebrews didn't use the ba'al word in the text to define jehovah/yahweh because it was used too often to depict the national gods of phoenicia. therefore, the god of the phoenicians was called "ba'al" by the hebrews, generally speaking, but had its etymological roots in enlil!

we can thank the namshub for that little bit of "chaos."

i suppose you could look at it like a hebrew refusing to use the word "god" because it's been so ecumenized, the distinction is blurred. the phrase "priests of ba'al" automatically sends the message to a believer that perhaps the priests in question are not exactly kosher. but to a scholar of the languages, it would read differently. they would see, "priests of the Lord". it's gonna read like one big contradiction to some people, and i just decided the amount of work that would be necessary to prove or disprove anything on the topic would require writing a huge book. if you aren't accurate and practically anal about it, it can be construed to be things that frankly, it isn't and never was. in addition to the language, it's necessary to know the history.

le mew, le sigh, le abzu.

Originally posted by undo

clearly that text has been tinkered with.
if the whole universe gave speech in one tongue to Enlil,
how is it Enki is suddenly called the leader of the gods?
and if he's the prince defiant, what exactly is he in defiance of?
it was obviously modified by a priest of Enki.
or, there's a huge chunk missing.

Or... you've picked examples that aren't from the same time period or the same place. The area is a collection of cities and each had its own ruling deity, who superseded the others as Grand Creator. Attempting to read the texts in translations without knowing which group made the text, which city it came from, and which time period it relates to leads to an increasing number of research errors.

The answers to your questions are there... but they're in books about Mesopotamia and not on the Internet as a rule.

It is because the serpent is Tiamat. If you are familiar with this myth, Tiamat was the Goddess that Nibiru came to get rid of because the other Gods didn't like her. Tiamat was often pictured as a serpent.
As history shows though, whenever a new religion steps in they often take characters of the older religion and place them in the new one. It is often done to symbolize the end of the old religion by killing off or personifying the old character as evil.
Other than that, the serpent has really no connection with the two. If you actually break done the word "serpent" back to hebrew roots, serpent actually means something along the lines of some wise creature or something. The serpent is in no way really a bad thing of some sort. That is what I read in a book, as for it being true, do not know. If you find out let me know, I would like to know more. I, too, am fascinated with the same topics you look into.