Sumerian tales versus the bible

reply to post by illece


The earliest clay tablets come from the Sumerian cities of Uruk and Jamdat Nasr around 5,300 BP.

Originally posted by illece
reply to post by EdenKaia

 

thanks for your answer,i am coming to the belief that the sumerian texts did in fact come first .BUT-is there any archaeological and scientific proof that they did.
i have read the English version of the Gilgamesh epic and i know it does contain the flood story but there are different ideas of the date.

I just gave the dates for the oldest recorded copies of either. What else do you need? The tablets are proof in and of themselves. As for the dates for the Gilgamesh account of the flood, it comes many generations before the time of Gilgamesh's rule (obviously, if he is encountering Utnapishtim himself) and he ruled around 2700 B.C. You will not find any archaeological evidence of a bible story coming before that time. In fact, many of the more popular books, such as the Gospels, were written at least a hundred years after the facts anyway. The New Testament is even worse; composed entirely from what Emperor Constantine and the council of Nicea concluded would be the most appropriate books to paint the most "divine" picture of christ. Anything that made him out to be simply human was left out. These are what make up the "Gnostic Gospels".

There is plenty of proof out there, but the real question has been stated before. How much do you really want to know, and how badly will you flip your views on your faith to find out the truth?

You can learn alot from the bible without it being the oldest thing in the world. To have faith is to do exactly that. You reason with yourself what makes the most sense to you and then form your opinions of faith based on that. So what if the bible borrowed stories from other cultures and made them its own? Does that make the stories any less morally sound? Hell, Jesus wasn't even born December 25th. The concept of Santa Claus and Christmas are borrowed from earlier pagan beliefs. The entire Christian religion is based on compromise and the combination of various cultures and ideas to form one happy family. Is there anything wrong with this? No. Not at all. You just have to decide what you will accept and what you will not.

reply to post by EdenKaia


hi again, i did not realize these were substantiated ,as you may guess i have been searching the net for some time and have had conflicting evidence for the dates.
i also realize if mankind followed the bible the world would be a much better place .

reply to post by illece


Religions evolve and change over time, they absorb bits and pieces of other beliefs and cultures.

i also realize if mankind followed the bible the world would be a much better place .

Would the world be a better place if everyone followed the bible? Probably not, as there would be no agreement (as is clearly demonstrated by history) as to what the correct interpretation of the bible is.

Civilization and mankind did okay without Christianity, the majority of the world continues on without it also today.

I've heard Muslim, Jews, Hindoos, Shinto, Buddhists, Communists and Sikhs all make the same claim - if everyone just followed our version of belief everything would be better - that appears to be a tenet of all belief systems - which makes sense if you believe.

Originally posted by illece
i am really struggling with my christian believes due to this subject!!

man do I hear ya'!

I still believe in God. And I still believe Christ came and was the Son of God. The New Testament still holds value for me. But as far as the Old Testament ... the more I read of historical information, the less I can read the OT without laughing.

A few months ago I found out that some of the Bible Psalms were stolen from Aknatons hymn to the Aton in Egypt. And then there is the whole Noahs Ark vs Gilgamesh stories ... and creation with Adam sounds sooooooo Summerian.

reply to post by FlyersFan


One has to think about the world back then. Very, very few people were literate, if they were they were probably only literate in one language. There was virtually nothing to read so most communication of ideas was oral. - which was greatly hampered by language barriers - there was no way to learn a language except to find a person of that culture and bang out an understanding. Guides and interpreters were key people in those times.

Stories ran around, you see them in Sumer, showing up in the bible and slightly different versions appearing in the Qu'ran. Mohammed couldn't read or write so he must have heard the stories too and incorporated them.

the Sumerian tales and Biblical tales are mirror reflections of the same events. The Sumerian stories are the stories of the Serpent and the Biblical stories are the stories of the Eve.

The bad guys in one are the good guys in the other. does that make sense? Reading both gives you a more complete view on what happened. The only real difference between the two is that the Bible is written to promote the spirit over flesh, while the sumerian stories promote the flesh and deeds of men.

Humbaba is Abel. Enkidu is Cain. Gilgamesh is the Serpent. Shamhat is Luluwa.

I could be wrong but it seems to work as a theory. If I am wrong please correct me.

Sumerian, it is a much older civilization.

reply to post by SlyFox_79


Civilization is a crock, human societies existed for tens of thousands of years prior to the Sumerians. Even the Sumerians' own Kings lists attest to this fact.

And that brings me to this point...the Bible is refering to personages that logically must have always existed. Why if you are the Son of God in Roman times and possess everlasting life then you must have existed before all Civilizations. Otherwise the Bible is not what it claims to be, but just a lie.

I set it up for whomever.

The Qur'an tells of آدم (Ādam) in the surah's

al-Baqara (2):30-39

al-A'raf (7):11-25

al-Hijr (15):26-44

al-Isra (17):61-65

Ta-Ha (20):115-124

Sad (38):71-85

In the Sunni tradition Adam is said to be buried beneath the site of the Kaaba in Mecca.

In the Shi'a tradition Adam is buried next to Ali, within Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, Iraq.

reply to post by Hanslune


And according to the Ethiopians Adam is buried at Bet Golgotha in Lalibela, Ethiopia.

The only reason I would believe the Muslims is if they admitted that the Kaaba Stone is the smooshed up remains of all the Sons of Adam that they've killed.

Otherwise they are probably telling more lies.

reply to post by huckfinn


Yes and the grave of Jesus is in Japan

Jesus in Japan

And according to the Ethiopians Adam is buried at Bet Golgotha in Lalibela, Ethiopia.

The only reason I would believe the Muslims is if they admitted that the Kaaba Stone is the smooshed up remains of all the Sons of Adam that they've killed.

Otherwise they are probably telling more lies.

Believe tends to generate more and more belief based ideas.

The Kaaba stone is probably just a meterorite that was popular with the pagan religions of pre-Islamic Arabia.

The Qu'ran is no more believable than the bible, it does have one advantage over the bible we know with some certainly who created it and when and who wrote it down.

Originally posted by huckfinn

The bad guys in one are the good guys in the other. does that make sense? Reading both gives you a more complete view on what happened. The only real difference between the two is that the Bible is written to promote the spirit over flesh, while the sumerian stories promote the flesh and deeds of men.

Humbaba is Abel. Enkidu is Cain. Gilgamesh is the Serpent. Shamhat is Luluwa.

I could be wrong but it seems to work as a theory. If I am wrong please correct me.

What are you basing this on, if I may ask? Humbaba was a pet of the gods, set to guard the forest of cedar, but had himself done horrible and monstrous things in the world of men. How then is he likened to Abel, the innocent and naive Abel? And Enkidu? How so is he like Cain? At what point did Enkidu EVER betray his brother? At what point did Enkidu ever turn in contempt against those that created him? If anything, Enkidu would be more likened to Abel, not Cain. As for Gilgamesh being the Serpent...well, I really could go on and on about that one. The Serpent of Genesis was the tempter of man, the personification of evil incarnate. How so could this be likened to Gilgamesh? Gilgamesh was born of both God and man, and paid due homage to them as he went about his journies.

If you wouldn't mind, I would love to hear the theories you have to explain the comparisons. No offense or anything, but it seems like you pulled these right out of your butt.

reply to post by Hanslune

Thats a funny one hans


Jesus in japan

But, there is a fascinating documentary by a french film maker about his quest to find the truth about the bhuddist St. Issa of Nazth.

It really opened my eyes, St Issa was a person who arrived in the hindu-kush in the early years of the first milleium. He came from the west with a trade carravan, and studdied buddhism at a monastary for a few years before taking his ministry on the road through the himalayan area.
He eventually ended up at another monastary where he returned to his meditation and writing. It is said that he attained enlightenment at this monastary, that is still there today in Nepal.
They say that they have his original writings still in their library.
The monks at the first monastary he taught at, say that they had a large collection of his works till it was confiscated by the british at the turn of the century.
The story they tell is that an anglican missionary was given access to their library to read the old works. After coming across the writings of St Issa they say he left the monastary with one of the works and went to the nearest british governmental seat and returned a couple of weeks later with a small detachment of british army and they confisctaed the library and hauled off the books never to be seen again.
It is said that siant Issa left the himalaya in his late twenties early thirties to return to his home to preach.
It is also said that he returned many years later and told a tale of surviving crucifixtion.

he is buried at a site in the hindu-kush that is revered by all the local religions.

There is another place, a very high pass (18-19,000 feet), where there is a shrine to him and you will find buddhists, hindus and moslems praying at it.

There is also a sect of buddhists that revere him, they follow a code of austere living and medatative prayer, sound familiar.

Heres an interesting side note/coincidence the prayer beads that these monks use is exactly the same as the rosary.
The same number of beads and in the same configuration.
The filmmaker also noted that in the earliest depictions of Christ show him in a garment set that is almost identical to that of period buddhist monks even down to the burgundy colored shawl.

Also, in a sci-am aticle a few years ago, there was a theological historian who put forth that the idea that Jesus survived the crucifixion, with the help of the jewish underground and sympathizers, ie longinus.

Here theory is that when jesus was stabbed by longinus that the spear was poisoned and that the poison gave the appearance of death.

Longinus's proclomation "In truth this man was son of God", gives some measure of validity to the idea that he was a jewish sympathizer.

Some of the finer points of her theory are, the wound as it is traditionaly depicted would not have been fatal, and if done correctly caused little actual injury.

Then , the mollusc that royal blue or tyrrian purple is made from is poisinous, and that it is a relative of the mollusc that is used to "zombie poison" in the carribean. In the right dose it will give the appearance of death for several hrs.

Then there is a old mosaic somewhere in the holy land, that depicts the proccesion, the crucifixion, his removal to the tomb, then there is a curious panel that shows Him being carried out of the tomb under the cover of night.

The funny thing is that the researcher who put forth this idea was a nun that worked for the vatican, and she was excommunicated for her theory.

Howdy Punkinworks

Yep that is some seriously strange stuff. Oh here is the document in question.

St Issa

Ones choices are:

The manuscripts never existed, and all the claims to have seen them are fraudulent.

The manuscripts existed, but are late pseudepigrapha, composed after 19th century missionaries brought Christianity to Tibet.

The manuscripts are early apocrypha, reflecting an early Christian tradition but essentially false.

Jesus visited India as a young man.

reply to Illecepost by illece


Dear Illece,

I want to encourage you to stick to your heart's convictions, and not to let all the cynical anti-religion "free radicals" spoil your search for the truth. I would encourage you to keep seeking the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, which as you know is the "Holy Spirit" of God, through Christ alone. That One will lead you into all truth, not a conspiracy theorist. But as for your specific question, I have a few pointers. I don't have the time to prepare a full essay on this subject, but I have asked the same sort of questions as you, about the Sumerian and Bible stories. Here are the points which I believe provide a basis for understanding how they relate:

I know that many anti-Christian anti-religion rationalists claim that the Sumerian epics are much older than the Bible, because the oldest copies of Old Testament manuscripts that we have are from around 1,000 BC, whereas the Sumerians tablets are from at least 2,000 BC. BUT...when we look at the CONTENT of the two traditions, it is clear to see that the Biblical stories go back WAY FURTHER than the Sumerian culture.
Example, the Annunaki/Watchers who were the "Gods" of Sumeria are easily identifiable as the "Nephilim" of Genesis 6. IE - the evil "fallen angels" who came and corrupted mankind. These very same ones are the hero "gods" of all Sumerian tablets, and the originators of their culture. Yet they only appear quite late in the Genesis story, in chapter 6, long after GOD created the world and mankind. So these "gods" are LYING when they say that they created mankind, and LYING when they say that it was THEM who caused the flood!! Maybe the genetically messed around with humans, but they did NOT create man!
Secondly, see the epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest godman hero of Sumerian mythology. He goes to the garden where the tree of life is kept, guarded by God's angels, and he is told that of his own powers he and no man at all can ever attain eternal life by their own means. Some hero! He could not overcome the Law set in place by Holy God. Salvation and eternal life shall come only through the SON, who died for us all on the cross, that we might have forgiveness and eternal life in the age to come, IF WE REPENT our sins to Him. Thus the Sumerian epic inadvertantly confirms the core truth of the gospel.
Thridly, see at the end of it, "Utnapishtim", an apparent Sumerian form of "Noah", tells him of the flood. Think about this for a minute! Gilgamesh is one of the, if not the earliest Sumerian man-god hero, and yet he is POST-FLOOD. And he did not know about the flood. Utnapishtim had to tell him. This proves that the epic of Gilgamesh can be dated AFTER the flood, AFTER 2350 BC, in other words. Yet it is an early foundational text of Sumerian mythology. Therefore although these texts claim that it was the Sumerian gods, the Nephilim/Annunaki who created man and who caused the flood to happen, in fact the tablets are POST FLOOD. They are "lying spirits", these gods!! Claiming god's work and status as their own!! The very essence of Satan.
So...I say...don't be fooled by the high fallutin language of those Sumerian tablets. They lie very well! They invent a history for themselves, and call it "truth". But the fact that it is all POST-FLOOD is self-evident from the text. Therefore it can be dated to later than 2350 BC, and thus the Sumerian culture BEGINS only at Genesis 6, or later...more like Genesis 10/11...where Nimrod establishes Nineveh, and Sumer. So, all the key points show that although the Bible manuscripts surviving only date back to 1,000 BC...the events they describe do date back to way before the Sumerians. And do not trust the word of fallen angels!! Nor of fallen conspiracy theorists who disbelieve in God and the Son and Holy Spirit!

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
The Bible was WRITTEN long before any sumerian tales were published or written. However it was not until Moses that GOD gave us the EDITOR of the book of Genesis. Moses took the probable clay tablets that Adam and Noah and all those in between kept and wrote and Moses Published them in one place for all to see.

God haters will try to deny this is possible but Archeological digs have shown his to be most accurate probably...

But then it takes Faith to believe in GOD and a Creation and rules to life, some people like it with no rues. Look at Hitler and how he ran with Evolutionary thinking, as an example... No rules means man can make his own rules.... Hitler did!

The irony of your avatar is quite, quite delicious!

Originally posted by Hanslune
Religions arose because we were trying to make sense of the world around us. Why did Zog die and not me? Where do clouds come from? why is Zork a better hunter than me?

Religions tried to explain these things and as we are human the spirits, demons and gods tended to reflect our anthropomorphic view. Later those involved in religion found they could make a living doing it and even control people to do what they would like. Some of course do so out of a belief that it is in the people's best interest to do so, a minority out of their own enlargement.

This is basically the idea regarding the origins of religion that appeals to me also. I was listening to an audio lecture recently that gave a nice idea that religion was the first science - That is, religion was man's first way of describing and explaining the natural world around him.

As you say, we view the world through our own eyes, so when a storm came over the sky and lightening struck, to try and explain how this happened, an anthropomorphic world view came about. This being polytheistic, with a God or spirit for wind, one for fire, one for birth, one death, etc, etc. As time went on this becomes canonized somewhat with tales and myths being a way of explaining and conveying ideas about the natural world and why things happen (weather, change of the seasons, night/day, life/death, etc, etc).

Sorry off topic somewhat.

To the OP: The Mesopotamian mythologies are widely published in books and freely available to read on the internet. They're fantastic stories, and the ones that became the inspiration and base for later Hebrew(then Biblical) mythologies make for interesting reading and thought. I don't see why having the stories being taken from earlier sources would make you doubt your faith, if anything, one would think it would strengthen it, it gives a longer lifeline to Biblical mythology - unless you're unhappy with, and looking for a reason to question, your faith - which your original post seems to hint at that you may indeed be.

reply to post by VelvetSplash


Howdy VS

I was listening to an audio lecture recently that gave a nice idea that religion was the first science - That is, religion was man's first way of describing and explaining the natural world around him.

Yes, exactly, science is man's second attempt at explaining the world around him. In my mind it does a far better job than the many religions.

Yep the stories out of Sumer are interesting and probably reflect stories that had been around for hundreds or thousands of years before.

reply to post by Hanslune


Hey there hans,
I actually hadnt seen that text,


there are other indian records of st issa and his travels, records written while he was alive. There is even a picture of him in one text.
There are some texts held in an indian museum that give a passing reference to his travels, as a side note to other events of the day. Events that are known to have occured at the proper time.
The christian tradition has a long history in central asia,
it could be that the story was manufactured millenia ago.

But I dont think so, because those that still follow his teachings are NOT christians, they are hindus and budhists. If the story was propogated after christs "death" by early christians then it would be a christ centric tradition, as we have seen everywhere chritianity was spread.
There is even a place on the west coast of india, where the local are christians, nothing out of the ordinary. Except that they have been christians since the begining, they say their ancestors fled persecution, shortly after the crucifixion, and ended up in india.
The cool thing is, that if you put out to see from yemen at the proper time of year, the trades will blow you right to this part of india.
It was on a travel show that I saw this and that is how the host came across this place, he caught a ride with arab sailors in yemen and sailed to india in a rickity old dhow.
The locals have even produced family heirlooms that can be traced back to the proper period. Roman coins minted in the holy land at the right time and some other everyday objects.
Any way my point being that if it was an early spreading the story they would have spread the story of christ not of Issa.





When the film maker visited the monastary in nepal he found monks that were there to specificaly study the works of Issa. He even found an american that had taken up buddhism and ended up at the monastary and had actually read the some of the texts.
Had his timming not been bad he would have been given accsess to the original works they still have.
But only the high abbot can open that library and he only comes around every 5 years or so, and they invited him back when the library would be open.
I wonder if he ever did go back.
I wish I could remeber the name of the film, it was very good
The story is one to think about.

Originally posted by EdenKaia

Originally posted by huckfinn

The bad guys in one are the good guys in the other. does that make sense? Reading both gives you a more complete view on what happened. The only real difference between the two is that the Bible is written to promote the spirit over flesh, while the sumerian stories promote the flesh and deeds of men.

Humbaba is Abel. Enkidu is Cain. Gilgamesh is the Serpent. Shamhat is Luluwa.

I could be wrong but it seems to work as a theory. If I am wrong please correct me.

What are you basing this on, if I may ask? Humbaba was a pet of the gods, set to guard the forest of cedar, but had himself done horrible and monstrous things in the world of men. How then is he likened to Abel, the innocent and naive Abel? And Enkidu? How so is he like Cain? At what point did Enkidu EVER betray his brother? At what point did Enkidu ever turn in contempt against those that created him? If anything, Enkidu would be more likened to Abel, not Cain. As for Gilgamesh being the Serpent...well, I really could go on and on about that one. The Serpent of Genesis was the tempter of man, the personification of evil incarnate. How so could this be likened to Gilgamesh? Gilgamesh was born of both God and man, and paid due homage to them as he went about his journies.

If you wouldn't mind, I would love to hear the theories you have to explain the comparisons. No offense or anything, but it seems like you pulled these right out of your butt.

I would love to answer your questions to support my theory.

Remember this, I considered Perspective when developing this theory.

Humbaba, a Sumerian character, is considered to be the brother of Enki in his Wikipedia entry. Enkidu means the creation of Enki, which is widely accepted. There is an unwritten link between Humbaba and Enkidu. I can elaborate on what I think this link is at a later time.

The features of Enkidu include, 1. Not knowing his Father, a fact both Humbaba, Gilgamesh and Gilgamesh’s mother knew, according to the Epic of Gilgamesh 2. Clothed in animal skins and running with the animals as a friend and protector. 3. Had a woman introduced to his life who assisted with his downfall.

If one looks at the Western artistic tradition you'll find that Hercules was often depicted as a powerfully built man carrying a club and clothed in animal skins. I could just as easily call Hercules statues, Enkidu statues and it would be accurate. Gilgamesh is known to be a king and kings don't get themselves associated with nobody's for all eternity, so it is reasonable to assume that Enkidu was also a King. Hercules was certainly fallen, powerful nevertheless, and is certainly a King. A King who didn't know his Father; also known as a feature of the natural born King. Which differed from Gilgamesh, who was just a man-made king. In this world, all fallen and captured Kings are Cain…

It can be safely assumed that Humbaba was in the Cedar Forest as its guardian long before Gilgamesh met Enkidu. Yet, Gilgamesh never moved against him. He was afraid most likely. Cedar's are generally associated with Lebanon at present, but I am certain that the Forest ran the length of the eastern Mediterranean in ancient times and extended a great distance inland from the Sea. I'll even suggest that the place we now call the Holy Land was the Cedar Forest Humbaba was Guardian of. It’s even plausible that the city known as Jerusalem today existed 4500 years ago as the home of a powerful King who was murdered by a Sumerian named Gilgamesh and his bi-sexual running buddy, Enkidu.