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.

 

Sumerian tales versus the bible

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn

Its obvious that likening Gilgamesh to the Serpent is personally offensive to you and it will take much convincing that he is an Evil man. I think I meant to say that Enkidu was Cain; a character I am more sympathetic to.


Actually, the concept is not offensive to me, just not that realistic. While true that Gilgamesh began as a tyrant and amoral ruler, he mended his ways and became favoured among his people. At no point, in any place in scripture, is the Serpent repentant, nor is it redeemed by God or its contemporaries in any way, shape, or form. Gilgamesh gains both the favour of the Gods and of his people. How then is he so evil? I'll come back to Enkidu as Cain in a moment.



First off, I looked at the Sumerian Kings list...Just as I thought, the list only includes one Gilgamesh, ruler of Uruk and builder of its walls. Stated in literature to be the contemporary of Aga, a King at Kish that is attested to historically.
Second. This one and only Gilgamesh ruled at Uruk, taken to be Erech of the bible a city attributed to Nimrod; a person who is made out in the Bible to be a violent tyrant and sexual deviant (he loved having sex with his mother and even fathered a Son by his own mother, sort of like I suspect Jennifer Hudson's brother did.), but more importantly a man who'd have lived before Gilgamesh and after Noah. Yet, another data point that establish WHEN and WHERE. Please offer some evidence of scholarship in your response. At least I am basing my beliefs on widely available material. Provide me with a source to dispute my claims. Your response is just not doing it for me.

Very well. Let's begin to disect this, shall we?
Sumerian King's List
I even used Wiki, to keep things simple.

Once again you are basing everything in the assumption that the Bible events came first. Archaeologically speaking, it is not Uruk that is based on Erech, but the other way around. Granted, this is only because the oldest recorded story is that of Gilgamesh, which dates back to circa 3000 BC, while the earliest recorded books of the Bible only go back as far as 1000 BC, but that is probably not good enough for you, so we will just try a bit of logic here. For example, Nimrod is the son of Cush, who according to the biblical account, created the first city after the flood. In the Sumerian accounts of the flood and going from the same Kings List you keep throwing around, you will find that Kish was established as the first city of man after the flood.
Now, Cush and Kish sound very similiar and I'm sure you might argue that this is because Kish was named for Cush, the founder of that city, as the bible might indicate. This is not a new theory and actually makes perfect sense - for the argument that the Bible is using Sumerian myth and not the other way around. But, in order for this to fit into your theory, Cush would have to establish the city of Kish, then conceive his son, Nimrod, who you claim is our buddy Gilgamesh.

Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a tyrant in the earth. He was a tyrannical hunter in opposition to the Lord.

Well, my issue with this is that there were about 22 kings of Kish before Aga ever assumes the throne, so if Nimrod is supposed to be Gilgamesh, who is a contemporary of Aga, then you are saying that Nimrod is an extremely old mofo. That's quite a jump there.



I am not a source snob; I'll accept Wikipedia.

I don't write off Wiki completely, but rather I point out that Wiki is composed entirely of what average people want to write. You can go to any Wiki sight right now and make any correction you choose, whether it is correct or not. That is why I don't put much stock in it; there is no definable author and therefore you really can't be sure if what you are reading is plausible fact or just conjecture.


This one and only Gilgamesh of both literature and history. Is a sexual deviant, even by modern standards of acceptable behavior, a womanizer and a murderer.

As I have said before, in the Epic, Gilgamesh begins as a sexual deviant and a tyrant, but is later redeemed by his people and in the eyes of the Gods. That was the purpose of Enkidu's creation in the first place. He was manifested in order to tame the rebellion in Gilgamesh; to make him a better person, which he did. This is seen all throughout the Epic after the appearance of Enkidu. The affect on the King is dramatically obvious and instantaneous.


Honestly, I can't believe that you would think someone would want to take the name of Gilgamesh. He was not a good person. I think the story was as popular as it was to teach a lesson of what NOT to be. How many Caligula's ruled Rome?

First of all, Rome was one long roller coaster of bad rulers. They didn't need to take someone else's name, they made plenty of bad mistakes all by themselves.
As for Gilgamesh, he build great monuments in his city, erected the wall that can still be seen in the ruins of Iraq today. He brought cedar back from the forests of Lebanon, a rare commodity in ancient Sumer that made his country and people rich with the trade, and if even a quarter of the things he accomplishes in the various stories of his life are true, then he lead a very exciting and noteworthy life. I think many people might be inclined to take the name, actually.

Nevertheless, I have done all I can to illustrate that the most ancient of all Sumerian literature, and what is considered to be the first in history, shows that it contains stories of people who lived long after the characters mentioned in the Bible.

Actually, no. You've shown that there are similarities between the two, which is nothing new.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by EdenKaia]




posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
By the OP asking which is older, Sumerian tales versus the bible, I suppose this means that the older of the two should be considered to be the more reliable choice and the younger of the two suspect or disregarded.

But if the two stories are different perspectives, my theory, then age comparisons are as irrelevant as which witness was first asked by a cop to recall their account of a crime. They are both describing events and people that occured and lived in the same region of the world during the same time periods.

EdenKaia

I suppose you believe what you wrote about Gilgamesh. Many people share your beliefs. But when I look into the wider world, I stand firm in my assertion that Gilgamesh has not changed and he's as twisted and evil as he's ever been in his search for eternal life. In these present times, even Enkidu has found it difficult to see eye to eye with his long time companion.

I know you just assume that when stories are written about people who long ago yearned for immortality that they ultimately die like most people. Unfortunately, this is not the case and what really happens is they prolong their lives in the most unnatural ways until they can find a solution to their problem.

Gilgamesh was and continues to be the most violent criminal in world history. No hope for redemption. He will fight this until he is destroyed and when it comes to dealing with him and his tricks, I'll shoot first and ask questions later. For the OP, Abandon your beliefs and what you already know for what Gilgamesh can teach you and you'll regret his counsel. A place has been built for him...its called ADX in Colorado, 23 hour lockdown. This is where his Epic ends, I am certain. That's all that can really be said about Sumerian civilization and its stories.

America is one place he'll regret ever venturing too.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by huckfinn]

[edit on 3-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
Honestly, I can't believe that you would think someone would want to take the name of Gilgamesh. He was not a good person. I think the story was as popular as it was to teach a lesson of what NOT to be. How many Caligula's ruled Rome?


Little bit off-topic, but pertinent to the point.

Caligula wasn't his real name - it's a nick-name meaning "little boots". His real name was Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus - the "Germanicus" being his father's name. The naming convention was absolutely normal for Roman "royalty", both before and after. By modern standards he certainly wasn't a "good person", however by the standards of the Roman elite it's highly debatable whether he was anything out of the ordinary.

By modern standards we would consider Julius Caesar himself to be a genocidal maniac and monumental slave master - someone who killed millions purely in the pursuit of loot and domestic power - posting his enemy's heads around the place would have been normal behaviour. Yet every single emperor (and many post-Roman leaders for hundreds of years afterwards) would call themselves "Caesar" and the word "great" is often associated with him.

So to claim that because you consider Gilgamesh a "bad person" means others wouldn't take his name doesn't hold water at all.

Edit to add: whether they did or not, I've no idea, it's not my area of interest.

[edit on 3/1/09 by FatherLukeDuke]

[edit on 3/1/09 by FatherLukeDuke]



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


Howdy Father

Yep, the problem one has is there are too many assumption in this idea, one can believe it I guess but it's to wide a leap in my mind.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


Yeah, I suppose that is correct. But noone did take Gilgamesh's name, at least I haven't seen any evidence of a second Gilgamesh who lived, ruled and had great adventures around the same time as the Gilgamesh we all know about.

Which Caesar? Which Ramses?...are questions that make sense. The question which Gilgamesh makes no sense.

The Gilgamesh of the Epic and city of Uruk is the one and only Gilgamesh. Sumerian tales in general, among which the Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest, are the point of view of the offspring of the Serpent mentioned in the Bible. While the Sumerian tablets are older than any other, known document, the Subject Matter of the Bible is of equal or greater antiquity.

The two groups of literature are only exchangeable if you're planning on "switching teams". Otherwise, both can be read and understood to be mirror reflections of one another. Many people would be happy that they can have both sides of the story.

Gilgamesh is a Vampire, The Vampire, he's undead and trying to achieve immortality, his stories are like a Sith Legend, as compared to Biblical Jedi stories. He's the one producing all of the Vampire movies and cable television specials; Vampire public relations.


We all live in a world of shadow and confusion that contains both sets of books; thus most don't know what to think.



[edit on 4-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
Yeah, I suppose that is correct. But noone did take Gilgamesh's name, at least I haven't seen any evidence of a second Gilgamesh who lived, ruled and had great adventures around the same time as the Gilgamesh we all know about.

Which Caesar? Which Ramses?...are questions that make sense. The question which Gilgamesh makes no sense.


What's going on is some cultural things you may not be aware of.

In the Sumerian region, people had many names and no two kings had the same name. Romans, on the other hand, had very few first names which is why their full names are used to distinguish one from the other (and even then, you can run into overlapping names which confuses things.) Egyptian pharaohs often had duplicate names (which is why we have 10 Ptolomies and several Ramses, etc. Their full names (they took up to five names when they ascended the throne) are used to identify them completely.

Why the number of birth names became restricted is not known, but it was some sort of cultural preference for naming.

The records of Gilgamesh originally show him as a regular person... it's only later (hundreds of years after the first mention) that the symbols indicating divinity are added to his name but there are no temples to him -- he was only a demigod and never worshipped.




Gilgamesh is a Vampire, The Vampire, he's undead and trying to achieve immortality,


Actually, no. They had demons that were the equivalent of vampires and there are a number of practices that involve them (including a "demon bowl"). Gilgamesh dies and stays dead, unlike Inanna (say) who died and went to the underworld in order to retrieve Tammuz who also died) and both came back to life again.

It's the Labartu who are the vampires in that culture. Gilgamesh was a hero and not a Labartu.

Reference on Sumerian demonology: www.deliriumsrealm.com...

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


If Gilgamesh is dead then what was Mr. T trying to prove when he cut down the trees at 395 Green Bay Road in Lake Forest Illinois back in 1986? I always kind of figured that his actions were symbolic; a reenactment, if you will, of Gilgamesh killing Humbaba and cutting down his Cedars. I don't if he killed anyone.

I guess it was the allergies just like he said. go figure.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
EdenKaia

I suppose you believe what you wrote about Gilgamesh. Many people share your beliefs. But when I look into the wider world, I stand firm in my assertion that Gilgamesh has not changed and he's as twisted and evil as he's ever been in his search for eternal life. In these present times, even Enkidu has found it difficult to see eye to eye with his long time companion.


From this I gather that you are once again calling Gilgamesh the Serpent, and therefore his actions are a metaphor for modern society and the degredation of people in general, but I'm still not understanding your diehard comparison. Gilgamesh wept for his friend. He sought eternal life out of fear, not some evil contempt for the will of the God's or nature's plan for him. He feared death, as he feared nothing else. Gilgamesh was larger than life and wanted even more. His death would mean that he was simply a man and for all the things he had accomplished, all the deeds he had done, he would go the way of all men. I don't see his desire to cheat death as evil at all. Certainly not serpentine. I've contemplated my own death on several occasions and pondered what it could be like to live forever. I believe that all men share this innate fear of the unknown, what comes next, if you will. Does this make us all inherently evil then? Likened to the Biblical Serpent? Who then are we tempting? What is our great crime against creation, but simply to want to understand our own mortality?

Granted, Gilgamesh did horrible things in his youth, but as has been said, that behavior was corrected by Enkidu, as it was meant to be. Ninsun was the goddess of wisdom, after all.



I know you just assume that when stories are written about people who long ago yearned for immortality that they ultimately die like most people. Unfortunately, this is not the case and what really happens is they prolong their lives in the most unnatural ways until they can find a solution to their problem.

I think you are straying from the point here. Are you trying to delve into Necromancy and black magic? Different forum, but always interesting to discuss.


Gilgamesh was and continues to be the most violent criminal in world history. No hope for redemption. He will fight this until he is destroyed.


Would you not do the same thing? The point of the Epic is that life is short and because of this, we have to cherish every moment we have. The story of Gilgamesh hasn't lasted as long as it has because he is still "alive and well and still running amuck", but rather that people generations and even millenia after it was written can still relate to what he was going through. We all experience pride, perhaps too much at times. We all fall from grace and we don't always land on our feet. And finally, we all wonder about our own existence and what awaits us when we finally pass from this world. Is there something else? If so, will it be good. If not, can I fight what fate has ordained for me?

Gilgamesh the man might have just been another ruler lost to the pages of history, but Gilgamesh the hero is someone I think all people can learn from, even imitate after a fashion. He found solace in the fact that all people eventually die and made his peace with that. His people mourned his death, which tells you that he changed his ways and became a good king. My apologies again, but the Serpent angle just still doesn't fit to me. Especially if you mean to take it as a metaphor for modern society.



America is one place he'll regret ever venturing too.


I hope not. I hope that all people read this Epic and understand its importance, most especially with the state of the world today. I for one am trying to follow the philosophy of Carpe Diem. I kiss my children every day and tell them how much I love them. I spend time with my family when there are other things I think I should be doing. We need stories like this. It's what keeps us going.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by illece
... i really would like to know which was written first Sumerian tales or the bible ,i am really struggling with my christian believes due to this subject!!


Cuneiform, the first form of written language, came from Sumeria so it stands to reason that whatever stories were going around were first written down by the Sumerians...the other cultures at that time didn't have a form of writing, so even if they wanted to, they had no means of recording their stories, except by orally passing it down.

Writing something down may give you copyright, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you came up with it. Therefore, your Christian beliefs can remain intact.

[edit on 2009.1/10 by the siren]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by illece
 


This particular subject and the facts involved changed my view of being a christian forever. I can no longer believe that the bible is what it is purported to be, not if the stories within were already told. I don't think that it is possible for the stories matching could be a coincidence or happened twice the same way, just different names. I do however believe that there is a God, I just don't think the bible is an original.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
reply to post by illece
 


This particular subject and the facts involved changed my view of being a christian forever. I can no longer believe that the bible is what it is purported to be, not if the stories within were already told. I don't think that it is possible for the stories matching could be a coincidence or happened twice the same way, just different names. I do however believe that there is a God, I just don't think the bible is an original.


Keep in mind that the Bible was written by a multitude of people, sometimes many years after the events actually happened. Then you have the issue of translation; there are many words in Hebrew that don't translate well into English and vice versa, not to even mention the personal biases of the translators themselves. The point is that you can have faith without being a hardcore Bible beater. Take what you need from it and make up your own mind. Archaeologically speaking, the Sumerian accounts are older, but you will never be able to tell what was being passed down orally first, so we will really never know for sure. The best we can do is just make an educated guess.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by illece
 


Finally, a post I can really help out with.

Ok, first of all the Sumerian tales are older than those in the Bible, much older indeed and, in fact, the oldest large body of ancient texts. This is simply a fact of history. However...the Sumerian tales are written in an ancient and dead language that no one in modern times speaks, has ever spoken, or has any record of having verbalized in recorded history. Therefore, anyone who makes an 'interpretation' of what they believe these writings actually say is doing little more than a lot of guess work.

What I mean by this is that unless you actually *are* a Sumerian from thousands of years ago, you really have no way of knowing what those people were really saying or not.

Remember, that the greatest secret code in WWII was nothing more complex than the Native American languages, much less complex than Sumerian as these are *live* languages with modern people who can still speak them.

What does Sumerian *really* mean? Nobody really knows and anyone who says they do, who doesn't personally own a time machine, is full of crap.

Worse yet, are people like Sitchen who interpret these writings in a dead language to apply to modern concepts and artifacts. It's complete and total nonsense.

Now, let's move on to the Bible which is much more recent than Sumerian but, then again, you need to think of context. The Bible was written by ancient and savage people in a primitive culture. It contains rules and edicts from tribal chiefs of a tiny and insignificant part of an ancient desert people. The people who wrote the bible knew nothing about modern science, DNA, chemistry, biology, sub-atomic physics, cosmology, or really much of anything else we take for granted today as comprising what we know of as 'reality'.

They savages satisfied themselves by writing edicts about when it was, or was not, appropriate to beat your slaves or when you should, or should not, kill your child for talking back to you. (I won't quote the Bible verses that say this because, if you don't know them already, you are best served by not learning them.)

The Bible depicts a petty, savage, and jealous god, quite happy and content to send two female bears to tear 42 children limb from limb, killing them all, for the crime of teasing a bald man. A bald man who prayed to God that such retribution should occur simply to make sure no one would diss his reputation.

The Bible, as well as the ancient Sumerian tales written in dead languages, were written by ignorant and savage peoples. Now, I'm not going to argue too much that the human race today isn't still savage, but I would argue we are far less ignorant. That is to say, at least, those of us who have a college education and understand the scientific method.

To govern any aspect of your modern day life, in the year 2009, by the writings of ignorant and savage people from thousands of years ago, or to accept the interpretations of dead languages by lunatics and nutbags like Sitchen, is the height of stupidity.

Or, at least, in my humble opinion that is how I feel.

How do you feel? Do you prefer to shape your beliefs by the writings of ignorant savages from thousands of years ago, or by the absurd interpretations of dead languages by lunatics and fools, or by what we have been able to discern though our senses and the scientific investigation of nature in these modern times?

John



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
The Sumerian tales are older (or at least were written down first.) These tales, on clay tablets, are about 1,500 years older than the Bible. The earliest of the Biblical books was written down about 1500 BC.

The story of what was written when for the Bible and how they decided what books were to go into the Bible is an interesting tale, and one you should read sometime.


That's pretty much the answer right there.

I won't go into which one is more valid by the age since they both seem to reflect certain events, rituals, or rules that clearly some expect us to still honor, remember, or adopt.

- Lee

- Lee



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by illece
 

Check out www.zeitgeistmovie.com...
get past the first 10 minutes and it starts to explain the origins of religion. This movie will open your eyes. Watch the Blue one first. Cheers.


Edit link

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Wormwood Squirm]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by EdenKaia
 


I remember watching the Lara Croft movies some years back and after contemplating the nature of this character I came to the conclusion that Lara Croft is Satan. Croft is portrayed as an independent and strong woman; resourceful, knowledgeable, estranged from her father and mother, lonely, etc. Anyone who sees the movies starring Angelina Jolie will root for Croft. Gilgamesh is written in the same fashion.

But before I answer a specific question, I will restate that the Sumerians are a part of ONE branch of a family that had THREE branches. Sumeria is a minor state within a global kingdom. It is independent and full of itself. It is estranged from its mother and father and amplifies its own importance. I also want to say that the ancient world was under the impression that writing existed prior to Sumerian… ”Ashurbanipal was proud of his scribal education. He asserts this in the statement: “I Assurbanipal within the palace, took care of the wisdom of Nebo, the whole of the inscribed tablets, of all the clay tablets, the whole of their mysteries and difficulties, I solved.” He was one of the few kings who could read the cuneiform script in Akkadian and Sumerian, and claimed that he even understood texts from BEFORE THE GREAT FLOOD. Without getting into some long thing about floods, this quote should serve to inform the reader that the Assyrian was under the impression that some of the things he was reading represented knowledge that was preserved in writing PRIOR to the establishment of the Sumerian as a separate culture in the region. So, despite your need to believe the Sumerian’s invented writing, it is not the case.

EdenKaia,

Your post is lengthy, so instead of answering specific questions, I’ll just provide a blanket response. When dealing with life all your questions are valid and a person who is pure of heart will probably discover the secret of immortality despite our individual failings and weaknesses. Most of the world will achieve what Gilgamesh sought for, but when I say Gilgamesh is the Serpent, I do so because he is. I was reading on another thread where a member named Mariam0956, or something like that, referenced a source written in Arabic which identifies the King of Babylon as the Serpent. It is basic and common knowledge. While Gilgamesh is King of Uruk (Iraq), Babylon is within Iraq. Gilgamesh is the reason the Bible states that God placed an angel with a sword of fire at the gate of the garden to guard the Tree of Life. A complicated guy like Gilgamesh, who displays a full range of human emotions and who will kill for gain living forever is not a part of the plan. When a person reads the Epic of Gilgamesh, you are reading about the nature of darkness and evil and about how it manifests itself in the human story. The story you have probably read is the story that has unfolded in this world over the last 7 years.

I hadn’t read the story in years, but this thread caused me to revisit Gilgamesh’s adventure. Darkness is embedded within the text. For example, Enkidu and Humbaba are either brothers or father and son (or the same person, but that would involve me discussing alternate realities) and Gilgamesh knows this. Yet, he still has no problem of running the two into one another. In addition, Gilgamesh knows that Humbaba is also his own relative, but is so turned against the light and truth that he refuses to see this.

And another thing Saddam Hussein is a successor to Gilgamesh and emulated the man in many ways. For example, Americans think they decided to go to Iraq when the truth is that Americans were led into Iraq; most not even seeing the trap that had been laid, but overcoming it nevertheless. I’ll just leave it at that.

I didn't look for the darkness, it came looking for me. But it is real and if Gilgamesh is dead, he died by hanging 12.29.2006 and not before.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jratcliff63367
 


thanks for the info John,it seems its a case of tossing the coin to see on which side it fall
And a big thanks to all the posts,i have read them all.There seems to be as many for as against so i am still no wiser.
it seems if i want to keep my faith i go along with the bible,or i do my own thing and find whats right for me ...But what does that involve?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Here is my problem with all of it. I don’t care who wrote what first or where they say it came from. The data has no way of being confirmed outside of the fact that someone wrote it. Think about it this way. If everything was destroyed on this planet overnight and a few people survived in different pockets of the world and the world was rebuilt. The people of the new age would have nothing to go on but stories that had been past down from generations and that would be their truth. Now lets say a young child playing around or a scientist comes across an opening in a cave and finds a diary written by a Israelite. They manage after much time to decipher it and behold they have confirmation of what happened at the end of time. Now in another area or a few years later they stumble across a diary written by a Palestinian. Do you see where I am going with this?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by huckfinn
reply to post by EdenKaia
 


I remember watching the Lara Croft movies some years back and after contemplating the nature of this character I came to the conclusion that Lara Croft is Satan.

Now a fictional video game character is Satan? I give up.



I was reading on another thread where a member named Mariam0956, or something like that, referenced a source written in Arabic which identifies he is the reason the Bible states that God placed an angel with a sword of fire at the gate of the garden to guard the Tree of Life. A complicated guy like Gilgamesh, who displays a full range of human emotions and who will kill for gain living forever is not a part of the plan.

Hold on a second. If you are saying that the angel was placed at the gates of the garden because of Gilgamesh, then you are admitting that Gilgamesh came first and there is no point in arguing this any longer. The angel was placed long before the birth of Nimrod, who you claim to be Gilgamesh, meaning that if you are correct, Gilgamesh actually existed before Adam and Eve. After all, it was HE that tempted them into damnation, if I'm following you correctly.

I'm glad you finally see my point.




I hadn’t read the story in years, but this thread caused me to revisit Gilgamesh’s adventure. Darkness is embedded within the text. For example, Enkidu and Humbaba are either brothers or father and son (or the same person, but that would involve me discussing alternate realities) and Gilgamesh knows this. Yet, he still has no problem of running the two into one another. In addition, Gilgamesh knows that Humbaba is also his own relative, but is so turned against the light and truth that he refuses to see this.

You have just created an entirely different comparison here. Where are you getting a family tie between these two men and Humbaba? Just because somehow they are all tied to the Gods? That doesn't follow. It's like saying hot dogs and tuna sandwiches are the same because they are both made by a guy in an apron.
I suppose you could argue that they are all somehow children of the Gods because they were created by them, but then if you go with that theory, you are just spouting the same, "We are all one" story that has been going around forever.


And another thing Saddam Hussein is a successor to Gilgamesh and emulated the man in many ways. For example, Americans think they decided to go to Iraq when the truth is that Americans were led into Iraq; most not even seeing the trap that had been laid, but overcoming it nevertheless. I’ll just leave it at that.

The Iraqi conflict is a different forum, but if you can tie it into this discussion with something a little more solid than, "Saddam Hussein is a successor of Gilgamesh", I might be willing to discuss it. IMO, Hussein would more likely be a successor to Nebuchadnezzar perhaps, but I'm not seeing Gilgamesh. Despite your unvalidated opinion here, Uruk never was and never will be the same place as Babylon. Though both located in the same general vicinity of ancient Mesopotamia, they were entirely different places, ruled by entirely different people. Just because the ruins all happen to be located in what is now Iraq doesn't mean that you can just marry the two together and say one is responsible for the other, etc.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Comments:


Modern knowledge of Sumerian phonology is inevitably extremely flawed and incomplete because of the lack of native speakers, the transmission through the filter of Akkadian phonology and the difficulties posed by the cuneiform script. As I.M. Diakonoff observes, "when we try to find out the morphophonological structure of the Sumerian language, we must constantly bear in mind that we are not dealing with a language directly but are reconstructing it from a very imperfect mnemonic writing system which had not been basically aimed at the rendering of morphophonemics."


That said we can understand WRITTEN Sumerian to a point - especially when dealing with bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian (A semitic langauge) documents. Sumerian was used as a written language up to the First century AD. Its two sociolects were incorporated into Akkaidian.

So we can translate it with some confidence but not totally.

Howdy Huckfinn

Ah, well is anyone NOT Satan? LOL

Assurbanipal was speaking about Sumerian, not an unknown language - IMO the earliest known proto-Sumerian is the Kish Tablet, which dates to around 5,500 BP.

Do you have evidence for this other unknown language? You also speak of the Sumerians being the third of a global empire?? Evidence for this? What/where are the other two?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jratcliff63367
reply to post by illece
 

Sumerian tales are written in an ancient and dead language that no one in modern times speaks, has ever spoken, or has any record of having verbalized in recorded history. Therefore, anyone who makes an 'interpretation' of what they believe these writings actually say is doing little more than a lot of guess work.

While I will agree that alot of what goes on in ancient language translation can be considered by some as "guess work", it is highly educated guess work. It is true that Sumerian is a dead and unspoken language, but like ancient Latin, we have methods and means of translating these texts through the bits and pieces left behind by later transcribers and various other "sister" languages, if you will. Similar to modern Spanish, Latin, and Italian, many of the languages of ancient Mesopotamia had similiar characteristics that could be used to decipher the more cryptic tablets that came before. I.E, Akkadian, Persian, etc. A strong knowledge of both of these languages were used to help put the missing links into the Sumerian mystery.


What I mean by this is that unless you actually *are* a Sumerian from thousands of years ago, you really have no way of knowing what those people were really saying or not.

This is actually quite untrue. Many peoples that existed in this world at one time or another are no longer here and part of our daily lives, but we can still learn from them and understand them from the footprints they leave behind. Through archaeology and those well versed in ancient linguistics, we are able to piece together entire cultures and societies. How they lived, how they worked, their religious structure, etc. Sumerian is no different. We may not have as much as some other civilizations that we consider extinct, but still enough to make fairly accurate assessments of what a certain people would have been like.



What does Sumerian *really* mean? Nobody really knows and anyone who says they do, who doesn't personally own a time machine, is full of crap.

How about the Kish Tablet as an example. This is one of the oldest pieces of evidence for writing we have, dating back some 5000 years or so. Now granted, while almost purely logographic, it can serve its purpose as your "time machine". Things like this give us insight into a completely different world. How can you say then that we have absolutely no way of understanding a people unless we were physically there with them?



Now, let's move on to the Bible which is much more recent than Sumerian but, then again, you need to think of context. The Bible was written by ancient and savage people in a primitive culture. It contains rules and edicts from tribal chiefs of a tiny and insignificant part of an ancient desert people. The people who wrote the bible knew nothing about modern science, DNA, chemistry, biology, sub-atomic physics, cosmology, or really much of anything else we take for granted today as comprising what we know of as 'reality'.


For one, I would hardly call King David or Solomon just part of an "ancient and insignificant desert people", but the Bible was meant to be interrpreted as best suits you. I believe that history might paint them out to be a bit more signifant in their lifetimes than you might want to give them credit for.
As for what they knew about chemistry, biology, etc, what does that really matter? Honestly, they laid the ground work for most of what we "know" today. I think you are failing to give credit where credit is due. Take this ancient battery for example. Some of these date back to around 2000 BC. I think then it would be safe to assume that these "savages", as you call them, were not nearly as ignorant as might want to believe.



The Bible, as well as the ancient Sumerian tales written in dead languages, were written by ignorant and savage peoples. Now, I'm not going to argue too much that the human race today isn't still savage, but I would argue we are far less ignorant. That is to say, at least, those of us who have a college education and understand the scientific method.

Do I really need to go into why a college education has nothing to do with the nature of a person? What makes these people savage? Do you mean savage the way the English said the Native Americans were savage? Lesser people because they didn't know what guns were? Or do you mean that they did atrocious things? Because honestly, I'm not sure if you have ever spoken to a Vietnam vet, but if you ever get the chance, ask them about some of the things they had to do over there.



To govern any aspect of your modern day life, in the year 2009, by the writings of ignorant and savage people from thousands of years ago, or to accept the interpretations of dead languages by lunatics and nutbags like Sitchen, is the height of stupidity.

I would disagree here entirely. We need to govern our lives by these examples. To beat a cliche to death, those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. That's not to say that everything then was bad, but actually just the opposite. There is always something to be learned from the past.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join