Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ancient Sumerian Literature and the Bible

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


I have read many of these books that were not included in the bible. The point I was making is that they are not in the bible, and probably should have been so the bible would show a more complete picture. I asked the questions to see if anyone wants to speculate to why the bible eludes to these people but really does not elaborate. This question may be for another thread, since it is a little off topic.

Thanks for the reply.




posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by EssenceOfSilence
 


my take on the point of why the Gilgamesh story's deal with superhumans and hero's and stuff as to the bible not doing these things is that the bible has the purpose of getting mankind ready for the wellknown story of Harmageddon, leaving behind alot of details pertaining to the way they used to live before the flood and shortly after. The Gilgamesh story's however gives us more of a view on the way life was lived in those days.

Now stay with me cause i'm going out on a limb here. I think that all of the mythical story's we know of, as in the Greek Mythology and also Egyptian religion, could very well be fact-based and be in fact telling us about the results of the biblical story's on how, before the great flood, angels came down and took human forms (while maintaining their angelic abilities) impregnating human women. The offspring we know of as Nephilim are called Demi-gods in greek mythology. Hercules could have very well been a reallife person back then. If im not mistaken, the book of Enoch goes into much more detail about those days.
edit on 18/3/2011 by faceoff85 because: reply to:



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Vizzle
 


OP, S&F! I've been wanting to write a post like this for a long time and just haven't had the time or the patience, so I commend you for that.

I'd also like to add a few things worth noting...

The Sumerians referred to an entire pantheon of Gods that walked alongside the people of Earth. They wrote explicitly about them and their eating habits, clothing, etc.

The thing I thought was extremely interesting is that the scriptures that predate Genesis from these other ancient cultures have strikingly similar stories to one another. In the Old Testament, God is spoken of as being both very loving and benevolent, but also being very vengeful and full of wrath. There is a common mistranslation from "many gods" to "one god" when it comes to translating pre-Genesis scripture. If you look at the Sumerian stories of Enki and Enlil.... Enki was kind and loving, nurturing, a scientist and lover of life... Enlil was a general, commander, did not care for life and was vengeful and full of wrath. When people think of the God they know of and love, most don't think of him having the ability to be vengeful and full of wrath, it just doesn't fit. It sounds like God is a schizophrenic and I just don't buy that so I don't see how most other people do. But this makes perfect sense if you think of the two brothers in Sumerian times (Enki and Enlil) being mistaken for one god. If you apply the same idea to most of the other similar stories, a much different picture begins to emerge.

You also have to consider that the Vatican is one of the most powerful organizations in the world, and they didn't exactly earn it the right way. People forget what the Catholic church has done in the past to "spread Christianity" like the Dark Ages....

I know if I thought like an elitist, and were that powerful of an organization, I would do just about anything to stay that way and retain power for as long as possible. What better way than to discredit a possible god-like figure before he even gets here? What if the Sumerian myths of Enki are true and he returns and claim his place here on Earth as the creator of all humans? What if he shows proof to us, dazzles us with his knowledge and abilities, just like the good book says he will? The Vatican would immediately declare him the Antichrist and since he's been described as a god-like figure as I just mentioned, whether it be a Sumerian God or a Mayan God or Jesus himself, is likely going to threaten the power of the Church and therefore be deemed "evil" so that 2 billion people can turn into an army overnight and help the Vatican keep its power. Like I said, it's a classic tactic of those in power to discredit their opponents and a simple way to amass and army of people to die for your cause without even questioning it. I do believe in God Almighty, a great Creator of all, but not in the way religious Dogma teaches.

How about the fact that the Antichrist wasn't added to the New Testament until the 1300's? Sure, there is speak of "the devil" and "the beast" and "the man of sin" in old books, but there wasn't a definitive anti-Christ like figure until the 1300's when it was added by a specific Pope (can't remember which one off-hand). Conveniently, this is around the same time that discoveries were being made of Andean and other Indian cultures who documented a different kind of god-like figure that was not the same as Jesus, and what scared them most, is that in the things that were taken back to Rome by the Spanish explorers were items that reflected a date of return. It was around the same time that the story of an "Antichrist" found its way into the bible. Convenient.

I could go on and on but don't want to derail your thread. This is a fascinating subject for me and I've spent quite a bit of time looking into it... I'll be looking forward to more of your posts.


~Namaste

edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
So what if one takes into account that noah lived to be around 700 years old I think it was? According to the bible people lived anywhere from 250 years up to almost 1000 years.. until the times of the great flood at least. could this change the view on timelines?
edit on 18/3/2011 by faceoff85 because: (no reason given)


I don't think it changes the time line. I stated earlier in this thread:



After writing the paper, I actually came to the personal conclusion that Noah and Utnapishtim are one in the same. The names only changed because of different dialects/cultures. Just my own opinion =)


I think that the stories are about the same people.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lawgiver
having read both, the similarities regarding the deluges described can be explained thus. both include such an event because it happened. why does the argument have to be made that one stole it from the other, or based it on the other's account? if there was such a deluge catastrophe, any and all survivors would have talked about it til they died. on to the age of both accounts. there can be an argument made that the older account is more accurate. simply put, written earlier in time is more fresh in memory and better evidence of accuracy. the issue is this: there are more recovered early manuscripts and documents regarding the hebrew bible (meaning torah- the law; the prophets; and other writings) than other ancient religions. the issue with recorded history is that the earlier you go, written forms of language are not as developed. early human history was catalogued in oral tradition. this is not to say that wasn't effective, since much of the earlier greek myth stories were passed down in oral tradition. bottom line, the hebraic texts surviving even to this day are fairly vast and ancient. older than the written forms of gilgamesh epic and such.


I do believe the event happened, and like ive said after the OP, I think the stories are about the same people, with the name changes being more because of regional dialect/culture.

Your last sentence is incorrect. As in the OP, the theoretical date for Moses writing the Torah is around 1450BCE. The first time we find a written account of the Epic of Gilgamesh is from around 2100BCE (im using general dates at this point, see OP for more specific dates) I have also stated that ANYTHING from this far back in history is fairly muddied, and we are lucky to have any account at all. However, with that said, the facts show that the epic of Gilgamesh predates the Torah by about 500 years.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Thanks! I actually had a couple of more ideas about future papers while writing this. It was a specific quote that I use that caught my attention, and draws parallel to your enki/enlil theory.

This is the first half of Genesis 3:22 -

"Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like of of Us, to know good and evil."

It just struck me as odd that he said that man had become like Us, instead of me. The question that came to mind is, Who is Us? Is he speaking of himself and angels, or are there other gods floating around up there with him? Was just one of the unanswered questions I came across while writing it.

Again, Thanks for the additional information and I am glad you enjoyed the read =)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Vizzle
 



Since the sentence of your question is a biblical scripture you should use the bible to answer it. God (YHWH) never said he was the only god, in fact he told the israelites time and again to steer clear of pagan worship, since Jehovah is a jealous god. For example Jehovah mentioned the existence of a god called Baäl. However the bible talks of no more then 1 Almighty god, being Jehovah.

I think the word God is nothing more then a title to signify status. So pretty much anyone and anything can be or become godlike if there are those willing to worship
edit on 18/3/2011 by faceoff85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
reply to post by Vizzle
 



Since the sentence of your question is a biblical scripture you should use the bible to answer it. God (YHWH) never said he was the only god, in fact he told the israelites time and again to steer clear of pagan worship, since Jehovah is a jealous god. For example Jehovah mentioned the existence of a god called Baäl. However the bible talks of no more then 1 Almighty god, being Jehovah.

I think the word God is nothing more then a title to signify status. So pretty much anyone and anything can be or become godlike if there are those willing to worship
edit on 18/3/2011 by faceoff85 because: (no reason given)


The word "God" actually means "the greatest good" if you trace the etymology of the word. And you are correct about there being the one Almighty God in the Bible but it also being used as a title of sorts. I'm going to try to demonstrate that here.

But Vizzle is right as well.... there is the use of the word "US" which is critical when talking about this. If the word of God was written as it was spoken, and God used the word "us", it can't be chalked up to a mere slip of tongue. He would have been referring to more than one God, and whether or not the additional entity that is being referred to in the plural sense of the word "US" is another God that is equal to Jehovah or below him is irrelevant in this context because it is complete conjecture with no written record to go by. The fact is, the word US is used, so one must ask why? When asking why, we also have to wonder WHO else is included in "us"?

However, since there is speak of other "Gods" in the Old Testament, even though Jehovah says not to follow the Pagan beliefs since it refers to more than one God, it would be pure ignorance to not acknowledge previous pantheons from the cultures that predated Genesis. Why would Jehovah be a jealous God? Jealous of what? What does a benevolent being, the Creator of all that is, need or care about one creature on one planet, praying to him and giving only HIM their praise??? That makes ZERO sense to anyone with a shred of logic in their brain. BUT.... if you think of there being multiple Gods, or entities that have the same abilities that are god-like or beyond humans, then anyone with these abilities could very well be considered a "God", in which case, you could have rivalry between them. The previous pantheons spoken of by the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Akkadians... they are the same, with different variations of the words and names of characters to fit with each culture's language at the time. As things were translated over and over, and different names were used, we start to lose a sense of the original story. Some of these stories have been preserved in the Bible, but only those that have served a purpose to people who want to control others through the use of religion. The REAL stories, the ones that matter such as the ones in the book of Enoch or the Dead Sea Scrolls, were intentionally left out because they spoke the truth.

When we talk about Sumerian and Mesopotamian cultures during those times, the stories of Enki and Enlil are more popular because these were the two Gods that lived amongst the people and had the greatest influences over them. Those that are more astute readers of Sumerian history will know that Anu was the Father of Enlil and Enki and had the ultimate say in earthly affairs. The stories tell of him being overthrown eventually by Enlil, but it was Anu that was supposedly the "king" of the gods of Sumerian times. When you talk of Jehovah being jealous of other Gods and making a commandment (a rule on high) that nobody should worship anyone but Jehovah, who does this sound like in the Sumerian pantheon? Again, anyone familiar with these stories will immediately think of Enlil and his angst for humans. The stories of Enki tell of the God that we all think of... loving, benevolent, kind, wise with a fondness for humans. Supposedly, Enki is Noah's half-god Father according to the Sumerian version of Noah (Ziusudra), which is why Noah/Ziusudra was warned about the coming flood. Enki was also represented as a SERPENT, which has been a symbol for medicine and human DNA. It was ENKI that was being referred to in the Bible. Enlil was like a tyrant, the people feared him. He would punish those who didn't follow and him and Enki fought over this a lot, eventually leading to Enlil deciding to wipe out all of Enki's beautiful creations (humans) with a flood. This is where the biblical flood comes into the picture.

Here are some things to consider.... The Sumerians and other cultures of Mesopotamia, appear to have developed advanced civilizations from basically nothing. Music, art, law, medicine, writing all seemed to have "appeared" at once, not over time, which is contrary to all other historical development of cultures around the world. Many scholars admit off the record that Egypt and prior cultures must have had a "third party" involved in their advancement. These cultures wrote down EVERYTHING they saw and did, and not in the form of myths. They were very specific about how the Gods dressed, what they slept on, where they came from, how they behaved (similar to humans oddly enough), how they ate, when they ate, etc.... the concept of a myth was not developed during those times, so we have to assume that a lot of what they wrote about was REAL, and if this assumption is made, we must consider it's implications for future generations and religions.

Today, we still have tribes of people that throw arrows at planes and helicopters and think they are magic and "gods". Some of these tribes have thought that their "God" was returning when they saw a white man for the first time since their God left. It happened to the Aztecs when the conquistadors savagely murdered thousands of them; the Atecs mistook them for their "God". The parts of the world today that are advanced see these tribes as "ancient" or "way behind" and we don't really think of ourselves as "advanced" but we know we are more advanced than them for instance. If you wanted to, you could land in one of these villages and easily convince them that you are a "God" right now.... why would it be any different 7000 years ago? Why COULDN'T there have been a highly advanced race of HUMANS, that had technology and abilities beyond the "natives" of the other countries at the time? We hear about Atlantis a lot... we also hear stories about the Atlanteans influencing early cultures.... why couldn't Enlil, Enki, Anu or Jehovah been Atlanteans that fled their country during a war? A war that ended in a catastrophe of BIBLICAL proportions? Why is it hard to believe that an advanced race of people may have wanted to "start over" by using the "natives" as a starting point for a new civilization that would be free from the problems that plagued and eventually doomed their people? Why wouldn't the natives be bedazzled by their abilities and wisdom and refer to them as their "Gods"? There is enough evidence to strongly support this idea, and as I mentioned before, you will find many scholars in the fields of Egyptology and ancient history that will also support it but not in a way that will put their reputations and livelihood on the line.

For that matter, you could take it one step further and say that these "Gods" were alien, mostly because of their long life spans, but that's a different topic. The stories of Atlantis talk of human interaction with non-human beings, but again, different topic and I digress.

This is a great thread, I'm considering starting a new one just to talk about this relationship between all of the religions and the pre-Genesis pantheon of Gods. Thanks for opening Pandora's box Vizzle!


~Namaste
edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Vizzle
 


mr. vizzle, you know that 1450bce is argumentative. many biblical scholars put the hebraic writings at 2750bce or earlier. i do appreciate your study. whereas the gilgamesh epic is written in a poetical style, the torah is not. in fact if you compare the similar poetical styles of the ketuvim (the writings) of the hebrew bible and the gilgamesh epic, the age of the torah and its preserved documentation actually predate it. of course, we are arguing in the speculative. the carbon dating of the biblical docs certainly support the age of 2500 - 3000 bce. as you know, such dating processes are limited by the varying windows of time that the thing could have been created. thanks for the discussion.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Vizzle
 


Good Read Vilzzle, Thanks



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is a great thread, I'm considering starting a new one just to talk about this relationship between all of the religions and the pre-Genesis pantheon of Gods. Thanks for opening Pandora's box Vizzle!



I am totally holding you to this. I am sure all of ATS will be happy to read it. I look forward to it



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


Some of what I posted in another thread, don't think it has been mentioned but it runs in the vein of what you are talking about I believe.

"The first commandment says you shall not have any other gods beside the christian god. Isn't this a bit redundant in a faith that only believes in one supreme being? Now I know you may say "Wait! People DO worship other gods and ours is the RIGHT one and the ONLY one, the bible just wants people to stay away from bad influences and false prophets and the like!"
Well if that is true, and there is only one god, how would you explain such an occurrence as Pharaohs staff? Where would the power to change it into a snake have come from? You may say that they are simply worshiping the devil in disguise, though I would tend to disagree as they were part of a religion that would have predated a religion inclusive of the devil.

And then there is the whole "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing. Why bother keeping that in the bible if you are going to simply absorb heretical religions and continue their religious rites? Point in case: Easter. Where do you think the easter bunny and eggs are from? Pagan fertility symbols, in case you didn't know. It was a spring celebration in honor of the changing of the seasons, and well, fertility (that's a very rough description, sorry). Not to mention the glaring similarities that anyone who does a bit o research can't help but notice (assuming they aren't wearing blinders) between older characters in other religions, myths, etc. (i.e. Gilgamesh , Dionysus) and the bible and torah."

Another example: 4) most remarkably, this myth provides an explanation for one of the most puzzling motifs in the Biblical paradise story - the famous passage describing the fashioning of Eve, the mother of all living, from the rib of Adam. Why a rib instead of another organ to fashion the woman whose name Eve means according to the Bible, 'she who makes live'? If we look at the Sumerian myth, we see that when Enki gets ill, cursed by Ninhursag, one of his body parts that start dying is the rib. The Sumerian word for rib is 'ti' . To heal each o Enki's dying body parts, Ninhursag gives birth to eight goddesses. The goddess created for the healing of Enki's rib is called 'Nin-ti', 'the lady of the rib'. But the Sumerian word 'ti' also means 'to make live'. The name 'Nin-ti' may therefore mean 'the lady who makes live' as well as 'the lady of the rib'. Thus, a very ancient literary pun was carried over and perpetuated in the Bible, but without its original meaning, because the Hebrew word for 'rib' and that for 'who makes live' have nothing in common. Moreover, it is Ninhursag who gives her life essence to heal Enki, who is then reborn from her (Kramer, Samuel Noah, History Begins at Sumer, The Pennsylvania University Press, Philadelphia, 143-144).
From here-
Link: www.gatewaystobabylon.com...

Awesome thread op, and good replies all; even those I disagree with still make me think.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lawgiver
reply to post by Vizzle
 


mr. vizzle, you know that 1450bce is argumentative. many biblical scholars put the hebraic writings at 2750bce or earlier. i do appreciate your study. whereas the gilgamesh epic is written in a poetical style, the torah is not. in fact if you compare the similar poetical styles of the ketuvim (the writings) of the hebrew bible and the gilgamesh epic, the age of the torah and its preserved documentation actually predate it. of course, we are arguing in the speculative. the carbon dating of the biblical docs certainly support the age of 2500 - 3000 bce. as you know, such dating processes are limited by the varying windows of time that the thing could have been created. thanks for the discussion.


Yup. That is why I clearly state in the OP -

"The theoretical date that religious scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible, the Torah was written by Moses is between 1446 and 1406 BCE."


Can you link to this? -


the carbon dating of the biblical docs certainly support the age of 2500 - 3000 bce


I would like this to be as accurate as possible =)

edit on 18-3-2011 by Vizzle because: missed a tag



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ganja
 


Cool thanks for the additional info. The relationship between Ninti and Eve I had a little trouble with. The additional info you have provided helps clear a few things up for me. Greatly appreciated!



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ganja
 


Excellent point ganja! Thank you for sharing that.... it absolutely has relevance.

Another point along those same lines was the change of Sabbath during those times. To appeal to the Pagans and worshipers of the Sun at the time, the decision to move the Sabbath from Saturday to Sun-day was just for that reason. It was simply to pacify the masses (Pagans) so that they would conform to the new religion (Christianity) and to move away from the Jewish Sabbath so that the Jews would abandon Judaism and move to Christianity. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of the use of Sunday for the Sabbath, and this has been a hot topic for a long time.

If you think about Constantine and the Roman emperors at the time, they had a lot to contend with. There were multiple religions sprouting up, each with their own set of ideals and beliefs. How can an emperor rule a kingdom without everyone being on the same page? You can't. So instead, they started looking at what was common between them.... and finding ways to get them to all come together in a way that funnels them in to one belief system - Christianity. For a period of time, there was very little distinction between the Roman Christianity and Judaism, in fact, the Roman's version was considered to be a form of Judaism and didn't become truly distinct until around 60AD (allegedly). There were more Pagans and Egyptians at the time and they didn't believe in Christianity or Judiasm, so to placate them, the Sabbath was moved. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen. It was somewhat ingenious when you think about it, because of what it accomplished for the Roman empire.

Slightly off-topic, I'm pretty handy with Flash (animation) development and have been wanting to put together a "project" online that visually illustrates a giant interactive timeline of history with every detail imaginable from all verifiable sources, even if we don't fully understand what they mean. This is a very simplified example, but I would want to tap a resource like Wikipedia or something huge for my data source. Trying to find sources of information that piece dates together across several cultures is extremely difficult, even for the skilled researcher. I just haven't had the time to even consider such an undertaking, but I would imagine that something of this nature would be beneficial to all people from every part of the world. This would truly change the way we "look" (pun intended) at history but would take quite a bit of effort to catalog everything into one system.


~Namaste
edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
reply to post by Vizzle
 


OP, S&F! I've been wanting to write a post like this for a long time and just haven't had the time or the patience, so I commend you for that.

I'd also like to add a few things worth noting...

The Sumerians referred to an entire pantheon of Gods that walked alongside the people of Earth. They wrote explicitly about them and their eating habits, clothing, etc.

The thing I thought was extremely interesting is that the scriptures that predate Genesis from these other ancient cultures have strikingly similar stories to one another. In the Old Testament, God is spoken of as being both very loving and benevolent, but also being very vengeful and full of wrath. There is a common mistranslation from "many gods" to "one god" when it comes to translating pre-Genesis scripture. If you look at the Sumerian stories of Enki and Enlil.... Enki was kind and loving, nurturing, a scientist and lover of life... Enlil was a general, commander, did not care for life and was vengeful and full of wrath. When people think of the God they know of and love, most don't think of him having the ability to be vengeful and full of wrath, it just doesn't fit. It sounds like God is a schizophrenic and I just don't buy that so I don't see how most other people do. But this makes perfect sense if you think of the two brothers in Sumerian times (Enki and Enlil) being mistaken for one god. If you apply the same idea to most of the other similar stories, a much different picture begins to emerge.

You also have to consider that the Vatican is one of the most powerful organizations in the world, and they didn't exactly earn it the right way. People forget what the Catholic church has done in the past to "spread Christianity" like the Dark Ages....

I know if I thought like an elitist, and were that powerful of an organization, I would do just about anything to stay that way and retain power for as long as possible. What better way than to discredit a possible god-like figure before he even gets here? What if the Sumerian myths of Enki are true and he returns and claim his place here on Earth as the creator of all humans? What if he shows proof to us, dazzles us with his knowledge and abilities, just like the good book says he will? The Vatican would immediately declare him the Antichrist and since he's been described as a god-like figure as I just mentioned, whether it be a Sumerian God or a Mayan God or Jesus himself, is likely going to threaten the power of the Church and therefore be deemed "evil" so that 2 billion people can turn into an army overnight and help the Vatican keep its power. Like I said, it's a classic tactic of those in power to discredit their opponents and a simple way to amass and army of people to die for your cause without even questioning it. I do believe in God Almighty, a great Creator of all, but not in the way religious Dogma teaches.

How about the fact that the Antichrist wasn't added to the New Testament until the 1300's? Sure, there is speak of "the devil" and "the beast" and "the man of sin" in old books, but there wasn't a definitive anti-Christ like figure until the 1300's when it was added by a specific Pope (can't remember which one off-hand). Conveniently, this is around the same time that discoveries were being made of Andean and other Indian cultures who documented a different kind of god-like figure that was not the same as Jesus, and what scared them most, is that in the things that were taken back to Rome by the Spanish explorers were items that reflected a date of return. It was around the same time that the story of an "Antichrist" found its way into the bible. Convenient.

I could go on and on but don't want to derail your thread. This is a fascinating subject for me and I've spent quite a bit of time looking into it... I'll be looking forward to more of your posts.


~Namaste

edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-3-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)


Actually, the popular concept of the "antichrist" in our world is skewed. The antichrist is only mentioned in one of Paul's books, and it refers to a general group of people who don't spread the correct message regarding Jesus Christ. In my opinion, a group like Westboro Baptist Church could almost fit the definition as used in Paul's book.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
So what if one takes into account that noah lived to be around 700 years old I think it was? According to the bible people lived anywhere from 250 years up to almost 1000 years.. until the times of the great flood at least. could this change the view on timelines?
edit on 18/3/2011 by faceoff85 because: (no reason given)


I think it helps explain the timelines but you have to be seriously open-minded to the idea that the rubber-stamped approved version of history is wrong.

According to accounts Noah (read that as the primary person that was brought through the flood) lived for hundreds of years post-flood (as did his sons) while everyone born post-flood was becoming increasingly limited in their lifespans . This establishes Noah and his sons as demigod type of characters for much of our legends. The account is that Noah stayed in the mountains NE of Sumeria and that his sons came down from the mountains and each started civilizations.

The other key ideas that you need to be open minded about is that the technology/knowledge the era was much higher than we give it credit. These men all lived for a long period before the flood in a world where "angels" were walking on the Earth. The knowledge that was in practice was a primary cause for the destruction. Noah and his sons were to leave that knowledge alone; however, it started to be reacquired and along comes the event at Babel which threatened to restore the corruption that caused the flood and so not only were the people's of the Earth relocated and "confused" but the administration of the Earth was taken away from Enki/Lucifer and imparted to 77 princes (non-human).

The multitude of administrators, dialects, and cultures has served to keep humanity from ever returning to its ability to do whatever they did at Babel. This is why accounts all over the Earth are the same or similar and in different tongues. They are the same accounts of a singular event at Babel and then accounts of the flood passed down from hundreds of years before Babel.

The princes, of which some became corrupt, started manifesting themselves as gods among their people. God took one group of people for himself, that being Abraham and his descendants. The wars that have been fought, and cultures overthrown represent the battles that have been taking place between the "princes" and it is clear that Enki/Lucifer usually wins those battles as you can trace through history the reinvention of Nimrod as God. Nimrod I think represents to Enki what Jesus Christ is to God which is why the ideas in Zeitgeist can exist. Throughout history, a god figure is brought in to cultures as they fall and are reborn and those civilizations are consolidated we are left with the Pantheon of gods which are all representative of Nimrod (male) and Astarte (female).

Its a leap to take even for Christians, but in this light everything starts making sense.

1) The flood wasn't genocide its a war to eradicate the non-humans which had nearly destroyed humanity. The interbreeding between non-humans and humans had created what we know today as legends of chimeras. The reason Noah is chosen is because he and his family are the last pure humans and so we take that to mean in DNA and not just in spirit.

2) The Egyptian magicians called on their gods which were alive at the time which is why their magic worked - their gods were inferior to God though which is why they could not match his power - its also why God had to take such a round-about way to extract the Israelis from Egypt. He was not only proving to Pharaoh that his gods were inferior but he was proving to the prince(s) involved that they could not prevail.

3) The eradication of pagan tribes as the Israelis come out of Egypt was not religious genocide - it was the eradication of non-humans (but inferior versions of the non-humans which lived before the flood). The immortality that the non-humans had prior to the flood has been lost as well as much of the knowledge but lineages had been reborn after the flood as the Bible alludes to. There is a lot of supporting references in the OT to back up the claim that those tribes that were destroyed were non-human.

4) Enki pre-plants Nimrod to undo Christ - but God supplants Nimrod with Christ. The savior of mankind via Enki/Nimrod is by power. The savior of mankind via God/Christ is by grace.

I could go on and on but the final point is that there is a war going on and its sometimes apparent but most of the times not. Both sides believe they know the ending. Enki/Lucifer has certainly overthrown most of the other princes involved to reclaim his seat of power - in our world its apparent through one world actions and globalism. In Sumeria, under Nimrod its said that all of the people were of one mind and one purpose. This should also explain to you why globalists have such Earth-worshipping / anti-Human philosophies. They believe in saving mankind through its destruction (order out of chaos).



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


It's bed-time for me, am definetely checking back on this in the morning...

cheers



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Vizzle
 


mr. vizzle, just spent some time looking for my old notes from school. i can't pinpoint the 2500-3000 bce reference. not conceding, just can't find it right now. the discussion takes some interesting tangents. the gilgamesh epic is written in myth style, not it a historical format. the hebraic text is written in different formats, but includes chronological and historical, as well as allegorical and poetical. one does not have to take them at face value, but the text itself stands on its own. the entire jewish nation stands on what is written as the basis of their people (as well as many others). if this becomes something of a religious discussion format specifically within the realm of the hebrew text, i'd be interested to discuss them at length. not going to go into the "us" or even the displacement of the vowel pointings in the hebrew word for almighty god which becomes an unspeakable (literally) word with consonants forming yahweh. misused by a great number of evangelical groups. have to be able to read the older biblical hebrew to understand whether the translation is correct. king james version taken form the vulgate not that accurate. best translating scholars are not jewish, but german. interested in furthering the discussion, but from a deconstructionist perspective.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lawgiver
reply to post by Vizzle
 


mr. vizzle, just spent some time looking for my old notes from school. i can't pinpoint the 2500-3000 bce reference. not conceding, just can't find it right now. the discussion takes some interesting tangents. the gilgamesh epic is written in myth style, not it a historical format. the hebraic text is written in different formats, but includes chronological and historical, as well as allegorical and poetical. one does not have to take them at face value, but the text itself stands on its own. the entire jewish nation stands on what is written as the basis of their people (as well as many others). if this becomes something of a religious discussion format specifically within the realm of the hebrew text, i'd be interested to discuss them at length. not going to go into the "us" or even the displacement of the vowel pointings in the hebrew word for almighty god which becomes an unspeakable (literally) word with consonants forming yahweh. misused by a great number of evangelical groups. have to be able to read the older biblical hebrew to understand whether the translation is correct. king james version taken form the vulgate not that accurate. best translating scholars are not jewish, but german. interested in furthering the discussion, but from a deconstructionist perspective.


No worries on not finding the notes. I myself have 2 big plastic storage tubs full of notebooks and the like, so I completely understand. Also, I was not asking for concession. I really was interested in the source, because if I could cite it I would make an adjustment to the paper (I am turning it in Tuesday). As to the use of "Us", it really was just a question I had when I was researching it. Not really a big deal, and possibly the start of another thread altogether.



Side note - Thank you everyone for your feedback and your manners!!.

I think this is one of the few "religious" threads on ATS where there is not blatant name calling or bashing one way or the other. I would like to again thank you (yes you) for keeping this a positive and scholarly thread. I am really enjoying the discussion that this paper brought about. I am learning a lot more, and I learned a lot while researching this. You guys and girls amaze me!

edit on 18-3-2011 by Vizzle because: sausage fingers and nudity, all at once









 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join