Eve and Nin-Ti: A Paradise Parallel

Disclaimer: This is a work of historical intellectualism, something to be pondered on, and thought about. I am not attempting to change anybody's faith through the posting of this thread. I am only trying to share some interesting information that I have discovered in my own studies.

We're all familiar with the Biblical account of Man's creation, as found in Genesis: Adam and Eve are molded from clay inside the Garden of Eden where they live sinless lives, until they consume the forbidden fruit and are thus exiled to a life filled with sin, pain, and ultimately death. What many may not be familiar with, however, is an older paradise mythology: that of the Sumerians, and the overlaps which their myth shares with the Biblical one. The goal of this thread is simply to present some interesting things to think about.

The particular myth I'll be discussing has been called, among other things, "Enki and Ninhursag, a Paradise Myth." Numerous translations of the myth can be found online. For this thread, however, I will be working with two translations of the cuneiform tablets, as prepared by the Sumerologist par-excellence, Samuel Noah Kramer, from his two books: "History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Man's Recorded History," and the volume of collected works "Myths of Enki, the Crafty God" which he wrote in conjunction with John Maier.

This topic, as it well-exceeds the 7500 character limit, will be presented in a series of installments, each relating to a section of the myth which I feel shares striking similarities with Biblical accounts. Hopefully this makes it easier to digest, and to look back on, as you move further through the entire thread. I will do my best to respond to questions and comments, but my sincere hope is that the material presented in this opening posts will be sufficient for explaining everything.

Let us jump right in then.

Throughout the course of Sumerian—and their successors, the Akkadians-Babylonians—mythologies the land of Dilmun is considered to be a paradisiacal garden, complete with all manner of flora and fauna which were believed to exist in an ageless, timeless, painless state of permanence. To solidify this point, we have, as examples, from a translation found in "History Begins at Sumer," these three quotes in relation to life in Dilmun:

The lion kills not
The wolf snatches not the lamb
Unknown is the kid-devouring wild dog

The sick-eyed says not "I am sick-eyed"
The sick-headed says not "I am sick-headed"
Its old woman says not "I am an old woman"
Its old man says not "I am an old man"

The wailing priests walk not round about him
The singer utters no wail
By the side of the city he utters no lament

I see no reason to believe anything other than these quotes establishing Dilmun as a place without death, age, or pain. Just as the Biblical Garden of Eden was believed to be a place without sickness, pain, or death. So, next we have the initial state of birth, that is, of painless birth. Woman, it was believed, experienced pain during birth because of her offenses against God's wishes. Before the consumption of the forbidden fruit, it was believed that birth was painless. This, too, is documented in the myth concerning Enki and Ninhursag.

The Sumerian writers utilized a repetitious style quite frequently in their works. So, we have three examples of painless child birth found in the Sumerian myth. First, Ninhursag gives birth to her daughter, Ninšar. Then, Ninšar gives birth to her daughter Ninkurra. Finally, Ninkurra gives birth to her daughter Uttu. Anyone familiar with Sumerian mythology also realizes that two other daughters were also born during this time: Ningikugal and Ninimma. These are, as well, believed to have been painless, although their births are not directly recorded. What we do have, though, is a thrice-repeated statement, which is recorded as follows in "Myths of Enki" explaining the birth of each generation:

One day being her one month
Two days being her two months
Three days being her three months
Four days being her four months
Five days being her five months
Six days being her six months
Seven days being her seven months
Eight days being her eight months
Nine days being nine months
The months of womanhood
Ninhursag, the mother of the land
Like fine oil
Like fine oil
Like precious oil
Gave birth to Ninšar

We now have an interesting array of parallels building up. First, the idea that a day, the days of creation specifically, we not equivalent to a normal solar day. The Sumerian account of one day being equal to one month, mirrors this. Second, the garden where time is localized, is painless, ageless, and knows no death.

An interesting thing happens next. Ninhursag, the eldest woman in Dilmun, lays the seeds for a series of eight plants, which grow up ripe and strong. Enki, however, sees them. While having a talk with his sukkal, or "conscience," he is persuaded to eat all eight of the plants. Again, from "Myths of Enki," we have the following repetitious writing:

Of the plants I have not yet decreed the fate
What in the world is this?
What in the world is this?
His sukkal Isimud answers him:
"My king, the tree-plant," he says to him
He cuts it down for him
He eats it

Enki then eats all of the plants: tree-plant, honey-plant, road weed-plant, thorn-plant, caper-plant, apasar-plant, amharu-plant, and one who's name is lost to the sands of time. Having finished, Enki is gifted with knowledge of the fate of the plants, and all of the information concerning them. Upon doing this though, Ninhursag confronts him, and casts a particularly nasty curse upon him, because of his having eaten her sacred plants. From "History Begins at Sumer" we have the translation:

Thereupon, Ninhursag cursed the name of Enki
Until he is dead
I shall not look upon him with the eye of life

After the pronouncement of the curse, Enki is wracked with pain, sickness, aging, discomfort, and all kinds of woes and torments, which begin to kill him. We can now add to our list of parallels. Third, we have the establishment of forbidden vegetation, which when consumed, grants knowledge and wisdom. The price for this trespass is our fourth overlap: the introduction of pain, decay, and death into the paradisiacal garden. After cursing Enki, Ninhursag disappears from Dilmun, and refuses to return. It takes Enki, nearly dying, and the pleas of all of the other gods, to bring about her return.

When Ninhursag finally does return, she nurtures Enki, and helps him confess the trespasses he has committed. For each one, like his skull which thought of eating the plants, his teeth which chewed them, or his arms which held them, she creates a healing force to alleviate the pain. This is an introduction of a doctrine of salvation, something which would become very important to Christianity. Ninhursag is essentially holding confession. Every time Enki can admit a wrong, she offers him a way to atone for it. It is the seventh atonement which is of particular interest though. As quoted from "Myths of Enki" we find:

"Brother, what hurts you?"
"My rib hurts me"
"I have caused Nin-Ti to be born for you"

Now, here is where a handful of very interesting things occur. To begin with, we have the name of the atoning force, and the location of the ailment. Nin-Ti, and Enki's rib. The Sumerian word "nin" means "lady", "woman", or "girl". The word "ti" can mean two things: "rib", or "to give life". The name of the atoning force, then, can be translated either as "Lady of the rib," or "Lady who gives life," which, when put together, would indicate a term with two meanings, or, to say it another way: lady who gives life from the rib.

Here, at last, we have the final Biblical parallel: Eve. The Hebrew term "eve" means either "living one," "source of life," or "to live," all three of which have direct overlaps with the name of the Sumerian figure, Nin-Ti. Secondly, Eve was constructed out of Adam's rib, which, as we now know, is the same reason for which Nin-Ti was created. When you also realize that "ti" means rib, the whole creation scenario behind Eve makes a lot more sense. Especially if the Biblical Eden utilized the Sumerian Dilmun as a type of foundation for the myth.

One other interesting overlap, found in both books, is that the Sumerians believed Dilmun to exist in the southwestern portion of the Persian empire, while Biblical references say that Eden, as well, was to the East of the four rivers (two of which are most likely the Tigris and Euphrates). To summarize the full parallels though:

1. Dilmun is a paradisiacal garden
Eden is a paradisiacal garden

2. In Dilmun there is no pain, aging, or death
Eden knows no pain, aging, or death

3. Childbirth in Dilmun was painless
Childbirth in Eden was painless

4. A series of sacred, forbidden plants exist in Dilmun
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil exists in Eden

5. Temptation caused Enki to eat the forbidden plant
Temptation caused Adam to eat the forbidden fruit

6. The curse of pain, aging, and death resulted
The curse of pain, aging, and death resulted

7. Nin-Ti, the lady who gives life, was created for a rib
Eve, the lady who gives life, was created from a rib

Whatever you choose to think, is entirely up to you. As the disclaimer said at the beginning, I am not here to consciously challenge anybody's faith. This is just my first crack at organizing my thoughts concerning religious syncretism in a readable fashion. As well, I am also familiar with other Sumerian and Biblical overlaps like the Flood myth, man's creation from clay, etc. Maybe I will do write-ups for those one day too. For now though, I only wanted to try it out with the paradisiacal garden.

Whether or not you see the parallels, or have begun to reconsider the origins of your own faith and it's holy doctrines, I hope you at least enjoyed the read.

~ Wandering Scribe

i've often wondered why people say that the hebrews, copied the stories from the sumerians.

do people forget that abraham came from the land of ur, which is a sumerian city-state in ancient mesopotamia.

and back then i think it safe to say very few people knew how to write, i would dare say that it was mostly scribes and royalty that knew any cuneiform, and most stories were passed down by word of mouth.

so it makes sense that the stories that were passed down would mirror those that were told in sumeria, and that moses , would write these same stories. the way they were passed down. looking at it from a non believing viewpoint.

also the sumerians were polytheists, and had many gods. so how do we know that God wasn't one they worshipped and the one who told the stories to begain with and that abraham did hear them from him?

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

back then i think it safe to say very few people knew how to write, i would dare say that it was mostly scribes and royalty that knew any cuneiform

Sumer is, actually, home to the first schools in recorded history as well. So while the average lay-person may not necessarily know how to write, writing was actually a formalized, and well-taught, trade during Sumerian times. Typically, from written tablets uncovered and translated, scribes would begin their training as early as six or seven years old, and spend seven to ten more years learning how to read, write, and translate cuneiform. It was quite a bit more than just the scribes and royalty who knew how to write.

people forget that abraham came from the land of ur, which is a sumerian city-state in ancient mesopotamia

so it makes sense that the stories that were passed down would mirror those that were told in sumeria, and that moses , would write these same stories.

The Biblical Ur, that is the Ur of the Chaldeans, came many, many centuries after the original Sumerian city-state of Ur.

But yes, the Hebrew people did at one time try to live in Sumer, or at least the Akkadian-Babylonian lands of Mesopotamia. It was during one such point, around 450 BCE, that the Hebrew scriptures, the Tanakh, were collected up and written down.

Sumerian literature however, cuneiform tablets, date between 4500 and 2000 BCE, before the Akkadian-Babylonians began conquering and altering the texts. There's no doubt in my mind that the Hebrew scribes were definitely inspired by Sumerian and Akkadian-Babylonian writings.

also the sumerians were polytheists, and had many gods. so how do we know that God wasn't one they worshipped and the one who told the stories to begain with and that abraham did hear them from him?

The deity Enlil, who reigned as the King of the Gods for a while (occasionally supplanted by Enki, and eventually overthrown by Marduk) did go by the name El, which is one of YHVH's names in mystical Hebrew scripture. Enlil was also the one responsible, during Babylonian renditions of Sumerian myths, for wanting to create human beings, and for wanting to kill them all with a flood.

I can very easily see how Enlil/El could have been the seed which germinated into YHVH. The biggest influences though, come from a deity called Il, or El, in Canaanite regions (the Levant). Carrying many of Enlil's traits over, Il's mythology more closely resembles YHVH, and it is well established that the Jews did try to settle in Canaan, eventually succeeding.

Again though, my goal was not to shatter or test anyone's faith. Just to give some food for thought. All of this is history which I find to be very interesting.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


I always enjoy your posts, and you have not disappointed in this thread either. Star and Flag from me!

I am enjoying the similarities of the "rib" scenario, with the creation of the female counterpart. It's interesting that in the Sumerian myth, Enki had committed a tresspass, and it's his "medicine" to have a rib taken, and a female essence presented. Whereas, Adam was, supposedly, without tresspass, and God created the female essence of Adam, because he was incomplete, lonely.

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

God, for the first time, declares that something IS NOT GOOD. Adam was imperfect without his female companion, yet she is the one who leads all of humanity out of paradise and into sin. Whereas, in the Summerian myth, the female is more of a redeemer, after repentance.

reply to post by windword


Thank you for the star and flag! Glad you enjoy my offerings. I do try to put thought and heart into what I put on ATS.

Concerning the purpose of Nin-Ti and Eve, they certainly do have a lot of differences, which is why I did preface the thread with the point of not trying to convert, or cause any crises in faith.

But, Judaism, on the whole, was much, much less friendly to women in general. There was no goddess, or divine feminine to counterbalance YHVH which survived in the Tanakh at all. In fact, the goddess which, historically, is believed to have been YHVH's counterpart was Asherah, the Phoenician mother-goddess who births Baal. Both Baal and Asherah do appear in the Hebrew scriptures though. He as a rival to YHVH's power, and she as a tree which renegade Jews worshiped. At some point Judaism may have had a more balanced belief structure, but somewhere along the way they discarded women and feminine energy.

Sumer was very kind to feminine forces. Nammu (the primordial sea) is responsible for creating the an-ki, which was comprised of everything between "Heaven and Earth." Ninmah, who becomes Ninhursag (Mother Earth) enjoyed universal worship across the whole of Mesopotamia for the several thousand years during which Sumerian mythology influenced the culture. The children of Ninhursag (of which there are many: Ninšar, Ninkurra, Ningikugal, Nin-Imma, Uttu, Abu, Azimua, Enšag, Nazi, Ninkasi, Ninsutu, Nin-Ti, Nintulla), were seen as the procreative, fertilizing aspects of the Earth, as well as the healing and restorative elements found throughout nature in medicine, and other forms of wellness.

So the parallels are only here and there, like the seven, or eight, if you count the location ascribed to each garden paradise, which I outlined and explained during this thread.

What I found most interesting about Nin-Ti, which I didn't really touch on, was the probability that the whole episode with Eve was a mistranslation of the Sumerian account. Imagine, if you will, that we have two Jewish storytellers trying to come to a consensus on what the Sumerian myth says.

#1 says that the myth explains how a rib-woman was created.
# 2 says how a life-giving woman was created.

Both accounts are accurate. But, because neither scribe was Sumerian, they don't know that Nin-Ti means both things. They think it must be one, or the other, and it confuses them that the same name is given to these two seemingly separate figures. In frustration, the two Jews just throw their parchment up and say: "Screw it, it was a woman made from a rib who gave life. Case closed."

I always chuckle when I think of it happening that way.

Anyway, thanks for the reply, and glad you enjoyed the recounting of the myth.

~ Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by windword

 

But, Judaism, on the whole, was much, much less friendly to women in general. There was no goddess, or divine feminine to counterbalance YHVH which survived in the Tanakh at all. In fact, the goddess which, historically, is believed to have been YHVH's counterpart was Asherah, the Phoenician mother-goddess who births Baal. Both Baal and Asherah do appear in the Hebrew scriptures though. He as a rival to YHVH's power, and she as a tree which renegade Jews worshiped. At some point Judaism may have had a more balanced belief structure, but somewhere along the way they discarded women and feminine energy.

Sumer was very kind to feminine forces. Nammu (the primordial sea) is responsible for creating the an-ki, which was comprised of everything between "Heaven and Earth." Ninmah, who becomes Ninhursag (Mother Earth) enjoyed universal worship across the whole of Mesopotamia for the several thousand years during which Sumerian mythology influenced the culture. The children of Ninhursag (of which there are many: Ninšar, Ninkurra, Ningikugal, Nin-Imma, Uttu, Abu, Azimua, Enšag, Nazi, Ninkasi, Ninsutu, Nin-Ti, Nintulla), were seen as the procreative, fertilizing aspects of the Earth, as well as the healing and restorative elements found throughout nature in medicine, and other forms of wellness.

So the parallels are only here and there, like the seven, or eight, if you count the location ascribed to each garden paradise, which I outlined and explained during this thread.

What I found most interesting about Nin-Ti, which I didn't really touch on, was the probability that the whole episode with Eve was a mistranslation of the Sumerian account. Imagine, if you will, that we have two Jewish storytellers trying to come to a consensus on what the Sumerian myth says.

And why not the fact that Nin-Ti was the mistranslation of Eve? Or that the Nin-Ti accounts were the apostate version?

Both accounts are accurate. But, because neither scribe was Sumerian, they don't know that Nin-Ti means both things. They think it must be one, or the other, and it confuses them that the same name is given to these two seemingly separate figures. In frustration, the two Jews just throw their parchment up and say: "Screw it, it was a woman made from a rib who gave life. Case closed."

I always chuckle when I think of it happening that way.

~ Scribe

Again, you only come to that conclusion because you believe that Sumerians held the truth. In fact, it makes you chuckle to think how the scribes collating what would become the Bible had it "wrong".

I guess that you don't notice the rise of goddess worship around the planet and the chaos which is rising, and the paganism, the worship of the created instead of the Creator, which is right there behind it. I guess that you therefore cannot identify the moves to exalt Mary to co-Mediatrix and Queen of Heaven for what it is. Nor the occult beliefs that Adam was androgynous and therefore the eradication of terms such as father, mother, husband and wife for gender less terms of spouse and parent. Or the blasphemous beliefs that the Creator is not only gender less but bisexual. Or the incessant rise in 'historical discoveries' that many of the ancient civilisations were matriarchal and not 'violent' as supposed.

Revelation states that the beast which rises from the pit will be looked at with awe by those who are perishing. Today, the rise of goddess and sex/fertility worship is increasing exponentially, especially as mankind is bring led to source their truth through their senses and experiences. Exactly what happened in the garden of Eden. One path worships the created and one path worships the Creator. One path twisted the account to reflect what they perceived as the truth and one path kept the truth because it was the Truth. The entire Bible shows us this, and shows mankind what happens repeatedly when man defines his own good and evil and let's his senses and experiences dictate his truths. It never ends well for mankind. We can see it today if we only look - the rise of feminism has brought death to untold millions through the sacrifice of our most innocent, the destruction of harmonious families and the sexual revolution which is nothing more than the worship of the created. The occult version of utopia is a return to hedonism, whereby the created is exalted as divine and the highest thought is dictated by what pleases the senses. To this end, the infirm are disposable, the inconvenient are disposable, the ugly are deemed disposable, the 'genitically inferior'....the less 'intelligent'....the poor...all are considered "useless eaters". Sound familiar? The end result of worship of the created.

And yet, you must discount the truth that it is the MEEK who shall inherit the Earth?

reply to post by windword


Yes, the disrespect shown to women in all abrahamic faiths is worthy of an massive eye roll.

It's almost as if a race of people, with little respect for women, found these Sumerian texts and rewrote them, conforming them into something they could use to further subdue women and assert control.

reply to post by LightAssassin


I believe Judaism leaves out the woman aspect because they had already been led astray by the "queen of heaven" (Ishtar, Astarte, Ashtoreth).

1 Kings 11:31-35

31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee:

32 (But he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel.

33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.

34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes:

35 But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes.

If you dig deeper and do some research on the people and civilizations that worshiped Ashtoreth, Enki or Enlil, you'll find that most of them were wiped out by Yahweh and didn't survive, even by archaeological standards (not just the Bible).

reply to post by WhoKnows100

Again, you only come to that conclusion because you believe that Sumerians held the truth. In fact, it makes you chuckle to think how the scribes collating what would become the Bible had it "wrong".

Although I can't speak for WanderingScribe, I don't believe that the OP has put forward either one of these creation myths as "true". In my opinion, the two stories are presented for comparison and analysis of the similarities and evolution of the myths through varied cultures and territories.

reply to post by Deetermined

I believe Judaism leaves out the woman aspect because they had already been led astray by the "queen of heaven" (Ishtar, Astarte, Ashtoreth).

Judaism doesn't "leave out" the woman aspect, it subjugates it, oppresses it and demonizes it!

Take a look at Genesis: God created everything, including man, and decides that everything he did was "good." Then he rests. Then, he reevaluates his creation and decides that something, indeed, is "NOT GOOD" and decided to make some changes.

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

He takes Adam, who was previously deemed a perfect creation, and takes a part of him out, and creates a new and separate entity.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

In effect, what the Biblical god has done here is fracture Adam, separating him from a part of himself. This schism of separation is what allowed for the "fall of man" through the seduction of Eve. Then, this god of the Bible punishes both of them, ergo, all of mankind, with Eve bearing the greater burden, because of this god's decision to break the soul of Adam in half!

Then, after 1000's of years of the oppression and slavery of women in Hebrew culture, along comes a "supposed" messiah who's mother is a "virgin" and his father is "unknown," further reinforcing the unnatural schism between the sexes, that Judaism promotes.

Whereas, the Sumerian myth offers another, more compassionate explanation. Enki had trespassed and ate of the plants that were not his to eat. Ninhursag. after having inflicted the pain of punishment, has mercy on Enki's misery and offers him a path to atonement through the revelation of his softer, feminine side, and thus, allows him a help mate in which he can reflect and commune and be advised to the source of life and wisdom.

So, where the Sumerian myth offer the feminine creation as a path of atonement, the Biblical god creates a schism, which he then uses as an excuse to expel mankind from his presence, and the death cult is born!

reply to post by WhoKnows100


I make no distinction on "truth," concerning either of the myths. But, if you want to get technical, then we can do that. It was during the "supposed" Babylonian captivity, between 600 and 500 BCE that the Jewish scribes began writing down their mythologies. So, not 'til closer to the end of the millennium do we begin to see the Old Testament lore come about.

Now, the peoples of Babylon were not Sumerians. The Akkadian-Babylonian empire was a semitic group, just like the Hebrews. The semitic Assyrians, who spoke Akkadian, came to power around 2500 BCE, with the majority of their written documents being dated to between 1700 and 1500 BCE.

The Akkadian-Babylonian age, however, was not the earliest. The Assyrians and other Semites supplanted Sumerian kingship. The Sumerian culture (and it's predecessors, the Ubaids) were non-semitic peoples who occupied the southern point of Mesopotamia from 5000-2000 BCE. The majority of their written texts dating between 3500 and 2500 BCE.

To offer a small timeline then:

5300 BCE - oldest Ubaid pottery, dolls, and artifacts
4500 BCE - Earliest evidence of Sumerian pantheism
3000 BCE - Erech, Ur, Eridu, Badtibira, Nippur and other Sumerian city-states
3000 BCE - Earliest of the Sumerian mythological writings
2500 BCE - Majority of the Sumerian mythological writings
2500 BCE - Invasion of semitic people like the Akkadians
2000 BCE - Relative end of the ethnic Sumerian culture
1700 BCE - Earliest Akkadian and Babylonian mythological tablets
1500 BCE - Majority of the Akkadian-Babylonian mythological writings
1000 BCE - Beginning of the Jewish Babylonian captivity
450 BCE - Completion of the Tanakh, or what Christians call the Old Testament

So, objectively speaking, yes, the Sumerian writings predate the Assyrian writings, which predate the Hebrew writings. I have no opinion though, on which is the "truth," because I don't believe there is an objective truth. The mythological motifs which I've compared here, are present in Sumerian, Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, Jewish, Anatolian, and even Greek mythology.

Sorry if your own faith cannot withstand scrutiny. As I prefaced my thread with though, I had no intention of challenging anybody's faith. Only, as windword said, presenting something for people to read, ponder, and think about.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Deetermined


Have you ever read the Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, or Anatolian accounts concerning the "Queen of Heaven and Earth" before, or do you only take the Biblical account into consideration? There exists over 6000 years of non-Biblical literature which is devoted to the history of the Queen of Heaven and Earth.

When you read it, you discover a lot of very interesting things, like, the fact that she was a flawed goddess. She could easily succumb to jealousy, wrath, and naivety. But, you also realize that she tirelessly worked to amend for her misgivings. The people loved her, not because she had hypnotized and mislead them, but because they understood her. Like her, they were flawed creatures seeking to better themselves.

Now, I can think of another deified figure who is prone to jealously, anger, and wrath; who likes to punish people for things which were not their fault, and who never apologies when he makes a bad call, or an erroneous judgement. A deity who people follow and love, not because he shows growth, character, and a true connection to them, but because he threatens them, assaults them, and punishes them for not following him.

But, I imagine you would find some kind of special pleading to write-off all of that concerning him. Pretending only his better, triumphant moments exist.

Don't be so quick to judge the Queen of Heaven. You only see her from one side.

Oh, and it wasn't the Jews who overthrew the Sumerians. It was the Assyrians who did. The Jews never encountered the Sumerians, they were assimilated into Akkadian-Babylonian culture long before the Jews showed up on the scene. The reason Enlil, Enki, and the other Sumerian pantheon do not show up in Biblical literature, but goddesses like Astarte and Ašerah, and gods like Baal do, is because the Jews rise to power occured North, in the Levant, where Ugaritic mythology (the Canaanites, Phoenicians, etc) were in power. Not in southern Mesopotamia, where the Sumerians existed.

I am very familiar with the history of Mesopotamia and it's neighboring empires. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest that YHVH exists as a physical being, or that his people, the Jews, overthrew the Anunnaki. In fact, the nearest you get is the semitic king, Il, who came from the northern city-state of Zabalam. He was the biggest threat to Sumerian authority, until the Assyrians conquered.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by windword

Although I can't speak for WanderingScribe, I don't believe that the OP has put forward either one of these creation myths as "true". In my opinion, the two stories are presented for comparison and analysis of the similarities and evolution of the myths through varied cultures and territories.

Thanks for stepping in, windword. You understand very well what my intent with this thread was. I even prefaced, in the disclaimer, that I wasn't out to challenge faith, or convert anyone. I guess people are just skimming though, instead of actually reading. Such a shame, since I put a lot of effort into writing everything, and then dividing it for easier consumption.

~ Wandering Scribe

you folks might consider checking out the work of LA Waddel
en.wikipedia.org...
( take the wiki description with a grain of salt ....look for his books online )

he deciphered the hieros of egypt india and summer and found they all agree and tell the same story


Ah Men ( also known as Manitu Tu in India and here in ONTARIO Canada with the Algonquin tribes ) refers to Menes the first king of the first dynasty of egypt ( Upper and Lower )

his father Zargon ruled sumer circa 4000 BC
his hieros are the reeds and basket, he was adopted by the queen
he became king

is there anything in that infernal bible that isn't plagerized?

PS
did I mention
the part where the pharoas get resurected after death
the first codified laws for the people handed down from the Ziggurat written on stone tablets
BTW
that bit about Ah Men is "our Lord Ah Men"
and as above so below referes to upper and lower egypt having the same ruler and the smae LAWS for the first time?
also:
the word god is from the root gut or goth...the kings line where Aryans - GOTH
blue eyed just like the non arabic Jesus...
go figure!


etc etc etc

reply to post by Danbones


While I cannot speak for everyone on this thread, I personally do not necessarily believe that every mythology tells the same story. I accept the idea of mythological motifs and tropes though, very much so.

This would account for deities like Dumuzi in Sumer, Osiris in Egypt, Baal in the Levant, and Teshub in Anatolia all sharing a very similar myth: the Death and Resurrection of the Agricultural God. It may also exist in proto-Greek mythology as Persephone in the Eleusinian Mysteries; in Phrygian mythology with Attis; Greek mythology as the Dionysian death-and-resurrection; and in Rome as the cult of Adonis. Some include Jesus, and even Balder from the Norsemen.

However, I am in agreement with mainstream archaeological evidence which suggests that cultural mythologies began near to the dates in the following timeline:

3500 BCE - Sumerian mythology like Enlil, Enki, and Inanna
3000 BCE - Dynastic Egyptian mythology like Ra, Osiris, and Ptah
2000 BCE - Akkadian-Babylonian mythology like Marduk, Tiamat, and Nabu
1900 BCE - Hittite-Hurrian mythology like Tešub, Telipinu, and Šauška
1700 BCE - Vedic Hinduism like Varuna, Agni, and Visnu
1200 BCE - Indo-European mythology like Persephone, Hecate, and Pan
800 BCE - Greek mythology like the Olympians
500 BCE - Hebrew mythology like YHVH
400 BCE - Puranic Hindu mythology like Brahma, Siva, and Kali

These are, obviously, rough dates, but they correspond to the oldest known sites of worship for chief deities in those particular mythologies:

Thanks for providing the link, though. I'm sure some of the readers here will find Waddel's work interesting.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Sorry if your own faith cannot withstand scrutiny. As I prefaced my thread with though, I had no intention of challenging anybody's faith. Only, as windword said, presenting something for people to read, ponder, and think about.

If you're not challenging anyone's faith, what is it that you want everyone to ponder and think about?

There are parallels in all of the ancient sacred texts, so what is it specifically that you want to point out?

That Judaism is male chauvinistic?

Sorry if I miscommunicated in my earlier post about Yahweh. No, I didn't mean to imply that Yahweh was a human being. I was trying to point out that the people and civilizations that followed/worshiped Yahweh (God) still exist and the civilizations that worshiped the other gods were taken over, lost or died out along with the worship of their deities (for the most part).

As for the archaeological evidence I was talking about, I'm talking about the status of these people and civilizations that worshiped these other gods.

reply to post by Deetermined

There are parallels in all of the ancient sacred texts

That is exactly what I was hoping to point out, and what I was hoping individuals would take some time to ponder on.

Religion, or faith, or spirituality (whichever you wish to call it) has served as a method of segregation for so long. Even you, who see the Sumerian and other Semitic peoples' religions as wrong, have fallen prey to this sad truth.

Yet, as you just said, the parallels exist everywhere. So, by what authority do you deem the Sumerian paradise myth to be incorrect, yet the Biblical one correct, if there is clear evidence suggesting the Biblical account is based on the Sumerian account?

I don't need to try to show the chauvinism of Judaism and it's later offshoot Christianity. The people who follow those religions, who recorded their holy doctrine, and practice it today do that just fine. The examples Windword has been presenting, on the Biblical creation of Eve, are only one perfect example of this.

No, like I said, I'm not here to challenge faith, only to point out something interesting. If your surety of faith depends on you being the only faith in the world to think the way you do, then you've probably fallen for a con. Yet, if you're not the only people on the face of the Earth to arrive at the doctrines you did, then you're probably on the right track.

The fact that elements of your faith were known, and practiced, for most of man's recorded history, even long before your particular God arrived, shouldn't make you feel less faithful, but more faithful.

~ Wandering Scribe