Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gilgamesh Tomb Believed Found at Uruk!

page: 13
121
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tehuti2999
The Noah's ark story originated in Kemet (Egypt) 4000yrs ago, the real story is about Kufu and his boat Nu Ankh, which was later corrupted into Noahs Ark. www.youtube.com..., don't be fooled by this find or the book itself.


stories from egypt that correlate with the ark story are evidence of ham's migration to the location and the effects of cultural drift and generational layering.
here's a few other egyptian connections i think i've found:

alulim=elohim=atum=adam (the people made in the image of elohim are the same as the people made in the image of atum, they were named after their creators. two different cultural approaches to same information)

nimrod=narmer=enmerkar=osiris
inanna=ishtar=isis

abydos=abzu




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
very nice find! this is amazing.... its fascinating to think what else lingers a few feet below ground level, just waiting to be discovered..



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Really, you are reasonably well read on pretty much only Mesopotamian myth/story, though this does directly relate to this thread, and you still fail to understand my point? I doubt that, you just felt the need to defend yourself when my comment was clearly not aimed at you and it's purpose was quite clear. I am still curious as to why, as well as why the need to show a partial reading list, which I sincerely hope is all it was.
edit on 2-3-2013 by skalla because: A bit squiffy



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by Hopechest
You know that the religious community are going to be extremely nervous about this. That's all they need is more writings to prove the Bible was ripped off of Sumerian text.


Is alredy confirmed by vatican scholars, that "Ancient Testament" is a "Mirror" of the Sumerian texts.


Isn't a mirror image...reversed?

Just thinking out loud.

Nice one Arken, hope to get more info soon.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Nicorette
 


Most religious stories are essentially mimicking nature, good, benevolent super power (Jesus etc) force overcomes evil (Satan etc) though sacrifices were made along the way, they are essentially the same tales, as old as civilization, in many guises, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, Aboriginal, Roman, Greek, Christian etc.

I have often felt like biblical tales were being deliberately played on Earth, who knows maybe Middle East invasions and world conquering in general is part of this (choose a character /side), or it could be just another real life epic saga of the tumultuous nature of humanities progress and human nature as led by man. Feudalism never really ended did it.

Not an excuse but it is happening worldwide, to people from their own governments and to those of other governments, a fundamental shift in consciousness from those that decide such things as wars is required.

That would probably require a major ego shifting event, like a true sign from nature / all powerful energy / other worldly beings etc for that to happen. That is if they open their eyes and ears to the truth.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kloejen
reply to post by Ghostinshell
 


Maybe the project went secret somehow?
Would it be totally outlandish, that maybe the Iraq war and this discovery is somehow connected?
Satellite images could have revealed parts of this hidden city. So it was a dash to get there first, and grab the artifacts... almost taken from the Indiana jones movie "Raiders of the lost ark"

The Iraq war started on 20th march 2003, and the article is written about a month later, 29th april 2003.
Not sure when the German archaeologists arrived at the site, but it seems to me it would be unlikely, before the war began. So to speculate, then they would have about a month to discover this? That's pretty lucky i guess?
What could they possibly have found?


And after the West moved into and took control of the area, the question becomes would the US and allies be honest enough to publicly reveal find that could possibly have ramifications for world religious histories?

I doubt it.

It's strange the reports dead end, even if nothing of substance was found, THAT in itself would surely have been reported after the BBC's initial story...but no BBC follow up, nothing updated (that i could find) on the team lead's academic profile either.

Not to say there isn't a follow up somewhere, i only performed a quick search.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
It's a shame that this is old news but it has led to some very interesting comments on here



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Unsustainable
 


It's a shame that this is old news but it has led to some very interesting comments on here
and this first thread has been a pleasure to read.


Hear hear, this is actually very entertaining as The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of my favorite mythical adventures. Gilgamesh's travel to visit with Utnapishtim and Utna's recount of the Flood are very enlightening.

My first post on ATS,

Well done.
edit on 3-3-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: missed the quote



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
but naphal is a hebrew word that means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, to fall upon, to attack
nephiyl only means giants if it's in its plural form - nephilim
its root form is naphal, which means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, etc.

hebrew is complicated. i'm guessing the word is a composition of earlier terms that each meant something different but descriptive, and they were combined to create the final term, nephilim = giants, but with the understanding that they were giants who fell down, were cast down, who came down to the earth, just as it is mentioned in the book of enoch.


You can believe what you want. I think I'll believe the guy that has spent his life learning the very language we're talking about inside and out.

Ancient Hebrew is Heiser's actual concentration. It is also his job, working on new translations of Biblical texts. Or was, last time I checked.

Sitchin, however, seems not to be as knowledgeable on the subject, even though he was jewish. Heiser has pointed out several basic errors in many of Sitchin's "translations." He should be more than competent to do so. Again, that's what he does for a living.

Harte



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
My innermonkey tells me this is an Epic find. (capital E)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by undo
but naphal is a hebrew word that means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, to fall upon, to attack
nephiyl only means giants if it's in its plural form - nephilim
its root form is naphal, which means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, etc.

hebrew is complicated. i'm guessing the word is a composition of earlier terms that each meant something different but descriptive, and they were combined to create the final term, nephilim = giants, but with the understanding that they were giants who fell down, were cast down, who came down to the earth, just as it is mentioned in the book of enoch.


You can believe what you want. I think I'll believe the guy that has spent his life learning the very language we're talking about inside and out.

Ancient Hebrew is Heiser's actual concentration. It is also his job, working on new translations of Biblical texts. Or was, last time I checked.

Sitchin, however, seems not to be as knowledgeable on the subject, even though he was jewish. Heiser has pointed out several basic errors in many of Sitchin's "translations." He should be more than competent to do so. Again, that's what he does for a living.

Harte


strongs concordance is not sitchin's work.

why is it every time you and i have a discussion about this subject, if i say something you disagree with you bring up sitchin as if he were a free pass to ignore relevant discussion. those translastions and transliterations i showed you from strongs concordance. not from sitchin. so heiser and the translators of the strongs concordance have a disagreement.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
5303
nphiyl
nef-eel'
or nphil {nef-eel'}; from 'naphal' (5307); properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:--giant.

www.htmlbible.com...

5307
naphal
naw-fal'

a primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitive or causative, literal or figurative):--be accepted, cast (down, self, (lots), out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell(-ing), fugitive, have (inheritance), inferior, be judged (by mistake for 'palal' (6419)), lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present(-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

www.htmlbible.com...

it is not my fault that the translators of the bible and strongs concordance, felt that the word nephil had the root etymology of naphal. do not attribute everything ancient to sitchin please.
edit on 3-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



it is not my fault that the translators of the bible and strongs concordance, felt that the word nephil had the root etymology of naphal. do not attribute everything ancient to sitchin please.


So where did the yod come from? Wouldn't that change the whole symbolism of the word? Who added it and why?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


follows the same convention of iysh vs. ish
and
elohiym vs. elohim.
i'm not sure why tho



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by undo
but naphal is a hebrew word that means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, to fall upon, to attack
nephiyl only means giants if it's in its plural form - nephilim
its root form is naphal, which means to fall, to fall down, to cast down, etc.

hebrew is complicated. i'm guessing the word is a composition of earlier terms that each meant something different but descriptive, and they were combined to create the final term, nephilim = giants, but with the understanding that they were giants who fell down, were cast down, who came down to the earth, just as it is mentioned in the book of enoch.


You can believe what you want. I think I'll believe the guy that has spent his life learning the very language we're talking about inside and out.

Ancient Hebrew is Heiser's actual concentration. It is also his job, working on new translations of Biblical texts. Or was, last time I checked.

Sitchin, however, seems not to be as knowledgeable on the subject, even though he was jewish. Heiser has pointed out several basic errors in many of Sitchin's "translations." He should be more than competent to do so. Again, that's what he does for a living.

Harte


strongs concordance is not sitchin's work.




Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong's numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written.

Wiki

Originally posted by undo
why is it every time you and i have a discussion about this subject, if i say something you disagree with you bring up sitchin as if he were a free pass to ignore relevant discussion.

Sitchin is the one whose argument you are making, not Strong.

Sitchin claims that Nephilim means "fallen." Today, when the argument is made that Nephilim means fallen, it is Sitchin's argument that is being made. It has nothing to do with Sitchin being a free pass. It has to do with you making Sitchin's argument. Strong put out what was considered a hundred years ago to be one of the theories concerning the term. As I posted, Strong is not for translating, but for indexing various things in the Bible.


Originally posted by undo
those translastions and transliterations i showed you from strongs concordance. not from sitchin. so heiser and the translators of the strongs concordance have a disagreement.


Too bad Strong is not only out of date, but also dead. Could make for a lively argument.

At any rate, although I often respond to your posts, what I'm really up to here (and with almost every post) is to place the other side of the argument in the same thread, nearby where the claim I'm addressing was made. I originally started posting on forums for just this reason. As I'm sure you know, posts in threads like this come up on Google searches. In fact, that is exactly how I came to be a member here - I signed up to put some facts into a thread that was full of crap.

People use google to find things out. You know how hard it is to find anything resembling reasonable facts on the internet concerning a subject that is somewhat fringey - for example, the Anunnaki. A quick search on a term like Anunnaki or sphinx or atlantis or crystal skulls will return 10 or 20 pages of total bull before you get to the first link to a site that gives the scientific perspective.

I consider myself as doing a service to future knowledge-seekers when I give the other side of any argument. Obviously, I have no personal stake in changing your mind. Why else would I even bother doing this?

Harte



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


problem with your theory is, the biblical scholars who translated it as fallen ones, were not referring to falling down from the sky in the 3d physical sense. they were referring to falling down as a reference to the fallen spiritual condition of the nephilim, which is a precursor condition of the flood event. so it isn't just sitchin that translates it that way, but also maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany bible scholars, for different reasons.
edit on 4-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Harte
 


problem with your theory is, the biblical scholars who translated it as fallen ones, were not referring to falling down from the sky in the 3d physical sense. they were referring to falling down as a reference to the fallen spiritual condition of the nephilim, which is a precursor condition of the flood event. so it isn't just sitchin that translates it that way, but also maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany bible scholars, for different reasons.


And it wasn't all that long ago that maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany scientists stated as fact that stones cannot possibly fall from the sky.

Were they right?

Read this pdf to see why the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany are wrong in this case.
link

EDIT: The above pdf addresses the yod question asked earlier.

Believe it or not, interpretations can be incorrect, and on occasion are corrected.

Harte
edit on 3/5/2013 by Harte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 





And it wasn't all that long ago that maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany scientists stated as fact that stones cannot possibly fall from the sky.


that's not exactly the best analogy, since heiser is arguing against it referring to things falling from the sky. did you know there are biblical references to rocks falling from the sky? science didn't know rocks fall from the sky? you sure about that?
edit on 5-3-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
lol i am reading the pdf. all of the sudden, heiser comes out of left field with this little bombshell:

"Amazingly, the word also refers to a species of lizard!"

and

"--b) name of a species of lizard, living in the water."

holey rusted metal batman.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
So to recap: giant, demon, waterlizard
Now we're getting somewhere.






top topics



 
121
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join