Camel bones suggest error in Bible, archaeologists say

reply to post by chr0naut


Like I said, I don't really think it matters much, but those words, unicorn, satyr, dragon, etc. are in the BIble, indicating that at the time of the translation those mystical images meant something to those who were doing the translations.

windword
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Like I said, I don't really think it matters much, but those words, unicorn, satyr, dragon, etc. are in the BIble, indicating that at the time of the translation those mystical images meant something to those who were doing the translations.

Words have meaning, especially to the European pagan.

I can imagine that there was plenty of motive to "write in" all manner of pagan beliefs in the bible. Since no one at that time could read, the translations were taken on faith.

"Oh, look....this religion has fae, too....its not so bad i guess". You bridge gaps on similarities, not differences. And that is how satyrs ended up in the bible.

bigfatfurrytexan

windword
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Like I said, I don't really think it matters much, but those words, unicorn, satyr, dragon, etc. are in the BIble, indicating that at the time of the translation those mystical images meant something to those who were doing the translations.

Words have meaning, especially to the European pagan.

I can imagine that there was plenty of motive to "write in" all manner of pagan beliefs in the bible. Since no one at that time could read, the translations were taken on faith.

"Oh, look....this religion has fae, too....its not so bad i guess". You bridge gaps on similarities, not differences. And that is how satyrs ended up in the bible.

the dragon constellation is old, predating the bible, even predating the torah. in fact, here's a 7 headed one from sumer-akkad.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Actually The New Testament wasn't put together until The Fourth Century BCE by The Emperor Constantine. www.nexusmagazine.com...

undo

this is incorrect.

the first five books of the bible, called the pentateuch or torah, were written around 1500 BC. the prophets and poems, were added along the way, till closer to the advent of jesus. jump ahead to the compilation of the first greek and latin bible, compiled by constantine in 325 AD, which took the first five books, prophets and poems, added the gospels, the letters of paul and the book of revelation, and included an additional section called the apocrypha which contained several other books as well. skip ahead again to the advent of protestantism, where it was translated into english and other non-roman languages, for the first time and the apocryphal books removed, and wallah, the king james bible of today.

the hebrews of mesopotamia (called the habiru, habru of nibru) did not steal the biblical texts. they lived them. the israelites of egypt were the hyksos shepherd kings.

the hebrews (hyksos shepherd kings migrating into egypt)

well, let me give you the moses story as far as i can get it:

moses was raised in the house of pharaoh ahmose, the pharaoh responsible for the "hyksos expulsion" (biblical exodus). he learned from pharaoh's scholars the history of creation, the flood events (there were 2), the babel event, and the nimrod event but from an egyptian perspective. this was not a bad thing since noah's son ham, had migrated back to egypt following the black sea flood, repopulating the area. in fact, egypt's egyptian name is khem, and that's the egyptian spelling of ham. egypt was named after him.

pharaoh ahmose expelling the hyksos from egypt

ham took the mesopotamia story of creation, the flood, babel and nimrod with him and over time, it took on its own cultural spin and spelling variants. moses' mother worked as his nanny in the pharaoh's household and being from mesopotamia, she taught him the story also, but from the mesopotamian viewpoint, and its spelling variants and cultural spins as a result of what is known as generational layering. i theorize that when moses heard the story from his mother and read it from the egyptian scribes, that he must've realized how similar they were.

for example, atum=adam (same as elohim. long story but suffice it to say, the adam were named after their creators. to avoid confusion, moses chose the mesopotamian name for the creators, which would've been ALULIM, at the time, the first name on the sumerian kings list, which would've been spelled ELOHIM by the time of moses, and the egyptian name for the created -- atum/adam. the text says adam were created male and female in the image of elohim. had he written it as adam created the adam, people would've thought it was ancestor worship)

Atum, egyptian god of creation (notice his skin color is quite relevant as the name adam means red skin)

edit on 10-2-2014 by undo because: (no reason given)

Ah, so, what you're saying is that actual personalities like Sargon of Akkad were not stolen from?

Sargon survives as a legendary figure into the Neo-Assyrian literature of the Early Iron Age. Tablets with fragments of a Sargon Birth Legend were found in the Library of Ashurbanipal from the 7th century BC. According to this legend, Sargon was the illegitimate son of a priestess (older translations describe his mother as lowly). She brought him forth in secret and placed him in a basket of reeds on the river. He was found by Akki the irrigator who raised him as his own son.

Does this sound like any biblical characters ... placed in a reed basket, floated in a river, adopted?

There's also this bit:

Sargon is also one of the many suggestions for the identity or inspiration for the biblical Nimrod. Ewing William (1910) suggested Sargon based on his unification of the Babylonians and the Neo-Assyrian birth legend. Yigal Levin (2002) suggested that Nimrod was a recollection of Sargon and of his grandson Naram-Sin, with the name "Nimrod" derived from the latter.

Then there's that whole Biblical Flood mythology thing, also 'borrowed' from previous cultures:
The Sumerian Creation Myth

After a missing section in the tablet, we learn that the gods have decided not to save mankind from an impending flood. Zi-ud-sura, the king and gudug priest, learns of this. In the later Akkadian version, Ea, or Enki in Sumerian, the god of the waters, warns the hero (Atra-hasis in this case) and gives him instructions for the ark. This is missing in the Sumerian fragment, but a mention of Enki taking counsel with himself suggests that this is Enki's role in the Sumerian version as well.

or the Gilgamesh Flood Myth?

Further there's the entire concept of the Garden of Eden, or, in Sumerian mythology, Garden of the Gods.

These are only just a few instances.

One needs only start looking at the Historical timeline starting with Sumer, moving North to Babylon, and then further North over time as the concentrations of power and influence passed to the Akkadian/Persian Empire all preceding the earliest records with any historical recognition for this Abrahamic tradition.

More than likely many of these stories were picked up and adopted during the Israelite captivity under Babylon which lasted near a 100 years, where then Cyrus of Persia, on conquering Babylon set them free in 538 BCE, even allowing them back to their 'claimed' homelands.

100 years of slavery and having one's mythology outlawed during such enslavement, I would suspect, would have an impact on that mythology where it survived, especially where the dominating influences for material to adopt into any surviving oral telephone game tradition in attempting to preserve a mythology in secret would be heavily influenced by the grandeur and pervasiveness of the traditions practiced by their captors, the Babylonians.

Still, that's only a portion.

There's even some early influence and seeds for the Abrahamic tradition found in the Harrapan/Vedic culture further East.
It's quite interesting how the Brahman of the Vedic culture is so similar to "Abraham", no?

Look to Sumer and Babylon.
Look to the Vedic culture.

There you'll find your proto-Abrahamic stories and influences.

arjunanda
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Actually The New Testament wasn't put together until The Fourth Century BCE by The Emperor Constantine. www.nexusmagazine.com...

That's not accurate. What you are probably referring to is when Constantine commissioned the creation of 50 Bibles in Greek for use by the Bishop of Constantinople. The New Testament existed way before this. The Emperor had no hand in the construction of the New Testament or determining it's contents.

As an aside, Nexus Magazine isn't the best of sources.

Eric

reply to post by SuperFrog


No single piece of evidence?

I think the hyksos were a pretty big red target that something went down in eygpt in reguards to a semetic people moving into eygpt getting to big for there boots and then leaving. Only thing up for debate is if they were expelled like eygpt says or left on there oen accord like exedus.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


i'm not unfamilar with sumerian-akkadian material, just so you don't get the wrong idea.

ENMERKAR AND THE LORD OF ARRATA
is the story of nimrod from the akkadian perspective.
the story of the tower of babel is in a section of the text, also called
THE NAMSHUB OF ENKI (which see).

nimrod's etymology is nmr (no vowels) + kar *(which means hunter)
nimrod wasn't his actual name it was a title.
he was also known as narmer in egypt, the founder of the egyptian pharaonic line at abydos.
recently, i think i may have traced him also to marduk, thusly -
ENMERKAR:

EN meant Lord.
MRK (not sure about the D yet, will look into that but they may be variants of each other ( d and k, i mean)
also called Enmer the Hunter. So Lord Mrk or Lord Mrd

if the sargon story is very much like moses (that's one story i haven't researched yet), then i will find out why.

ignorant_ape
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

as an atheist - I read this with an irge to head butt the desk

just WTF ???

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

the dating of camel bones to 900 BCE does ONLY one thing :

demonstrate that domestic camels were at that site in 900 BCE

the bible has so many errors - its not funny - but this is not one of them

Yea but around here all one must do is toss out just the smallest bit of scrap and its like a hungry pack of dogs.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite



So were are to believe that one tribe the Hebrews, could only make up their history by adaptation and some fabrication, as if they had no origin as a people at all, and then turn around and swallow down Sumerian and Egyptian records as if they are official and totally truthful recounting of history and events.

Sumerian and Egyptian records are nothing if not official state history and propaganda. Oh yea, certainly no living "god" in the flesh, on the earth, decedent from the "gods" is going to jeopardize the history and linage of his family by recording that he got his azz kicked by a bunch of nomads. Or anything negative. Yes, they rode into battle with the winged disk high in the sky, full of destiny and indestructability, their glory for all humanity to see! The biggest BS'ers the world has ever known!

p.s. this may have been moses' egyptian title as the son of pharaoh ahmose

Ahmose Ankh
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Logarock


What I find funny.

The fact some on here are willing to swallow Egyptian and Sumarian ect records as 100% facts.

At the very least the truth is likley bewteen all of them.


By the way to those claiming the bible records people lives far back in terms of hundreds of years? Well Sumarian records do as well.

undo
p.s. this may have been moses' egyptian title as the son of pharaoh ahmose

Ahmose Ankh

en.wikipedia.org...

I think the hebrew acount fits the Hyksos.

Both were nomads that moved down into eqypt.

Both became very wealthy and influential

Both After a number of generations the natives grew resentfull and scared

Both the natives went on a camapign of oppression and eleiminiation

Both ended up leaving eqypt

To me it fits. The only debate is how wealthy and influential the Hebrews of Hyksos got, if they got kicked out or left of there own accord and what happend and to what extent was the natives campaign against the Hyksos.

Now at the very least the eqyption were known for there bias and bigging up threats and exagerating things. So that needs takeing into account.

crazyewok
reply to post by Logarock

 

What I find funny.

The fact some on here are willing to swallow Egyptian and Sumarian ect records as 100% facts.

At the very least the truth is likley bewteen all of them.

Well at the very least one couldn't expect them to coincide. The Abrahamic and Sumerian flood stories would more logically been seen as two versions of the same story. But no. The Hebrews must have been the ones that twisted the story around and the Sumerians/Babylonians were simply humble and honest reporters of the true events. Yes a bunch of sheep herders and desert nomads pulled of the greatest of historical conspiracies! LOL And were able to suppress the real story held in truth the great and powerful kingdoms of old.

reply to post by crazyewok


yep, the hyksos shepherd kings were pharaohs at avaris. some of the biblical patriarchs were pharaohs. the more i read about this, the more sure i am about it.

and check out the water in the pic here. it's full of horses and people

reply to post by undo


Exactly.

The whole thing as obvious as day. I dont see how the hyksos and Hebrews dont add up.

Theres only a few diffrences in the Hebrew and Eygption accounts. And your to expect some diffrences.

...this just in - the same book also has a man walking on water using magic, another man parting water with magic and a woman getting pregnant through magic, etc...etc... Who cares if it says camels were domesticated a few hundred years earlier or later? Yes, using the word "magic" is a bit of a dig but I see no difference between holy, miracles, divine intervention and magic and this is my comment so back off


Besides, believers will believe anything and everything the bible says. It is the "Word of God" after all. No amount of scientific proof or opinion will sway them...that's the definition of a "faithful believer" - they're all in! You gotta respect that steadfastness even if you don't agree with them.

RedParrotHead
, believers will believe anything and everything the bible says. It is the "Word of God" after all. No amount of scientific proof or opinion will sway them...that's the definition of a "faithful believer" - they're all in! You gotta respect that steadfastness even if you don't agree with them.

This is exactly what I said in first post, this will be most likely discarded by faithful people.

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson once said this:

“There’s a saying in the scientific community, that every great scientific truth goes through three phases.

* First, people deny it.
* Second, they say that it conflicts with the Bible.
* Third, they say that they’ve known it all along.”

This topic actually shows this very well. From denial, conflicts with Bible to 'we know it all along, all in life of a single thread. How true.

reply to post by Logarock

The Hebrews must have been the ones that twisted the story around and the Sumerians/Babylonians were simply humble and honest reporters of the true events.

that's a good point

reply to post by SuperFrog


It's not conclusive evidence. I would guess that even pack animals would have been butchered and eaten, not leaving much evidence. They bones they have found just aren't a big enough sample to make such a conclusion.