The Sumerian King List Spans for Over 241,000 Years Before a Great Flood

originally posted by: UnderGetty

If we take the number 456,000 and interpret them as days instead of years, we get roughly 1,250 years. The biblical time period between the fall and the flood is 1,656 years. The 400 year difference isn't a big deal if you consider that the Sumerian kingship might be the line of Cain. His brother, Seth, lived a little over 900 years. If Cain lived approx that long too then he would have been in his prime around the time of the first recorded king.

So if my understanding is correct you wanna interpret the numbers to fit into the biblical account? I don't think we can follow that logic. Please, for once lets interpret the 6000 years figure to fit into the king's list account. How about that?

a reply to: Amagnon
Right sorry I didn't see your full post but this is pretty much the theory I read about as far as the collapse of the waters, I sort of tied that into the Genesis account.

a reply to: Telos

One thing you always need to take into account is back then cultures would embellish facts to make there culture seem better in the eyes of others.

The key is to compare things with other records of other cultures and try and shift through the BS. A near impossible task.

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Noice. Noice! Noice? I assume we are referring to the same thing, lol. Anyway, hasn't it been established that the earth is only 4,000 years old?

Nobody says the earth is 4,000 years old. You can't even get that right lol. I am asking what does this to do evolution? We've been taught 100,000 years ago homo sapiens emerged in Africa. Now supposedly 250,000 years ago there were thriving cultures?

If there were advanced civilizations spanning hundreds of thousands of years, even tens of thousands of years, why have we found nothing written by them, rather than about them?

To me, that alone eliminates a huge, evidence-destroying apocalypse they may have experienced that would account for a lack of evidence.

If that happened, how would anybody know?

a reply to: Telos

Yes during the height of Greek rule (circa 300 BCE) Manetho the Egyptian historian and Berossos the Sumerian historian competed to present their kings lists as more ancient than the other.

Both historians lived under Greek rule, and as the Greeks were beginning to create the sciences (including ancient archaeology), both civilizations attempted to present their history as the "original" civilization.

For Egypt to appear older than Sumeria; Manetho took the individual kings lists from the various city states of Egypt, and placed them in succession rather than simultaneously. There were always more then one "pharaoh" at a time in title (although at some points there was a high pharaoh that united the lower pharaohs, under his rule). He falsely claimed there was only ever one pharaoh over all Egypt. So in his list of Kings, he has the seat of power in one city and accurately proclaims that cities kings list in order, then claims the capitol moved to a different city and goes through that cities kings in succession. In reality, two kings would have been living at the same time in two different cities yet appear hundreds of years after one another in his false list. This list of Kings is the core for modern Egyptology; it is all based on a lie told thousands of years ago accepted as fact.

For Sumeria to appear older than Egypt, Berossos could not do what Manetho did, for the seat of power was not moving around as Egypt could claim. Instead, Berossos added some 0's to each of his kings lifespans. instead of ruling for 50 years, he now had ruled for 500, or 5000! Instead of a short 14 year reign, it was now 140 years. All the way through the list.

What we have here is a 2500 year old competition between historians of two ancient civilizations attempting to convince the rulers of the day (Greeks) which civilization was oldest. They produced their "kings list" back then, we discover it in modern day; and accept their lies as fact because the artifact is old.

The Chinese are the only ancient civilization that accurately recorded their kings list. Beginning in a foreign land ruled over by Chusio (the black, Cush) just a few years after "waters covered all the Earth".

If you place Manetho's kings next to each other when they clearly reference one another as contemporaries, and when you remove the factor of 0's from Berossos' list, you will find they line up perfectly with the beginning of the Chinese list (Cush).

In the Chinese Shoo King Cush is called Chusou.
In Manetho's King's list Cush is called Menes (the establish-er)
In Berossos' King's list Cush is called Kish (Cush)

All three when placed in there correct age begin their reign 2254 BCE (fall of Babel, confounding of the languages).

God Bless,

a reply to: Aedaeum

Interesting. Genesis 1 really doesn't say when God created the Earth, or when he created Adam and Eve, after he created the Earth.

a reply to: ElohimJD

Thanks for your input. Was an interesting read. However I cannot follow your religious viewpoint because I don't take the bible literally. I can rely to the good book for some facts which are already proven to be archeologically correct (like names and places) but that would be all. In your line of logic, ancient Greeks and Egyptians were in a race for seniority (so to speak) thus their scholars manipulated the historical data to fit their chronology. You're doing the same with the bible despite the end result being different.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Aedaeum

Interesting. Genesis 1 really doesn't say when God created the Earth, or when he created Adam and Eve, after he created the Earth.

Yup. The word day is just used to refer to period of time. Could be 1 second or a trillion years.
To be fair Genesis is very vague. It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. It was written for a simpler audience and to be a basic introduction not a in depth scientific paper.

Even the reference to being created out of dust could just be a interpretation of the word Carbon. Remember they did not have a periodic table and had no concept of elemental chemistry. The nearest thing in there world to carbon would be dust. And that is true we are carbon life forms.

a reply to: np6888

No it doesn't, and we have no clue how long that time period might have been. The Hebrew recording of time started at the fall.

As far as the king list goes. I'm convinced there is a major error there. You can't possibly have a written and accurate record going back that far and have absolutely zero artefacts supporting the claim. There should be some evidence of civilisation 100,000 years ago in that area. It will be buried under sediment, but surely someone would have uncovered some by now.

"But UnderGetty, the Smithsonian takes it and hides it..."
That might be the case, but I can't see the motivation for it. I would have thought evidence of a pre ice age civilisation in the fertile crescent would be seen as a convenient discovery, unless they were giants ;-)

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Amagnon
Something that has always impressed me is that the atmosphere enabled animals during the time of the dinosaurs grow to huge proportions and then , when the atmosphere changed, they shrunk down again.

I hope my theory has some answers to offer in that regard, though I do think that while some surviving species did get smaller as a result of increased gravity (probably evolutionary - ie. if they were small they survived better) - many species were simply too big and died out.

While I offer 'my' (its a synthesis of many existing theories that seem compatible) theory as a complete explanation, and I am satisfied it is a good holistic explanation - I am sure that there is a great deal of the details that need to be filled in. Also, I think that even some of the major idea's will be legitimately challenged - we are far from that point at the moment however - as the standard cosmological theories are propped up by more and more ad hoc pieces of theory, and sticky tape.

a reply to: crazyewok

Maybe, and maybe not.

You might be thinking of "a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day"
In the garden, God warns Adam and Eve that eating the fruit would cause death that very day. Adam ate the fruit and apparently lived for 960 years after, which falls within the 1000 years is a day passage.

Maybe there is a more literal meaning there than we think...

originally posted by: HomerinNC
There is some error in the translation here as well. There is no way ANYONE could live to 200 years, much less 28,000 years. The body naturally breaks down and decays. I'm going to go with the lunar cycles instead of solar cycles here as well, or they measured years much differently then we do today

Do some Research on the GDF11 protein..

in antediluvian times I would Assume ,, it didn't break down as much and Some where we got ourselves Diluted down to 120 years instead of the average 900+ years either from a ( God, Entity, Civ type 3,..or fill the Blank ) And Some one Opened a Pandora's Box Bringing Diseases and Viruses that caused Damage or Disruption to our Human Gene Pool and DNA , just Maybe there is a natural Plant yet to be Discovered that Blocks this GDF11 Protein from Breaking down and Decaying or even Rapid Replicating itself

and by the way..

Scientist are trying to figure out to how stop the chemical of the GDF11 breaking it self Down

The Fountain of Youth is within Our Own Youth Our Blood.

Sounds Fictional ? It So Fantastically True !

a reply to: crazyewok

Even if we take it literally, it really doesn't say when the Earth was created. The 6000-years old Earth argument started by an archbishop tracking back humanity to Abraham, not Adam and Eve, or creation of the Earth.

originally posted by: UnderGetty
a reply to: crazyewok

Maybe, and maybe not.

You might be thinking of "a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day"
In the garden, God warns Adam and Eve that eating the fruit would cause death that very day. Adam ate the fruit and apparently lived for 960 years after, which falls within the 1000 years is a day passage.

Maybe there is a more literal meaning there than we think...

Well sold hard evidence show us that the world and universe is billions of years old.

Sorry but young earth is just a silly myth.

originally posted by: crazyewok

Well sold hard evidence show us that the world and universe is billions of years old.

Sorry but young earth is just a silly myth.

There is s problem with the techniques used to date rocks, they rely on a number of methods which are usually calibrated against some kind of nucelar decay process. The assumption is that nuclear half lives are constant - growing evidence indicates this is not the case.

I think that many measurements of age are very qrong - I am not a creationist, and certainly the earth is far more than 6,000 years old - but it might be considerably younger than 4.5 billion years. Perhaps even younger than 1 billion years.

Correct, they assume a steady state environment which is in direct contradiction to the fossil record.

originally posted by: nitetrain
What if their reigns was on some other planet.
Maybe the place from where the fallen angels originated from?
Do these tablets or list, provide a hint of these kings living on this planet?

Have a look at my post if you havent already - I offer some explanation which is a combination of research and theory.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Telos

One thing you always need to take into account is back then cultures would embellish facts to make there culture seem better in the eyes of others.

This is more embedded thinking rather than the logical one. IMO derives from the whole concept we have about human past and the history of the civilizations. Everything that "threatens" the so called paradigm should go under the microscope and possibly be denied at no end.

But it's not just dating methods via decay.

For example, rock formations that have been clearly formed in the mid-Atlantic ridge are far away and moving at a relatively steady rate away as new volcanic or plate activity occurs. By extrapolating the rate of movement to the distance, that alone shows far vaster ages than young Earth. There are many other types of evidence such as this where processes that are visible would not conform to a young Earth.

originally posted by: Amagnon

originally posted by: crazyewok

Well sold hard evidence show us that the world and universe is billions of years old.

Sorry but young earth is just a silly myth.

There is s problem with the techniques used to date rocks, they rely on a number of methods which are usually calibrated against some kind of nucelar decay process. The assumption is that nuclear half lives are constant - growing evidence indicates this is not the case.

I think that many measurements of age are very qrong - I am not a creationist, and certainly the earth is far more than 6,000 years old - but it might be considerably younger than 4.5 billion years. Perhaps even younger than 1 billion years.