It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: michaelbrux
i can appreciate you drawing a connection between the story of Noah and the way things as the same book says were at the beginning.
I'm not saying its not exactly correct because I don't know but I've been working with the theory that the source of the book must have been describing things as he saw them after witnessing God's (or what he came to call God) throne in heaven.
an object, shaped like a trapezoid in the midst of the chaos...ultimately being the moderator of the force that restrained chaos, creating order.
but...the biblical version of the story contains far more information about the flood itself and the biblical version is connected to other stories...
the sumerian flood is a stand alone version and its lack of connection to variations of a higher order suggest that the Sumerian is the bootleg copy despite archeologists saying Sumerian is the more ancient civilization; thus, the parent.
originally posted by: michaelbrux
Gilgamesh was an actual person, as was Sargon....Nimrod was not, nor was Shem.
Originally posted by BELIEVERpriest
The deception is getting deep out there. You have to look at the sources of these "theories". 90% of the time they are coming from gnostic Lucifarian think tanks such as free masonry, rosicrucianism, cabalistic and talmudistic zionism,the theosophical society, and even from ecumenal (counterfiet) christianity.
originally posted by: michaelbrux
i'm not surprise concerning the multiple stories on the same concept as a form of validation...
There are many similarities between these Sumerian writings and to the biblical accounts of the creation of man and Noah’s flood.
Some people think this is due to the writers of the Bible copying the earlier Sumerian writings. This is problematic because even the critics who specialize in this style of ancient literature say there is no evidence of literary borrowing[14], in fact just the opposite. They propose that they must be referring to a common source for the information.
One paper by A. Heidel, A.R. Millard and D. Damrosch concludes this way:
“Literary dependence cannot be demonstrated. Here, as in most of the parallels in the primeval history, it is considered more likely that Mesopotamian and biblical traditions are based on a common source. Some understand this common source to be a piece of more ancient literature, while others consider it the actual event.’ Hill & Walton, ‘A Survey of the Old Testament’, p. (2010).
Add to this that it is not just the Sumerian texts and the bible that are talking about the same basic story, but obvious elements of this story can be found in almost every early culture, regardless of its location.
Anunnaki | Ancient Aliens Debunked]
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Does that relate to what is known as the Gap theory ? I cant say that it changes any of the rest of the scriptures but might allow ones mind to wonder . a reply to: undo
originally posted by: undo
a reply to: michaelbrux
nimrod was Enmerkar of the story Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
he was also narmer, founder of post black sea flood pharonic egypt.
set up housekeeping at abydos, egypt, built the osirieon there.
some get him confused with the original "osiris" in the sense of "the god",
although he did take that as one of his titles - he was not the original.
originally posted by: michaelbrux
the sumerian have waited a long time...and have now decided to attack.
planting linguistic 'evidence' to support their attempted 'coup'.
originally posted by: michaelbrux
deception is the purpose and intent of these discussions. all of the time.
Many scholars teaching in seminaries train ministers and rabbis who, in turn, teach things similar to the above. We hope the reader will discern the error in their interpretation. Many today consider the Bible's Creation Story a "myth." They believe it has "evolved" and is written for the same basic purpose as the truly mythical creation accounts of the Ancient Near East. These scholars seem incapable of understanding that the Bible is history and the myths of the ancient near east are little more than political propaganda.
The Genesis Creation Story does not owe anything to the creation myths of Egypt and Mesopotamia. The latter were written for a completely different purpose. They are not really about the creation of the universe at all. They are related to the "genesis" of a certain king's reign. Priest-scribes wrote them to establish the king's (and his god's) supremacy. Each myth is different with its local adaptations. The Biblical history has unity, never changing, as the myths do with each succeeding king.
The Genesis creation account was almost certainly written first. The Master of Deceit then led ambitious and unscrupulous men to counterfeit the truth. Parallels may be discovered between the principle of manipulated religion, used to govern these ancient kingdoms, and the opposite of that principle in the Bible. Religious history and secular history are related. They cannot be separated. In order to understand history, one must comprehend God's working in history first, then examine how the opposition works through the deceit of the Adversary.
Comparison of Genesis with Creation Stories of the Ancient Near East
There is absolutely no evidence of any Sumerian document dates earlier than about 2000 BC. Sumerian texts 6,000 years old? Er, yes... And I’m the Easter Bunny. Now we shall address the question as to whether parts of the Bible are “borrowed” from the Sumerians and Akkadians, as our friend suggests.
DID THE BIBLE “BORROW” FROM THE SUMERIANS?
IT IS CLAIMED: The biblical tales of Creation, of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Deluge, the Tower
of Babel, were based on texts written down millennia earlier in Mesopotamia, especially by the Sumerians.
IN REALITY: This was the predominant view in biblical scholarship nearly 150 years ago, but the idea now has been abandoned.
Despite this, it is still peddled by some writers, including Sitchin, who appear to be unaware of discoveries since.
SITCHIN FICTION
originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Cuervo
I believe people will spare no expense to win control of the earth and everything on it.
do you believe something different?