A hidden code in the Bible revealed

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Cuervo

do you have the power?

a reply to: Cuervo

which part is different? do you think your investment will be less than everything you have?

this thing that the historical record seems to be saying...is that...nothing less that all you have is the minimum investment.

but its ultimately an easy battle to win, even when considered outside the linguistic deceptions...

are you the most Ancient? a simple question to answer.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Sumerian writings appears around 4000BC and 'stabilized' itself with pictogram and phonems around 3200BC.
Around 3000 BC Sumerian writing changes : the pictograms drawn vertically are then arranged horizontally.
The Sumerian writing kept evolving until around 1000 BC.

The Sumerians wrote their books around 1000 years before the Hebrews compiled their first scriptures

originally posted by: michaelbrux
a reply to: Cuervo

which part is different? do you think your investment will be less than everything you have?

this thing that the historical record seems to be saying...is that...nothing less that all you have is the minimum investment.

but its ultimately an easy battle to win, even when considered outside the linguistic deceptions...

are you the most Ancient? a simple question to answer.

The "minimum investment" is simply being an observer to the events. Nothing else is required to gain what I have and what we have all started with.

And, yes, I am "most ancient". Just like everybody else.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

oh isn't that interesting!
did you check to see what would happen if you continued that pattern in later sentences, such as the second line of the verse that you didn't employ?

Well, if we use the former pattern, the next two letters would be the first letters of the next two words, ה+ב and the next two letters or the whole word א+ת. Now הבאת appears in the bible and then it is given to mean "have brought" and it is listed as pret. 2 pers. sing. masc. of בוא "Bo" which means 'Come' or 'Come in'. Now what has the cat brought in.... Now the remaining letters will come from the second and fourth words if we are to follow the same pattern. Perhaps ה+ת+ו "ha-tav" meaning 'the note' or 'the character/sign/letter' or abstractly, the last, or, bear with me: the Mark (ref. Ez 9:4). The next two letters are NS, which may be Nasjonal Samling, the Norwegian Nazi party during the war. They had a mark. A circle with a cross in it. The ancient symbol of the earth, but also a solar cross. See en.wikipedia.org... for more

Put together itbecomes .אתנחאישתמ. הבאת התו נש "Utnaishtim. Hebeta Ha-tav NS" or "Utnaishtim. Has brought The Mark NS" and restructuring to SVO (se next §), it gives, "The Mark brought NS".

Now OT Hebrew is a VSO language, meaning verbs come first, then the subject and finally the object. That means that starting the sentence with Utnaishtim would make no sense.

ETA: It should be noted that my Hebrew skills are terrible, so I cannot go check on the syntax and grammar. I am probably off fishing here.

originally posted by: undo
there are 2 flood accounts in the bible. There. That problem is solved! Both the sumerian and biblical flood accounts are accurate, although I have as yet to find the second flood account in the sumerian version.

Yes, please ask me for more information. mwhahaha

Two? Please explain. I never noticed that. But as always with the Bible, the best things come entwined.

a reply to: Cuervo

that's cool...man. obviously what I'm saying to you isn't clicking. and i'M going to back way...most Ancient.

that goes for the the OP as well...even though anyone that ever read more than a few versions of the flood story can easily conclude that so much more information regarding the origins of humanity and the civilizations it created is contained within the Genesis account that comparing it to the Sumerian Flood is idiocy.

comparing the Sumerian flood story to Genesis is like comparing the movie Ten Commandments/Carlton Heston to the Book of Exodus...

the purposes are not the same and no amount of scholarship on the subject will change that.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
The OP's linked source appears to be extremely sketchy to me as well...

I included the link simply because I happened to stumble across the tidbit I mentioned in the OP. Just thought it was proper to give that page credits. In no way do I support any group or theology they might support or preach. I came upon that page by accident researching something else.

As for the rest of the OP, I have researched it and checked it, the letters and text is correct. Nothing really copied or transfered from the site in question other than that they did the same exercise I demonstrate in the OP with the first verse of Parashat Noach.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

interesting. did you try other verses to see if there was a similar pattern in the first words, like you found in utnapishtim?

you mentioned it was utnap-ishtim

the -im is a plural indicator. now that's interesting, cause instead of saying utnap-ishtim you would say THE utnap-ishtim

also, ever did a study on the word "ish" ? there are entire verses where the word "man" is rendered in place of the word adam AND the word ish. what the heck is an ish?

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: undo
there are 2 flood accounts in the bible. There. That problem is solved! Both the sumerian and biblical flood accounts are accurate, although I have as yet to find the second flood account in the sumerian version.

Yes, please ask me for more information. mwhahaha

Two? Please explain. I never noticed that. But as always with the Bible, the best things come entwined.

Explanation on previous page.

If the "flood" really happened, where's the proof of this? We don't have skeletons from animals of certain continents settled on other continents. Silt deposits from receding waters from sea level would be present in mountains. Or am I thinking too hard?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: Murgatroid

Sumerian writings appears around 4000BC and 'stabilized' itself with pictogram and phonems around 3200BC.
Around 3000 BC Sumerian writing changes : the pictograms drawn vertically are then arranged horizontally.
The Sumerian writing kept evolving until around 1000 BC.

The Sumerians wrote their books around 1000 years before the Hebrews compiled their first scriptures

most assyriologists separate the periods. before sumer was ubaid. then sumer, which ended as a result of the black sea flood. then was akkad. then was babylon. if we are talking about iraq/iran area, specifically. as a result, it's not literally sumerian text past 3000 bc. it's akkadian text, referring to sumerian events.

probably more accurate to say cuneiform script/glyphs

a reply to: undo



I meant to be quick on the topic ... this means using some shortcuts sometimes.
Uruk writing appeard around 4000BC around Warka in present-day Irak if I remember well.
Uruk from which Gilgamesh was Prince around 2600 BC.

Akkadiens wern't counted in as of 2000BC ? Starting with the list of Sumerian kings ? Honest question here, I'm not sure anymore.

About your flood events, you might be interested in Ryan - Pitman theory. For a possible flood around 5600BC.

a reply to: undo

There's a thing I mentioned about the creation of Man. In Genesis 1:27 God creates lit. Ha-Adam or "The Adam" as both male and female, suggesting androgynous configuration. Now God creates Ha-Adam in his image (Heb. זלם "Tselim") which most lexicons translate into "image", as in "God's image". However, I believe זלם "Tselim" is the plural of זלעת "Tsela". Like I have demonstrated before Heb זלעת and Lat. Cella share semantics and etymology (see www.abovetopsecret.com... ), and this means that God didn't create Adam in his own ribs or in his image, God created Ha-Adam with his own cells. Just like God built Eve from the Cell he had taken out of Adam.

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
Sumerian writings appears around 4000BC and 'stabilized' itself with pictogram and phonems around 3200BC.
Around 3000 BC Sumerian writing changes : the pictograms drawn vertically are then arranged horizontally.
The Sumerian writing kept evolving until around 1000 BC.

The Sumerians wrote their books around 1000 years before the Hebrews compiled their first scriptures

Mr. Sitchin claimed the same thing.

He turned out to be a complete fraud.

That was enough evidence to convince me.

I have learned that it's wise to believe the exact opposite of everything in the mainstream apparatus and assume if they are airing something publicly, it is agenda driven.

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.

SITCHIN FICTION

Now, about that Sumerian Enki document. You have to admit, arguments using ancient clay tablets do, at first, sound scholastic. Even credible. However, in the writings of Sitchin and others, there is not the slightest indication that they understand what they are dealing with. They appear to be honest but unaware of the sinister forces behind this theory. But sadly, in the process, they are unintentionally leading their students and others astray.

SITCHIN FICTION

With due respect, when Sitchin – or anyone else - claims a Sumerian document to be 6,000 years old, he is romancing. He wants it to be that old. But that doesn’t make it so. “There is absolutely no evidence that the Sumerian writings are an OLDER text than the source of the biblical writings. The sustainable evidence indicates the opposite.” The bottom line is this. The weight of evidence suggests that the ancient Sumerian Enki document is a fictious work posing as fact. Sitchin has fallen into the trap of believing it.

Aliens The Deadly Secret (Page 282)

why is it that people only comprehend that concepts must be literal? perhaps the flood was a flood of events that consume societies from time to time.

floods of military conflict, famine, plague...?

considering that the book you got the word flood from was a translation or worst yet a transliteration, has anyone considered that the author was not talking about water and only used water and floods to best communicate what was faced? and that the final refuge was not a mountain but a high place synonymous conceptually with a mountain considering its relation to all other types of terrain known to men?

Revelation says that at the time of the end that all we call the creation will be 'rolled up like a scroll'. no one takes that literal so why everything else?

sure, floods happen...but believing that the entire planet could be submerged under water where only the tops of mountains can be seen is not rational, so the author could never have intended for the reader to believe in such.

is it possible that the author of the stories, whether the Genesis, which is clearly inspired, or the Sumerian (Hollywood version) wanted readers to use their intelligence to figure out what was intended?

seriously...you guys are just trying to screw with peoples heads, right? just admit it.

its like that Cross which is the symbol for a thread in the Religious forums...is it reasonable that its not just two pieces of wood nailed together?

perhaps it symbolizes a junction point between two points in the space time continuum and at its core has no physical presence at all.

why do you guys treat everyone as if they were idiots and didn't know what they were talking about? or that they had no intellectual pride which insisted they should figure out problems for themselves in fact instead of copying the work of others?

is it that far a stretch for you to consider the possibility that someone else in history was far more intelligent that you are?

a reply to: michaelbrux



The bible is a story from which you should harness the core values trough alegories.
The parables are the best examples.
Beside that, there are prophecies ...

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: undo

I meant to be quick on the topic ... this means using some shortcuts sometimes.
Uruk writing appeard around 4000BC around Warka in present-day Irak if I remember well.
Uruk from which Gilgamesh was Prince around 2600 BC.

Akkadiens wern't counted in as of 2000BC ? Starting with the list of Sumerian kings ? Honest question here, I'm not sure anymore.

About your flood events, you might be interested in Ryan - Pitman theory. For a possible flood around 5600BC.

well the primary reason i call anything between babylon and sumer, akkad, is because the akkadian text, enmerkar and the lord of arrata, which is identified as an akkadian text. to track it in the biblical account, an egyptologist noted that the etymology of nimrod's name lead him to other similar titles such as enmerkar and as a result of reading the text, which is basically nimrod's story in greater detail or, rather, different detail, he realized they were the same person. he also identified him as narmer, of ancient egyptian fame. ( nimrod wasn't his actual name, it was a royal title. )

anyway, i set off on my own study to see if i could detemine the actual date. the black sea flood buried many of the sumerian texts under 8ft of flood silt. i had been following the work of 2 geologists from oxford, who discovered the black sea flood occured around 3000 bc. they had drill cores and the whole schebang. so i theorized that in 3000 bc, sumer was gone, and akkad began.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: undo

There's a thing I mentioned about the creation of Man. In Genesis 1:27 God creates lit. Ha-Adam or "The Adam" as both male and female, suggesting androgynous configuration. Now God creates Ha-Adam in his image (Heb. זלם "Tselim") which most lexicons translate into "image", as in "God's image". However, I believe זלם "Tselim" is the plural of זלעת "Tsela". Like I have demonstrated before Heb זלעת and Lat. Cella share semantics and etymology (see www.abovetopsecret.com... ), and this means that God didn't create Adam in his own ribs or in his image, God created Ha-Adam with his own cells. Just like God built Eve from the Cell he had taken out of Adam.

i think it's all plural. EXCEPT, the creator elohim, is using the royal we voice.

in other words, it's saying the ha-adam was created by a singular elohim in the image of elohim of various kinds, males and females, some white, some black, some red, and so on. and these were the elohim races on the earth before the global catastrophe mentioned in chapter 1 verse 2 but they were NOT homo sapiens, they were elohim copies. they don't become homo sapiens till they gain the ability to procreate (tree of knowledge)