Sumerian King List

[Cognito]

"MARDUK, as An, his father, called him from his birth;..."

An, the father. The original sun god. Now we are moving way back into ancient times.

OK, class. The world is round and Sumerians are measuring circles (ie spheres) in 360 degree increments. They are then measuring time with 360 days during the year (plus 5 for the gods). Does anyone see the correlation between the two?

[Guest]

concerning the sumerian king's list, there are outrageous charges laid without one itoa of proof or credible source to investigate.

i am not going to accept the contention that the sumerians used a base 60 for the same reasons.

there is controversy over the king's list as it seems there is more than one edition:

"The inscriptional material is now much richer than just Gilgamesh. The oldest mention (the flood) is probably that in the sumerian king list, possibly in the first line of its original edition (c.2000 BC): 'after the flood had swept over, when kingship was lowered from heaven...' follwoed by the list of kings after the flood. In its 'second edition', the list was prefaced by a forty line account of kings before the flood, giving the full sequence: pre-flood kings, flood, kings after the flood." ('The Bible in its World' by K.A. Kitchen pg. 28)

so we see that there was material added which cannot be verifed as true nor can its credibility be ascertained because there are no supporting documentation provided or discovered which lends to the validity of the king's list and its contents.

the charges that the israelites madeup their history seems to apply to the sumerians more than it does to the Hebrews:

"To such a dynasty belonged the famous Hammurabi of Babylon. of this king and his elder contemporary and rival, Shamshi-Adad I, King of Assyria, we possess remarkable and interlocking genealogies that reach back not less than 26 or 27 generations before these two kings- well over twice the number of named generations in Genesis 5 and 11 put together. The babylonian document was composed for Hammurabi's great-grandson, to honor the latter's ancestors with funerary offerings to their memory.{37}The Assyrian document was incorporated intothe later Assyrian king list, within which it appears in special sections.,{38} and was linked to the first 17 kings of Assyria{39} 'who lived in tents'. The earliest sections have been regarded as artificial and several names as merely corrupt or invented." (Ibid. pg. 34)

we have no discovery or supporting documentation that the ancient Kings lists are actually factual or historical (kitchen does mention that one name at the head of the list was historical only, the rest cannot be proven to even be so.) or that the people drawing up the list did not refrain from embellishments or artistic license.

just because the sumerians may have been first in documenting their civilization does it mean they were honest in doing so and that they can be relied on as the benchmark for all antiquity. to blindly accept their work over another , given such little evidence to go on, is just not smart, especially when it constitutes an attribute that is scorned in other beliefs (faith).

thus to take one list without further documentation and proclaim it factual, no matter what base it is founded upon, is pure folly. then to use it to 'disprove' another document is unscholarly especially when there is no foundation to do so.

[marduk]

i am not going to accept the contention that the sumerians used a base 60 for the same reasons.

It is a proven fact

The Babylonians, who were famous for their astrological observations and calculations (aided by their invention of the abacus), used a sexagesimal (base-60) positional numeral system inherited from the Sumerian and also Akkadian civilizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_numerals

the charges that the israelites madeup their history seems to apply to the sumerians more than it does to the Hebrews:

oh really
so what youre saying is the sumerians made it up 2000 years before the Hebrews existed and then the Hebrews made up exactly the same stuff
what are the odds eh

thus to take one list without further documentation and proclaim it factual, no matter what base it is founded upon, is pure folly

really ?
doesnt seem to worry you when youre reading the KJV now does it

the rest of your post was simply laughable
in future I suggest you only post in threads where you have something credible to contribute
in this one you don't

[Cognito]

i am not going to accept the contention that the sumerians used a base 60 for the same reasons.

Come on, Arch. I learned that the Sumerians used base 60 when I was in parochial school, grade six, from Domenican nuns. We were studying different mathematical systems at the time. They were rough, but we did get a solid basic education ... or else the ruler! Here's their pic:

[Guest]

Come on, Arch. I learned that the Sumerians used base 60 when I was in parochial school

not to panic, i am just tying to get him to use links and sources to back up what he says. people demand it from me so i expect it in return.

also when i come here i want more than a schoolyard discussion, people here, like marduk, claim vast amounts of knowledge and expertise so it should be easy for them to post a few links to support their argument.

is it too much to ask? now i know not everything can be linked but let's at least support declatory statements, conclusions and such like to make their arguments more substantial and interesting.

so what youre saying

no. i am saying that the sumerians and Israelites had a common ancient source with the sumerians changing the accounts to fit their religious beliefs, same as the hittites and assyrians who changed their accounts to fit their beliefs.

in future I suggest

i noticed you avoided the points i made with quotes to back them up, enough said.

[Cognito]

i noticed you avoided the points i made with quotes to back them up, enough said.

Nope, not avoiding anything at all. I'm just sticking to issues that I know something about. Base 60 happens to be one of those issues since it was drilled into me by a crazed 72 year old nun with a big ruler and a paddle with holes in it for extra velocity! In general, it's nice to support discussions with references but often there just isn't enough time to do so in the heat of discussion. And fortunately, I don't need to worry about retaining vast amounts of knowledge ... I'd be happy just knowing what I ate for dinner last night!

[Guest]

This means of course that they were aware of the spherical nature of the planet. This symbol is the main reason that their flood stories which tell of a flood upon the land are mistranslated in later times to tell of a flood upon the earth. the symbol for Mud is the water sign that accompanies the circle in the planet earth sign

sorry but i have to question this. how can you prove it is a mistranslation? then how do you know that the sumerians were describing a world wide flood when they could have been describing a local one? even though it is similar to the Biblical account how can you be sure they did not know they true story and changed it to fit what they wanted to believe? why is it the Israeli's at fault when there is no proof for that error?

because the sumerians do not tell the story the way the Bible tells does it mean the sumerians were correct or refering to the same epsiode. it is a possibility.

the error that most people make is that that they ascribe to the ancient civilizations the exact same qualities of the Bible to those whose religion has nothing to do with the Bible or what it teaches.

you deny such attributes to the Israelites (extrapolated to christians of today) who serve[d] God and place upon them characteristics their beliefs and teachings abhor and are supposed to avoid.

here is marduk, as an example, promoting the sumerians and their systems, their kings list and so on and not one word of criticism, criticial thinking or intense examination but it is promoted in a manner of being more honest, truthful and factual than the Bible {which has never been proven wrong}.

there is no supporting documentation to substantiate the sumerian claim, though marduk deftly ignores K.A. Kitchen's comments concerning the history surrounding the composition of said list.

thus it is hard to consider that the sumerians were right or even free from the temptations that wanting to honor, impress, acknowledge brings. this whole conceptual thinking that the all the ancients were more honest, free from sin, free from temptation or poetic license, etc., just leads one down the wrong path to the wrong conclusion as they look to the wrong civilizations for their answers.

one must factor in the same desires, the same temptations, the same evils that are faced by modern man if one wants to see clearly what the ancients wrote. to do otherwise is just wrong and leads one astray.

now i have no problem with marduk coming in here and talking about the sumerians but when he posts misleading conclusions and mis-states facts about a book and a faith he knows little about then i have to say something. his hypthesis of using the sumerians to undermine the Bible does not hold water nor can it be substantiated because he keeps making assumptions that aren't warranted let alone scholarly.

**i have read and re-read this and i will let it stand as is. i am sure i kept to topic and did not insult anyone.

[marduk]

sorry but i have to question this. how can you prove it is a mistranslation? then how do you know that the sumerians were describing a world wide flood when they could have been describing a local one

if you had actually read the sumerian "flood story" you would see that it says in segment d line 4
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... 1#c174.C.1

a-ma-ru kalam-ma ba-ur3-ra-ta

this translates as

the flood had swept over the land

specifically when you check the etymology of the word

Kalam

it means

"the land of Sumer"

http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e2821.html
this is the original description of the flood from the earliest record of it
so where you attempt to claim

thus it is hard to consider that the sumerians were right or even free from the temptations that wanting to honor, impress, acknowledge brings

do you have an explanation as to why the older the story is the smaller the flood is.
Isn't this in fact the exact opposite of what you are claiming
that they exaggerated because they wanted to look big
because looking at the facts what they appear to be doing according to your claim was making things less impressive the older they are
exaggerating things out of all proportion is something that is only true of later stories based on older originals
Only the semites did that Arch because they were simply elaborating on an older story
so clearly your claim that the Hebrew story is the original older version falls flat at the first glance at the facts
facts which you as a "man of faith" are blissfully unaware of

as for your K.A. Kitchen evidence Arch I have to say that Kitchen was not only not a sumerologist but also not working with the knowledge that we have today
his level of Sumerian knowledge is on a par with that of Z.Sitchins when he wrote his first book back in 1974. In other words its practically non existent and that can be seen from his ideas which today are a total fallacy because he did not, writing at that time have the texts that we do now. Maybe in future you could use a source that is less that 40 years old

there are now many examples of the kings list in existence
this is compiled by Oxford based Sumerologists from several sources regarded as the most accurate, all three pre date the existence of Hebrews and Hebrewism
here is the link to the original source text at The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... p1#t211.p1
gonna try and claim you know more than the best source of sumerian texts on earth now are you ?
good luck with that eh
your posturing and tantrums are those of a drowning biblical revisionist desperately trying to swallow air before going down for the last time
God strike me down if I'm wrong
.................
................
..............
.............
...........
.........
.......
.....
...
..
.
what a surprise I'm still here
oh and btw Arch
you still haven't provided a single link to back up any of your claims
considering that you are responsible for me posting these threads full of links in the first place when you lied through your teeth and said this

i would disagree with this as all he does is make declatory statements and still does notprovide links, references or sources to back them up.

when in fact almost every post I have ever made has been complete with links. This I put down as just another case of transference on your part Arch because we are still waiting for those links that you promised months ago and still not been able to find that you claimed proved that the Noah story was older than Gilgamesh
Bet youre real glad you made that personal attack now aren't you
never heard the saying "be careful what you wish for"

so are we supposed to take the ravings of a man with such an obvious agenda (i.e. you) as anything but final desperation
I think not
you're showing yourself up as the all time loser in this thread and I am quite enjoying the show
please carry on

many people have said this of you before Arch and it would do you good to listen to it this time
A man of faith doesnt need to silence criticisms to his faith. thats why he has faith in the first place, its supposed to be unshakable. clearly yours is crumbling isn't it. So here have these two gifts with my blessings
firstly a link
http://www.churchofsatan.com/
where you're headed you may be needing it

and secondly some poetry to read on your journey




Where is God?

That's what I am thinking when I look outside

I only see evil, and no place to hide.

I can't help but wonder, what is going on

the world's gone to hell, and God is long gone

Its scary to realize that while I am thinking

our entire planet is rapidly sinking

further and further away from our dreams

and louder and louder grow billions of screams

Very soon the demons will have in their hands

the souls of all peoples, from all Earthly lands.

Humanity argues, the people all fuss,

and nobody sees that the demons are us.

[Guest]

if you had actually read the sumerian "flood story" you would see that it says in segment d line 4

i have copies of several flood stories and i have read them, not germane to the issue.

Isn't this in fact the exact opposite of what you are claiming
that they exaggerated because they wanted to look big

you make these statements without support as far as i know that is your own opinion based upon some fantasy or anger you have towards those who differ from you in beliefs.

as for your K.A. Kitchen evidence Arch I have to say that Kitchen was not only not a sumerologist but also not working with the knowledge that we have today

typical argument, been there done that. if you had what you say you have then i would be seeing that on the page and not some ad hominen attack on a recognized expert.

this is compiled by Oxford based Sumerologists from several sources regarded as the most accurate, all three pre date the existence of Hebrews and Hebrewism

you missed the point, i am not saying that they don't pre-date the Israelites, i am saying that there is so much we don't know about them that we cannot take THEM AS ACCURATE or true.

A man of faith doesnt need to silence criticisms to his faith. thats why he has faith in the first place, its supposed to be unshakable

i am not even going to address this--not germane to the topic. as for most of your post as you focus on me and not the issue. if you had read what i wrote, you would have seen that i was pointing out the problems with the kings list and their acceptance.

then i was pointing out an error in attribution towards the ancients and their work plus with so few copies or supporting documents to substantiate many claims made by adherents of the sumerian culture.

you take this too personally and fail to accept critical thought which points out the weakness of your position and evidence.

i do not really care if the sumerians used a base 60 for their dates , the israelites did not so you cannot use a sumerian system to figure the israelite one, it won't work.

which is another error made by opponents to the Hebrews. the opponents use whatever system they want and think that is proof for their argument and proof against the israeli one. doesn't work that way. this is seen so often in the debates concerning genealogies. Not only does Kitchen point this out but so does Tenney and Packer.

Nope, not avoiding anything at all.

sorry wasn't talking to you at that point. i wasn't clear.

[marduk]

i have copies of several flood stories and i have read them, not germane to the issue.

ah well as I just proved with links you haven't got the relevant copies and don't understand the relevant words

you make these statements without support as far as i know that is your own opinion based upon some fantasy or anger you have towards those who differ from you in beliefs.

I provided links for you Arch, at this point everyone else reading your blather can see you got nothing

typical argument, been there done that. if you had what you say you have then i would be seeing that on the page and not some ad hominen attack on a recognized expert.

so 40 year old irrelevant quotes are the best you can do. thought so

you missed the point, i am not saying that they don't pre-date the Israelites, i am saying that there is so much we don't know about them that we cannot take THEM AS ACCURATE or true

you have claimed that the Noah story is the original several times without any evidence. now youre claiming that the original story isn't accurate but the derivation of it is. Laughable a 5 year old could do better

i am not even going to address this--not germane to the topic

at this point I am wondering then why someone who knows nothing at all about real history and whos only textbook is the bible is bothering to even post in this thread which is way above your head anyway

i do not really care if the sumerians used a base 60 for their dates

seemed to be important to you two posts ago before you were made to look like an idiot

which is another error made by opponents to the Hebrews

quick history lesson for you Arch the Hebrews were never opponents of the Sumerians as the Hebrews turn up on the scene very late in the day and the Sumerians were the first arrivals
like Doh

i wasn't clear.

tell me something I don't know

I'm still reading this post which you lied in earlier and wondering when you are going to supply any links at all

i would disagree with this as all he does is make declatory statements and still does notprovide links, references or sources to back them up.

been 4 waste of space posts from you so far and not one single link provided
if you are going to continue to derail this thread I will happily point out to the mod team that you once again are trolling and ask for you to be banned
how does that sound as you clearly did not read Michelles first post which stated

3) The imposition of modern political, religious, anti-religious, racial, or social agendas on the list is outside the defined topic.

4) Personal worldviews and philosophies shall be kept a private matter.

5) Personal matters (grievances, emotional reactions, accounts of daily routines, gossiping, chatting, etc.) shall be kept off the list an dealt with in private messages.

so you are now clearly in breach of three of the terms and conditions of this entire forum
1 TROLL 2 TROLLS 3 TROLLS

bye bye now

[Guest]

marduk if all you are going to do is attack and insult me then this conversation is over.

i don't care if you post about the sumerians just don't say that it disproves the Bible when it doesn't. i would be interested in learning more about them but from what i see, you really have nothing to offer but your own theories and nothing to substantiate your point of view.

i have not lied but i will ignore all the insults you have tossed my way. your argument about age in books doesn't wash for it would apply to you as well which means good bye gilgamish tablets, they are certainly older than 40 years.

as far as i am concerned i will ignore you and if you post replies that attack the Bible then i will know you are just trying to bait me. limit your posting to the sumerians only and leave my field out of the mix, please.

the sumerians were not the first people in the world so get over it already and stop taking what i say personally, your declatory statements need some substantiating not schoolyard brawls.

credible substantiating as your word is not good enough and if you studied anywhere for a degree, you would know what you need. what you have posted has not proven a thing except that the sumerians had some knowledge of a flood and recorded their king's reigns. other than that it is just pure speculation.

[War Arrow]

concerning the sumerian king's list, there are outrageous charges laid without one itoa of proof or credible source to investigate.

there is controversy over the king's list as it seems there is more than one edition:

Hello, Arch. We meet at last. Just to set my stall out, I'm not going to be drawn into this argument as I have neither the desire nor the qualifications. You seem to have made some interesting points, but with regards to the bit I've quoted, I suspect when we're dealing with dates of such antiquity the best we can hope for is a working consensus, and certainly without access to time travel, terms like proof or credible sources are never going to hold the currency within this field as they do in, for example, contemporary physics. Therefore we have the choice of either slapping something together, hoping it stays in one piece and then running it up the proverbial flagpole to see who salutes it... or else we just have all this disparate information laying around doing no good to anyone.

WARNING: Mexican Ramble Incoming.

Sometimes it seems as though there might be almost as many conflicting versions of the Tenochtitlan King lists as there were people living in said city. we just have to arrive at a consensus and work from that whilst remaining aware of possible contradictions.

Ramble over. Stand down to yellow alert.

Anyway, in conclusion, I'm not personally taking Marduk's writing as an absolute last word that could be verified by time travel, but from my admittedly limited perspective, irrespective of the pinpoint accuracy of individual details, he's certainly got a lot of interesting things to say and has certainly inspired me to want to find out more. He's given me plenty of food for thought, and enough so as to suggest I should respect his opinions (which, I might add, is not a statement I make in refutation of your own).

Can't we all just calm down a bit.

[Cognito]

The imposition of modern political, religious, anti-religious, racial, or social agendas on the list is outside the defined topic.

Since we are obviously off topic, I thought I would wish everyone a Happy Samhain!

[marduk]

marduk if all you are going to do is attack and insult me then this conversation is over.

[marduk]

I would wish everyone a Happy Samhain!

Bleucgh
Its Samhuinn and you know it
bloody Celts coming along and stealing all our traditional holidays