The Sumerian Tablets compared to the Old Testament

[GuyNextDoor]

I am not really sure how to start this thread but one thing I know for sure is that I am in a big fix right now.

I have been reading various translations of the Sumerian Tablets and comparing them side by side with the Old Testaments. The similarities between both of them are so shocking that its not even funny. The stories of Genesis, of Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc are similar in so some ways with the Sumerian tablets. All except that due to the carbon dating of the Sumerian tablets which make the tablets way older than the Hebrew scriptures and the Dead Sea scrolls, which makes them look like edited versions of the original stories in the Sumerian tablets.

Their tablets tells of Planet X, Pluto, all the other colors and elements of other planets in our solar system while our modern technology only discovered Pluto in 1930. Which possibly means their technology was at least on par, or better than ours at that time. And Planet X was where our God or the Sumerian gods came down to earth “from heavenly places” and Man was created from Enki’s idea through the breeding between apeman and these Annunaki species who came from Planet X so as to create the perfect slave to take over all their labors. Enlil wanted the extermination of Mankind by sending the flood but Enki saved our biblical “Noah”. The God we know of could possibly be gods to the primitive men while they are actually higher beings from another planet. And here is where everything starts to get confusing and collapse on me.

Lets say I do not buy that translation, but how can I dismiss the fact that these original stories came from somewhere much older and possibly more credible? Even a relative was telling me why would I believe that Mankind was created to be slaves to these species…but the problem has never been what I believe, it is the truth I am really after and til now I do not have a convincing answer to that apart from the usual default answers from fellow Christians and pastors.

I hope not to offend anyone, I am just trying to seek honest answers as to where the Church stands on these but I have no such luck after asking a few pastors. All I got was:“Have faith/The Bible is divinely inspired/Come to church more/the enemy is lying/etc.” These responses are not really what I was looking for, I was hoping for a more intelligent response that does not insult anyone’s intelligence. It kinda feels like I am being ask to go through a brainwash program instead of being given a direct answer on where the Church stands.

If the reason given to me was that the Bible is divinely inspired and that all else is false, then its common sense for me to think the Bible is false too, simply because the records on the tablets are so much older and makes our scriptures look like edited stories from the original ones.

Despite being in Catechism class, these questions I dare not raise up in front of the people attending it with me, simply because I fear stumping the old priest (who is truly a nice guy) and cause others to stumble with me. However, not being able to get the answers I need badly, I am not being able to look myself in the mirror and being proud that my faith is both rational and justified, but blind faith.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I am not really sure how to start this thread but one thing I know for sure is that I am in a big fix right now.

I have been reading various translations of the Sumerian Tablets and comparing them side by side with the Old Testaments. The similarities between both of them are so shocking that its not even funny. The stories of Genesis, of Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc are similar in so some ways with the Sumerian tablets. All except that due to the carbon dating of the Sumerian tablets which make the tablets way older than the Hebrew scriptures and the Dead Sea scrolls, which makes them look like edited versions of the original stories in the Sumerian tablets.

Their tablets tells of Planet X, Pluto, all the other colors and elements of other planets in our solar system while our modern technology only discovered Pluto in 1930. Which possibly means their technology was at least on par, or better than ours at that time. And Planet X was where our God or the Sumerian gods came down to earth “from heavenly places” and Man was created from Enki’s idea through the breeding between apeman and these Annunaki species who came from Planet X so as to create the perfect slave to take over all their labors. Enlil wanted the extermination of Mankind by sending the flood but Enki saved our biblical “Noah”. The God we know of could possibly be gods to the primitive men while they are actually higher beings from another planet. And here is where everything starts to get confusing and collapse on me.

Lets say I do not buy that translation, but how can I dismiss the fact that these original stories came from somewhere much older and possibly more credible? Even a relative was telling me why would I believe that Mankind was created to be slaves to these species…but the problem has never been what I believe, it is the truth I am really after and til now I do not have a convincing answer to that apart from the usual default answers from fellow Christians and pastors.

I hope not to offend anyone, I am just trying to seek honest answers as to where the Church stands on these but I have no such luck after asking a few pastors. All I got was:“Have faith/The Bible is divinely inspired/Come to church more/the enemy is lying/etc.” These responses are not really what I was looking for, I was hoping for a more intelligent response that does not insult anyone’s intelligence. It kinda feels like I am being ask to go through a brainwash program instead of being given a direct answer on where the Church stands.

If the reason given to me was that the Bible is divinely inspired and that all else is false, then its common sense for me to think the Bible is false too, simply because the records on the tablets are so much older and makes our scriptures look like edited stories from the original ones.

Despite being in Catechism class, these questions I dare not raise up in front of the people attending it with me, simply because I fear stumping the old priest (who is truly a nice guy) and cause others to stumble with me. However, not being able to get the answers I need badly, I am not being able to look myself in the mirror and being proud that my faith is both rational and justified, but blind faith.

I think I understand where you’re coming from because, I think, I was in the same place.

You want to KNOW about God, the why’s, the where’s, the when’s, and the how’s. You want everything to fall into place, for every piece of information to lead to the same conclusion. It’s probably how you operate on a daily basis, and has likely made you a successful person.

I was the same way. Twenty years in the military, and I practice medicine. I’m an “A” type personality all the way. I look for the clues, and I have to find some explanation for clues that do not coincide with the others.

Furthermore, I was angry at God for a loooooongg time for reasons that are not dis-similar to your questioning (although mine was more like “how could God let this kind of bad things happen”).

It took a couple of wonderful women (one now my wife, the other a nun) to lead me to the Church, through the RCIA, and back to God.

Okay, all of that and here is my answer to you.

“I dunno, but it doesn’t matter.”

Some perspectives. Remember when you were 5 years old and your dad told you to do something that you didn’t understand why you had to do it? Why did you have to take a nap? Why did you have to clean your room??

Do you have children now? Do they understand why their world is the way it is? Why you have their room arranged the way you do? Why their bedtime is when it is? etc, etc ad nauseum??

It was a very difficult, but completely rewarding, step for me to take when I realized that I am NOT equal to God, and therefore I am unable to comprehend why he does what he does. I don’t know why he allows massive disasters to occur, or people to be murdered, or starve, or be born with disabilities…and I never will, because I will forever be his CHILD.

Does this help? I hope so, if not, then just ignore my rant.

 

[Sam43232]

I have been reading various translations of the Sumerian Tablets and comparing them side by side with the Old Testaments.

What translations are you looking at? Do you have a source you can share? Some of the information you share about the Sumerian Tablets is new to me and its hard to know how to respond without knowing what your source is, since, for instance, the Sumerians if they discovered Pluto would certainly not have named it after a later Greek God and as you note modern science took a while to sight this particular planet (or whatever it’s been since downgraded to!) Some of this could be an extrapolation that your source is providing which may or may not be legitimate depending on the actual content of the Sumerian Tablets (and there are many tablets; it’s helpful to know which in particular you refer to.)

The similarities between both of them are so shocking that its not even funny.

I’m not doubting that there are similarities (there certainly are) but you might want to re-read even your summary where you are trying to show the similarities. Even in your edited version designed to highlight the similarities, what you are saying is very different than the Creation story in Genesis. Re-read your translation and Genesis, think, and don’t just ask how things are similar, but also ask yourself what things are different, and why.

Every honest treatment I’ve read of Genesis has acknowledged significant differences between Genesis’ account and similar pagan accounts, and those differences highlight the very different character of the Biblical God.

Lets say I do not buy that translation, but how can I dismiss the fact that these original stories came from somewhere much older and possibly more credible?

To resolve the “possibly more credible” you need to believe that the Bible is more credible. My faith comes from the life of Jesus Christ - He can be examined, to a certain extent historically, and He trusted the Old Testament, therefore, so do I. I don’t think anyone here or elsewhere can convince a skeptic based on Genesis, but they’d have a great shot with Mathew, Mark, Luke & John.

HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean there are no arguments for Genesis. For instance, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the “Noah-like figure” sets sail in a not very seaworthy cube, whereas the dimensions Noah is given for his ark in the Bible, if followed, actually produce a very viable vessel. Just because Moses & the Holy Spirit was asked to report these things didn’t meant that other sources were used. Yet other accounts of these same events tend to be deficient… and to my mind, at least, far less credible, even apart from my bias towards Sacred Scripture because of its divinely inspired nature.

However, not being able to get the answers I need badly, I am not being able to look myself in the mirror and being proud that my faith is both rational and justified, but blind faith.

The Gospel comes with bad news for people like you and me brother; at some point, God asks us to have just that blind faith you don’t want to have. Christianity isn’t about being proud of our superior rational knowledge. It’s about trusting God’s revelation.

That doesn’t mean thinkers aren’t welcome - on the contrary, ask your questions! But part of the process is knowing when you’ve come to a question you can’t answer. Religion isn’t the only place where this happens; it happens in our interpersonal relationships with friends and spouses, it happens when we study history, it happens when we go to sleep and every day we live our lives… at some point, you just gotta have faith.

My advice to you? Look to Jesus both spiritually and with your line of historical inquiry. Once you figure His place in your faith out, the rest falls into place.

God bless!

 

[GKC]

I am not really sure how to start this thread but one thing I know for sure is that I am in a big fix right now.

I have been reading various translations of the Sumerian Tablets and comparing them side by side with the Old Testaments. The similarities between both of them are so shocking that its not even funny. The stories of Genesis, of Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc are similar in so some ways with the Sumerian tablets. All except that due to the carbon dating of the Sumerian tablets which make the tablets way older than the Hebrew scriptures and the Dead Sea scrolls, which makes them look like edited versions of the original stories in the Sumerian tablets.

Their tablets tells of Planet X, Pluto, all the other colors and elements of other planets in our solar system while our modern technology only discovered Pluto in 1930. Which possibly means their technology was at least on par, or better than ours at that time. And Planet X was where our God or the Sumerian gods came down to earth “from heavenly places” and Man was created from Enki’s idea through the breeding between apeman and these Annunaki species who came from Planet X so as to create the perfect slave to take over all their labors. Enlil wanted the extermination of Mankind by sending the flood but Enki saved our biblical “Noah”. The God we know of could possibly be gods to the primitive men while they are actually higher beings from another planet. And here is where everything starts to get confusing and collapse on me.

Lets say I do not buy that translation, but how can I dismiss the fact that these original stories came from somewhere much older and possibly more credible? Even a relative was telling me why would I believe that Mankind was created to be slaves to these species…but the problem has never been what I believe, it is the truth I am really after and til now I do not have a convincing answer to that apart from the usual default answers from fellow Christians and pastors.

I hope not to offend anyone, I am just trying to seek honest answers as to where the Church stands on these but I have no such luck after asking a few pastors. All I got was:“Have faith/The Bible is divinely inspired/Come to church more/the enemy is lying/etc.” These responses are not really what I was looking for, I was hoping for a more intelligent response that does not insult anyone’s intelligence. It kinda feels like I am being ask to go through a brainwash program instead of being given a direct answer on where the Church stands.

If the reason given to me was that the Bible is divinely inspired and that all else is false, then its common sense for me to think the Bible is false too, simply because the records on the tablets are so much older and makes our scriptures look like edited stories from the original ones.

Despite being in Catechism class, these questions I dare not raise up in front of the people attending it with me, simply because I fear stumping the old priest (who is truly a nice guy) and cause others to stumble with me. However, not being able to get the answers I need badly, I am not being able to look myself in the mirror and being proud that my faith is both rational and justified, but blind faith.

You been reading Sitchin?

GKC

 

[GuyNextDoor]

You been reading Sitchin?

GKC

As a matter of fact, yes. As much as I try to think of his translations as being not credible and that interplanetary beings do not exist, I am still not being able to explain the various UFO sightings (silly right?).

My main struggle here is probably that I do not wish our God to be some beings from another planet, creating men for their labor, and that these primitive men treated them as gods. I did even try to reconcile the tablets with our biblical scriptures that these beings “came from heaven and took the daughters of men as wives” before giants (nephilim) roamed the earth in Genesis.

Yet, if I try to reconcile the fallen angels with those interplanetary beings…what does that make God?

 

[GKC]

As a matter of fact, yes. As much as I try to think of his translations as being not credible and that interplanetary beings do not exist, I am still not being able to explain the various UFO sightings (silly right?).

My main struggle here is probably that I do not wish our God to be some beings from another planet, creating men for their labor, and that these primitive men treated them as gods. I did even try to reconcile the tablets with our biblical scriptures that these beings “came from heaven and took the daughters of men as wives” before giants (nephilim) roamed the earth in Genesis.

Yet, if I try to reconcile the fallen angels with those interplanetary beings…what does that make God?

Yeah, thought so. 60 years ago, when I started my book collecting in earnest, one of the first areas I began to collect in was UFOs (starting with Ruppelt’s THE REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS). That expanded into 500+ books on what I called “weird stuff”, such as more UFOs, cryptozoology, perpetual motion, historical mysteries, conspiracies, and included what came to be known as ancient astronauts, and such like. Van Daniken, in my college days, Velikovsky shortly there after, Sitchin years later.

It’s all tripe. Sitchin I am not aware of as having any counter arguments in book form, but there are a number of sites online which handle him. Not that I recommend online authority. But here’s one: sitchiniswrong.com/

If you find Sitchin compelling, I can’t offer any line for line refutations. It’s not my arena (though 40 years ago I was pretty good on Velikovsky). But then, I don’t offer line for line refutation of David Icke, either. Folks find compelling/credible what folks find compelling/credible.

GKC

 

[Jerurussia]

Great question, and you can self-answer by any of several means.

CONSONANCE TEST: Every culture has a Great Flood account that generally includes: God being mad; God sending flood; animals; mountain landing site usually turned into a local sacred mountain. Now what? Sumer got this cultural universality? No. So it doesn’t have even a cultural CONSONANCE.

COGENCY TEST. The “Sumerian”–and this etiology (origin of a disease state) is up for grabs as there were inner-circle types in this stratified society that did not share with the semi-literate–is not cogent. Sorry. It’s a derivative mish-mash on this basis. Wanna build Noah’s Ark? A good marine background will help put together the real deal from the technical specs in Genesis/Bereshet that are COGENT.

ANTI-HUMAN TEST. Lessee…Is my enlightened self-interest supportive of slavery? Nah…Suspect, therefore, satanic info 'cause the Father of Lies & Murder is ANTI-HUMAN…

ANTI-GOD TEST. Godlets warring in the Heavens? If they can’t get it right, why bother? Satanic as ANTI-GOD.

UNCHANGING!
Run it through some logic filters, like presumptions that the oldest extant physical texts means the oldest and most valid world view. What if Moses got the “oldest” physical text, Genesis/Bereshet, from the Egyptian archives? If that surfaces, should one flip-flop back to a loving Creator? God did exist and reveal Himself and His will before Moses, and Egypt was originally monotheist with PTAH the head-cracker club signifying His omnipotence.

The remnant, His Chosen People, faithfully preserved this revelation and we are most grateful to God and to them. Akhenaton didn’t start monotheism in Egypt, he revived it; and was buddy-buddies with those Hebrew monotheists to whom he gave unparalleled economic concessions. Don’t forget the war on God took place in Egypt, too, with bad guys muddying the waters as admitted by priest-scribe Manetho in his noting this embarrassing chaos in a later era. You know, just chisel out the parts you don’t like…Turn Shem into demonic Typhon or an unflattering red-haired donkey-headed god, and so forth.

PRIMAL!
My dear friend there are extra-biblical verifications for Genesis/Bereshet being the primal revelation, and that includes art icons, laws and customs and morals that exploded throughout the world and are still extant today, like marriage, and are often hiding in plain sight, in what Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes is as if everybody were reading off the same Genesis page. Islam might be carrying the remnant of enslaving gods…

LIARS OUTED!
As for the false miracles of the air, that’s demons, fallen angels. No big whoop. And they lie. Every culture has “trickster” demons. Don’t need Sumerian or Hebrew texts to know that. Just say, “NO!” Don’t hop into the Mother Ship that in the Middle Ages had its denizens claiming origins with the “Queen of Faeries” not some star system as the dupes of today. Ugh…Glean this same ol’ incubus/succubus/probing, cattle blasting, and implant inserting of “faerie bolts” from THE WITCH CULT IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

SAME IS AS SAME DOES!
Does it help to note that “ENKI” and “ENLIL” were Cain & Abel? Or that Noah was ZEUSUDRA/XIUSUDRA? Zeus was god-ified just as Noah was demonized…CONFUSED!

AGENDIZED UN-INFORMATION?
Does it help to note that Zechariah Sitchin stacked the universal “Ten Kings” lists of the Middle East, all ending with the tenth, the flood king, to create an attenuated time-line instead of figgering out that the SAME TEN KINGS IN THESE KING LISTS ARE THE SAME TEN PATRIARCHS IN GENESIS/BERESHET?!? DAFFY…

WE MAY QUESTION BUT NEVER DOUBT!
These are good questions and easily answered. Remember Zechariah, Elizabeth’s priest-husband, had to “question” the Archangel Gabriel as an expression of doubt and he was punished by this holy angel in being made mute until God’s message was fulfilled with John’s naming. The Virgin Mary’s question was simply that, getting the bona fides down, and she was rewarded with ample explanation by the Archangel Gabriel. So just ask GOD!

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Thank you all who have took their time to post here.

These are exactly the intelligent responses that I needed. And a special thanks to GKC for the site, it helps to know the researchers do not see eye-to-eye and Sitchin has a much lesser credibility in this area.

 

[GKC]

Thank you all who have took their time to post here.

These are exactly the intelligent responses that I needed. And a special thanks to GKC for the site, it helps to know the researchers do not see eye-to-eye and Sitchin has a much lesser credibility in this area.

You are very welcome. There are other such sites, but I am no authority on them. But Sitchin is a Velikovsky/Van Daniken look-alike. I mostly left that area of interests behind sometime ago.

GKC

 

[commenter]

Yeah, thought so. 60 years ago, when I started my book collecting in earnest, one of the first areas I began to collect in was UFOs (starting with Ruppelt’s THE REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS). That expanded into 500+ books on what I called “weird stuff”, such as more UFOs, cryptozoology, perpetual motion, historical mysteries, conspiracies, and included what came to be known as ancient astronauts, and such like. Van Daniken, in my college days, Velikovsky shortly there after, Sitchin years later.

It’s all tripe. Sitchin I am not aware of as having any counter arguments in book form, but there are a number of sites online which handle him. Not that I recommend online authority. But here’s one: sitchiniswrong.com/

If you find Sitchin compelling, I can’t offer any line for line refutations.** It’s not my arena **(though 40 years ago I was pretty good on Velikovsky). But then, I don’t offer line for line refutation of David Icke, either. Folks find compelling/credible what folks find compelling/credible.

GKC

Yup, GKC sounds like a dabbler in this arena to me. This number of books is skimming the surface. I would ask that this thread be open only to serious students of this genre.

 

[GKC]

Yup, GKC sounds like a dabbler in this arena to me. This number of books is skimming the surface. I would ask that this thread be open only to serious students of this genre.

Possibly I miscounted.

GKC

 

[commenter]

Possibly I miscounted.

GKC

I think 1000 books should be the minimum number of sources consulted.

To the OP, I suggest “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” by Martin Gardner. It’s the classic text for understanding this genre in general. It was written in the early 1950s, and Gardner wrote many other books afterwards affirming common sense.

Gardner, who lived to almost 100, was raised as an Evangelical. He deeply appreciated G. K. Chesterton, wrote that he strongly considered converting to Catholicism because of him; but he lived most of his life as a theist. Like many other skeptics his writings are thoroughly researched, but unlike more recent skeptics, always fair and charitable, never prone to attack. He, like Isaac Asimov, was a kindly, old generation skeptic, a mostly non-believer with a strong commitment to Truth. We won’t see his like much anymore.

 

[GKC]

I think 1000 books should be the minimum number of sources consulted.

To the OP, I suggest “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” by Martin Gardner. It’s the classic text for understanding this genre in general. It was written in the early 1950s, and Gardner wrote many other books afterwards affirming common sense.

Gardner, who lived to almost 100, was raised as an Evangelical. He deeply appreciated G. K. Chesterton, wrote that he strongly considered converting to Catholicism because of him; but he lived most of his life as a theist. Like many other skeptics his writings are thoroughly researched, but unlike more recent skeptics, always fair and charitable, never prone to attack. He, like Isaac Asimov, was a kindly, old generation skeptic, a mostly non-believer with a strong commitment to Truth. We won’t see his like much anymore.

Gardner’s cited book is amongst the (possibly) 1000 titles in that area of my book collecting, in the Dover edition.

Gardner also contributed the ANNOTATED THURSDAY (Man Who Was, Ignatius Press) to my Chesterton collection, as well as THE ANNOTATED INNOCENCE OF FR. BROWN, (Oxford Univ. Press). His THE ANNOTATED SNARK, THE ANNOTATED ALICE, perhaps others, are on hand.

If I liked puzzles, that list would be longer.

GKC