Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
I see where your getting at, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence. What do you think of this...
Nimrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Abraham Sumerian, or Babylonian? Aware me
- Thread starter Jainarayan
- Start date
I see where your getting at, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence. What do you think of this...
Nimrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
outhouse
Atheistically
Nimrods mythology is quite the read.
There are many guesses but nothing substantiates him.
Really quite interesting trying to figure out how the possibilities of his story developed.
Nimrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Historical interpretations[edit]
Inscription of Naram Sin found at the city of Marad
Historians, Orientalists, Assyriologists and mythographers have long tried to find links between Nimrod and historically attested figures in Mesopotamia.
The Christian Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea as early as the early 4th century, noting that the Babylonian historian Berossus in the 3rd century BC had stated that the first king after the flood was Euechoios of Chaldea, identified him with Nimrod. George Syncellus (c. 800) also had access to Berossus, and he too identified Euechoios with the biblical Nimrod. More recently, Sumerologists have suggested additionally connecting both this Euechoios, and the king of Babylon and grandfather of Gilgamos who appears in the oldest copies of Aelian (c. 200 AD) as Euechoros, with the name of the founder of Uruk known from cuneiform sources as Enmerkar.[12]
J.D.Prince, in 1920 also suggested a possible link between the Lord (Ni) of Marad and Nimrod. He mentioned how Dr. Kraeling was now inclined to connect Nimrod historically with Lugal-Banda, a mythological king mentioned in Poebel, Historical Texts, 1914, whose seat was at the city Marad.[13] This is supported by Theodore Jacobson in 1989, writing on "Lugalbanda and Ninsuna".[14]
According to Ronald Hendel the name Nimrod is probably a polemical distortion of the god Ninurta, a prominent god in Mesopotamian religion who had cult centers in a number of Assyrian cities such as Kalhu, and also in Babylon, and was a patron god of a number of Assyrian kings.[15] Nimrod's imperial ventures described in Genesis may be based on the conquests of the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (Dalley et al., 1998, p. 67). Julian Jaynes also indicates Tukulti-Ninurta I (a powerful king of the Middle Assyrian Empire) as the origin for Nimrod.[16] Alexander Hislop, in his tract The Two Babylons (Chapter 2, Section II, Sub-Section I) decided that Nimrod was to be identified with Ninus (also unattested in Mesopotamian king lists), who according to Greek legend was a Mesopotamian king and husband of Semiramis (see below), ; with a whole host of deities throughout the Mediterranean world, and with the Persian Zoroaster. The identification with Ninus follows that of the Clementine Recognitions; the one with Zoroaster, that of the Clementine Homilies, both works part of Clementine literature.[17] There was a historical Assyrian queen Shammuramat in the 9th century, the wife of Shamshi-Adad V, whom some speculations have identified with Semiramis, while others make her a later namesake of a much earlier Semiramis.
outhouse
Atheistically
David Rohl, like Hislop, identified Nimrod with a complex of Near Eastern deities; among those he picked were Asar, Baal, Dumuzi and Osiris. In Rohl's theory, Enmerkar the Sumerian founder of Uruk was the original inspiration for Nimrod, because the story of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (see:[18]) bears a few similarities to the legend of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, and because the -KAR in Enmerkar means "hunter". Additionally, Enmerkar is said to have had ziggurats built in both Uruk and Eridu, which Rohl postulates was the site of the original Babel.
George Rawlinson believed Nimrod was Belus (like Nimrod and Ninus a king not attested in Mesopotamian annals, but claimed by the later Greeks to have been a king of Assyria) based on the fact Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions bear the names Bel-Nibru.[19] The word Nibru in the Akkadian language of Assyria and Babylonia comes from a root meaning to 'pursue' or to make 'one flee', and as Rawlinson pointed out not only does this closely resemble Nimrod’s name but it also perfectly fits the description of Nimrod in Genesis 10: 9 as a great hunter. The Belus-Nimrod equation or link is also found in many old works such as Moses of Chorene and the Book of the Bee.[20] Nibru, in the Sumerian language, was the original name of the city of Nippur.
Joseph Poplicha wrote in 1929 about the identification of Nimrod in the first dynasty or Uruk[21]
Because another of the cities said to have been built by Nimrod was Accad, an older theory, proposed by 1910,[22] connects him with Sargon the Great, grandfather of Naram-Sin, since, according to the Sumerian king list, that king first built Akkad (Agade). Sargon was known from archaeology by 1860, and for some time remained the earliest-known Mesopotamian ruler. The assertion of the king list that it was Sargon who built Akkad has since been called into question, however, with the discovery of inscriptions mentioning the place in the reigns of some of Sargon's predecessors, such as kings Enshakushanna and Lugal-Zage-Si of Uruk. Moreover, Sargon was credited with founding Babylon in the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 19:51), another city (Babel) attributed to Nimrod in Genesis. However, a different tablet (ABC 20:18-19) suggests that Sargon merely "dug up the dirt of the pit" of the original Babylon, and rebuilt it in its later location fronting Akkad.
Yigal Levin (2002) suggests that Nimrod was a recollection of Sargon of Akkad and of his grandson Naram-Sin, with the name "Nimrod" derived from the latter.[23]
Nimrod figures in some very early versions of the history of Freemasonry, where he was said to have been one of the fraternity's founders. According to the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry: The legend of the Craft in the Old Constitutions refers to Nimrod as one of the founders of Masonry. Thus in the York MS., No. 1, we read: "At ye making of ye toure of Babell there was a Masonrie first much esteemed of, and the King of Babilon yt called Nimrod was a Mason himself and loved well Masons." However, he does not figure in the current rituals.
The demon Nyyrikki, figuring in the Finnish Kalevala as a helper of Lemminkäinen, is associated with Nimrod by some researchers and linguists.[24]
George Rawlinson believed Nimrod was Belus (like Nimrod and Ninus a king not attested in Mesopotamian annals, but claimed by the later Greeks to have been a king of Assyria) based on the fact Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions bear the names Bel-Nibru.[19] The word Nibru in the Akkadian language of Assyria and Babylonia comes from a root meaning to 'pursue' or to make 'one flee', and as Rawlinson pointed out not only does this closely resemble Nimrod’s name but it also perfectly fits the description of Nimrod in Genesis 10: 9 as a great hunter. The Belus-Nimrod equation or link is also found in many old works such as Moses of Chorene and the Book of the Bee.[20] Nibru, in the Sumerian language, was the original name of the city of Nippur.
Joseph Poplicha wrote in 1929 about the identification of Nimrod in the first dynasty or Uruk[21]
Because another of the cities said to have been built by Nimrod was Accad, an older theory, proposed by 1910,[22] connects him with Sargon the Great, grandfather of Naram-Sin, since, according to the Sumerian king list, that king first built Akkad (Agade). Sargon was known from archaeology by 1860, and for some time remained the earliest-known Mesopotamian ruler. The assertion of the king list that it was Sargon who built Akkad has since been called into question, however, with the discovery of inscriptions mentioning the place in the reigns of some of Sargon's predecessors, such as kings Enshakushanna and Lugal-Zage-Si of Uruk. Moreover, Sargon was credited with founding Babylon in the Babylonian Chronicle (ABC 19:51), another city (Babel) attributed to Nimrod in Genesis. However, a different tablet (ABC 20:18-19) suggests that Sargon merely "dug up the dirt of the pit" of the original Babylon, and rebuilt it in its later location fronting Akkad.
Yigal Levin (2002) suggests that Nimrod was a recollection of Sargon of Akkad and of his grandson Naram-Sin, with the name "Nimrod" derived from the latter.[23]
Nimrod figures in some very early versions of the history of Freemasonry, where he was said to have been one of the fraternity's founders. According to the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry: The legend of the Craft in the Old Constitutions refers to Nimrod as one of the founders of Masonry. Thus in the York MS., No. 1, we read: "At ye making of ye toure of Babell there was a Masonrie first much esteemed of, and the King of Babilon yt called Nimrod was a Mason himself and loved well Masons." However, he does not figure in the current rituals.
The demon Nyyrikki, figuring in the Finnish Kalevala as a helper of Lemminkäinen, is associated with Nimrod by some researchers and linguists.[24]
The Greek creation and flood myths are very similar to the Mesopotamian/biblical stories. I'm sure you know...
Prometheus & Epimetheus create man out of clay (Epimetheus created ditzy Pandora, iirc).
Zeus sends a flood, wipes out mankind because mankind becomes wicked.
One couple, Deucalion and Pyrrha survive the flood in... a boat!
They repopulate the earth by tossing stones over their shoulders which turned into humans.
Something like that.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Here is something else that may help you. The majority of the book of Genesis coincides with the Gilgamesh Epic of Mesopotamia while Noah's entire depiction ironically mirrors the character Utnapishtim.
The Tawrah itself mentions Mesopotamian deities such as Nergal, Marduk and Dagon are mentioned. The Tawrah also spends an awful amount of time trying to denounce these deities and make these people rivals. Yahweh is often depicted destroying the believers of rival deities and their entire nations. Fictional depictions of genocide born from tribalism essentially.
The Jews were in feuds with other tribes and kingdoms and wrote fictional stories of their deities and the dehumanization of other people and their gods. The Tawrah is steeped in tribal superiority with it's sole purpose being morale enrichment
The Tawrah itself mentions Mesopotamian deities such as Nergal, Marduk and Dagon are mentioned. The Tawrah also spends an awful amount of time trying to denounce these deities and make these people rivals. Yahweh is often depicted destroying the believers of rival deities and their entire nations. Fictional depictions of genocide born from tribalism essentially.
The Jews were in feuds with other tribes and kingdoms and wrote fictional stories of their deities and the dehumanization of other people and their gods. The Tawrah is steeped in tribal superiority with it's sole purpose being morale enrichment
It always stuck me that the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" indicates that the existence of other gods was a given. It's just that the God of the bible was to be pre-eminent. That's how I read it.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Look through the first 5 books of the Bible. You will see many time that Yahweh denounces other gods and tells the Israelites to slaughter villages housing rival deities.
If you look at the phrasing and circumstances of Yahweh's commands you will see how he is literally jealous and frustrated with a specific tribes having another deity other than him.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
What may help confirm your drift is where it says "Abraham's God", which some interpret that to imply that there are others, or others that are at least believed in.
The location of Ur is known, and it's ruins lie in what is present day Iraq. Abraham is a historical figure. Hhis life overlapped that of Shem, one of Noah's sons, by 150 years. It may have been from Shem that Abraham received knowledge that led him to exercise such strong faith in Jehovah. Despite claims to the contrary, the Bible record stands as historically accurate.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The vast majority of narratives found in scripture cannot be confirm nor denied as there's simply not enough archaeological evidence one way or another.
:yes: It goes without saying.
Something else that strikes me as odd, even offensive though I am neither Muslim, Christian or Jewish, is how people refer to the bloodthirsty vengeful jealous God of the Old Testament when Jesus is brought up. That is, how Jesus is teaching people to worship this God. Uh... no. I can't speak for any of our Jewish brethren and sistren (yes, that is a word from Middle English), but I don't believe they take the OT accounts literally either.
Yes, a variation being "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".
Most archaeologists, and even many theologians, would disagree with you.
"I'll take Archaeological Degrees for $500, Alex".
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Do you accept that kings used different names when going to different regions?
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
No one takes a holy book seriously and Jews are a major proponent of this. Christians can separate themselves from the Old Testament because they have the kinder New Testament.
Jews only hath the old and above all else they have the Tawrah, the most bloodiest books of them all. There is no way on earth any Jew can fully follow the Tawrat.
I have been both a Christian and a Muslim in my past and I have a very profound understanding of textual ignorance used by Christians and Muslims alike. It all comes down to dodging and circle talk. Both the Bible and Qur'an have the same depiction of god and the same tribalistic attitude.
I speak archaic English so this is of no surprise to me.
outhouse
Atheistically
Because that is the truth of the matter.
outhouse
Atheistically
outhouse
Atheistically
False, he has absolutely NO historicity what so ever.
Sources. You need to supply them
Jeremy Mason
Well-Known Member
Good question.
I bet being incognito when establishing a vassal state can become quite handy.