I ran across a blog in which was posted an article regarding the Nephilim and so I wrote to the author stating:
As an FYI that I believe will be of interest to you: I put together an interactive chart listing 40 texts dating from 250 BC-5th c. AD which notes which do and which do not take the Angel view of the Genesis 6 affair (as I like to term it): http://truefreethinker.com/articles/early-commentaries-genesis-6-angels-or-not-%E2%80%93-interactive-chart
Yet, I came to find out that his views were not quite in line with mine: his article was more general and now I found out his premise as he wrote:
Sorry Ken, I do not follow the bible its been rewritten too many times and the words are convoluted. I go with the much older Sumerian tablets from Oxford University. The bible is nothing but a control mechanism set up by the Anunnaki “anus” bloodlines. These words have not been misconstrued.
Well, there was not much more of a discussion so I will reproduce it and then comment:
I see, very well then. I wrote to you initially due to you having posted on the Nephilim on your blog. I would imagine that the manuscript evidence for the Bible very much far outweighs the Sumerian tablets from Oxford University.
He replied:
Bible has been scrutinized for a 1000 years , books removed. retranslated dozens of times. Sorry my perspective its a book of mysticism and symbolism held together by conjecture and hearsay. The Sumerian texts have been buried for 5000 years and then what has been scribed is still what we translate and then most theologians will agree the bible originates from the tablets of Enki “Poseidon” Lord of Earth.
I replied:
Most interesting. I am curious as to when books were removed from the Bible. Also, I am confused as to how retranslating a text dozens of times is somehow a bad thing. Friend, actually, I wonder if the Sumerian texts were scrutinized for a 1000 years, had text removed and were retranslated dozens of times before we dug them up.
His final reply:
No sorry your confused. You can find information on the books removed from the older bibles that are still around including the ethiopians. Or then the copper scrolls. The tablets were dug up and carbon dated they have no been touched by man as the bible has been, have no time for someone that is gonna twist everything around I say.
Goodluck and I wont be answering any more of these messages.
I replied:
I appreciated the interaction friend. Fare well. Keep in touch anytime you wish.
You may have discerned that I was attempting to ask leading question or otherwise to make statements meant to get him to engage the issue in a detailed manner.
I am not certain what he means by that the Bible has “been rewritten too many times and the words are convoluted” but if that was the case it would be easy to prove as we have over five and a half thousand manuscripts for the New Testament alone—this will be key. Thus, I not only imagine that the manuscript evidence for the Bible very much far outweighs the Sumerian tablets from Oxford University but I know it.
I am also uncertain as to how it is supposed to be a problem that the “Bible has been scrutinized for a 1000 years” as this is a good thing. Indeed, it has been scrutinized for its historical statements, cultural statements, geographical statements, theological statements, etc.
It is also good and not bad that it has been “retranslated dozens of times” as this only makes sense for a few reasons including 1) even considering one single language as English changes translations are updated, 2) as we find more manuscripts we fine tune the details (whilst a major doctrine has never been changed based on such small changes), 3) some are formal translations (word for word even if a little difficult to read) and some are dynamic translations (thought for thought even if each word is not translated).
As for “books removed” this is that about which I asked him and the reply was “You can find information on the books removed from the older bibles that are still around including the ethiopians.” He is actually making a styled-category error as he is referring to different canons. Now, some may claim that different canons equals having “books removed” or books added, of course. Yet, note the presupposition: there is an absolute Bible and any deviation is either adding or subtracting. Well, yes, there is an absolute Bible and at most by the second century it was all but ironed out—see Canonization Controversy.
What we find is that the more distance in time and geography from Jerusalem that we get the more books are added to the canon. For example, the Catholic church offers two examples of this issue. Once the Reformation was gaining strength and challenging them about certain unbiblical beliefs the Catholic church simply said, oh, it’s not in the Bible well BOOM now it is and they simply added books: the apocrypha which they term deutero-canonical and that was at the Council of Trent dating to over one and a half millennia after the time of Jesus: 1545-1563 AD.
I am unsure what his reference to “Or then the copper scrolls” was meant to mean. It is surely a reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls or rather one scroll which is designated 3Q15 and is basically a pirate’s treasure style document listing hidden gold, silver, coins and vessels.
Now, what of his preferred Sumerian tablets? Well, he seemed to miss my point. He asserted that they are “much older” which does not equal much better, nor much better attested, nor truer, nor free from manipulation, etc. He asserted “These words have not been misconstrued” which is an odd claim as he is stating that they have not been misunderstood or misinterpreted but unless he is an ancient Sumerian expert he does not really know this. Recall that wonder if the Sumerian texts were scrutinized for a 1000 years, had text removed and were retranslated dozens of times before we dug them up. This is because his claim is to their reliability—only since they were found. He commented that “The tablets were dug up and carbon dated they have no[t] been touched by man” but that is only after they were found. Yet, he knows utterly nothing about how they came to be, who wrote them, why, whether they were in the pile labeled “discard these tablets because they are corrupted copies,” whether they had a long history of being changed, etc., etc., etc.
Another issue is that when you have one tablet of one text (and not, for example multiple tablets/manuscripts) you simply have to take the text’s word for it and cannot verify it by means of textual criticism, for example.
Lastly, apparently the Anunnaki “anus” bloodlines somehow wrote the Bible (which was written by 40 authors of different occupations on three continents over some millennia) so as “a control mechanism” for some reason.
That “most theologians will agree” is, of course, a generic un-cited argument from authority “the bible originates from the tablets of Enki ‘Poseidon’ Lord of Earth” is a claim to the effect that well, something he does not want to admit.
The fact is that the Sumerian tablets have been twisted, turned, interpreted time and again and made into basically anything anyone wants. If I may read into what he is saying I would imagine that he means that he reads the tablets and reads the Bible into them. In other words, constructing correlations between them. For example, the tablets say that the Annunaki created a worker race so that must mean Adam and Eve.
Of course, I say that he “reads the tablets” but for all I know he may not. I mean that many who expound upon the Annunaki either take the word of others for their contents and/or take the word of others for their interpretation.
Zecharia Sitchin is a prime example of this as are Erich von Däniken and the whole neo cast of those who took over the ancient astronauts and turned the franchise into ancient aliens.
Well, I read 10 or 11 of Sitchin’s books and eventually followed that up by seeing what someone had to say on his claims on a scholarly level. Thus, I will simply direct the interested reader to Dr. Michael Heiser’s Sitchin Is Wrong: Sitchin refused to debate Heiser for around an entire decade.
If there are commonalities between the Sumerian tables and the Bible is it due to the same reason that there are commonalities on some basic issue between all ancient text, myths, legends, etc.
It is because the dispersal of humanity which occurred after the flood caused a group of people to split into different nations who moved to different regions around the planet. This means that they took along with them commonly known history which over time changed in this or that detail and came to be known as myth and legend.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.