• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Sumerian and Babylonian roots of Old Testament figures

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
This thread is meant for 2 or 3 people into religious history and religious studies. And will involve academic studies and long videos and lectures. It's not a fast-food drive-through. Hence, blind, emotionally-biased Christians (95% of the Forum) who think everything is a conspiracy against "Muh Christianity" are not welcomed here. And can go listen to people on their rudimentary frequency level or to their church priest on the corner.

This matter involves Judaism, which I claim to have stolen from the Sumerians and Bablyonians to create its old figures such as Adam and Noah.

This video is packed with information from Prof. AL Majidi, a highly esteem Iraqi professor that writes about ancient civilizations. I will try to break it down and post related content to what he's saying.

 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
The concept of man created from clay / mud is from Sumerian Paganism. And the Jewish myth was built around Adimo valley. Adam is from "Adama" which means clay / mud.

sumerian-clay.PNG
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
And you'd find similar beliefs across Assyria - Babylonia - Sumer.
Judaism was created in those areas, of course.

1581812319422.png
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
The story of Adam and Eve and the snake as well. This academic work (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/369340) goes over that and all the strong similarities which show plagiarism.

View attachment 17739

And by common descent, the author means that the story of Eabani and Ukhat and Adam and Eve are taken from previous pagan stories in that area based around Sumerian creation. But problem is Judaism is quite modern in the religious tree. So it's stories would have came after Eabani and Ukhat even.
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
And this tree shows how Judaism is quite modern compared to Mesopotamian (Sumerian + Babylonian + Assyrian) Polytheism. Which had those stories / myths.

1581813212763.png
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
Eve is from the Sumerian High Priestess Nintee, which means "lady of rib" and "lady of life" in Sumerian.

1581813964240.png
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
Sumerian depiction of Eve being made of the ribs of Adam. A rib is taken from a man's body and a goddess creates from that rib.

1581814429641.png
 

Elvis left the building

Legendary Member
So what if Biblical/Qur’anic concepts are found in other texts? What difference does it make?

its cool to see the original references of what we consider 'old' testament and the judaic root of all other abrahamic religions

these are even older

some other roots are from egyptians pharaohs too

imagine, there was once a time were Judaism was the new Justin Bieber kid on the block
 

NewLeb

Member
its cool to see the original references of what we consider 'old' testament and the judaic root of all other abrahamic religions

these are even older

some other roots are from egyptians pharaohs too

imagine, there was once a time were Judaism was the new Justin Bieber kid on the block

“Original references”

That’s only if you want to characterize it as such. The OP is assuming that since ancient books contain information that is found alike in Abrahamic texts, the only conclusion to this is that the latter “borrowed” or “stole” from said texts. He has no way of actually knowing this.
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
“Original references”

That’s only if you want to characterize it as such. The OP is assuming that since ancient books contain information that is found alike in Abrahamic texts, the only conclusion to this is that the latter “borrowed” or “stole” from said texts. He has no way of actually knowing this.

[Pitiful smile]

We know this through Strong Induction Arguments.

A1- Myth A precedes Myth B in 3000 years (4000BCE vs 950BCE )
A2- Myth A and B have same characters: Adam, Eve, Tree and Snake.
A3- Myth A and B have same plot: Man created from mud, woman created from rib of man, temptation of both by a third party, both being naked and pure, both living in a garden, both being separated from the creator after the act of defiance.
A4- Historic record shows many early Jews with the new Myth B were originally Babylonians. Within that area where Myth A was common in Mesopotamia.
A5- No historic records or empirical evidence of monotheists holding Myth B before Myth A.

Strong Induction: Myth B is taken / borrowed from Myth A.


Unless you want to argue that everything should be deductive logic in religious studies, which would make me naturally ignore you and laugh at you vigorously.
 
Last edited:

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
Needless to say, the argument that the Furqan (called the Qur'an) is timeless and precedes those religions is laughable at best. All academic studies go back to the First God ever worshiped being The Mother Goddess of Nature and Agriculture. And not Yahweh. Proven with archealogical evidence from Sumeria and the Indus Valley. And so the Abrahamic (which is a false term as Abraham is taken from Abram) faiths are all wrong and the children of their historic emergence from Mesopotamian Polytheism.
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
By the same token, if I write a short story matching the characters, theme, general plot and ending of the Tell Tale Heart, the court establishes beyond reasonable doubt that I plagiarized Edgar Allen Poe, even if you didn't see me do it in my dark room.
 

NewLeb

Member
A1- Myth A precedes Myth B in 3000 years (4000BCE vs 950BCE )

Uh-huh.

A2- Myth A and B have same characters: Adam, Eve, Tree and Snake.

Uh-huh.

A3- Myth A and B have same plot: Man created from mud, woman created from rib of man, temptation of both by a third party, both being naked and pure, both living in a garden, both being separated from the creator after the act of defiance.


Uh-huh.

A4- Myth A and B have same plot: Man created from mud, woman created from rib of man, temptation of both by a third party, both being naked and pure, both living in a garden, both being separated from the creator after the act of defiance.

Uh-huh.

A4- Historic record shows many early Jews with the new Myth B were originally Babylonians.

This is mere conjecture. It could simply be the case that what the Babylonians recorded actually did happen, and that the Abrahamic books simply correlate with this information.

A5- No historic records or empirical evidence of monotheists holding Myth B before Myth A.

So what?

Strong Induction: Myth B is taken / borrowed from Myth A.

OR: Strong Induction: The so-called “Myth” did indeed happen, and that the Abrahamic texts allude to factual happenings that other ancient and pre-historical societies recorded and knew at the time.
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
The so-called “Myth” did indeed happen, and that the Abrahamic texts allude to factual happenings that other ancient and pre-historical societies recorded and knew at the time.

Uh-no, otherwise it could be traced back before Mesopotamian polytheism and not be based upon the Sumerian language itself.
 
Last edited:

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
There's also a whole dimension of turning Bablyonian Kings into Jewish prophets, when there's no mention of them before that period... I'll expand on that more when I have time.
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
Only if you want to ignore oral transmission.

The word Adam itself is taken from a Sumerian context of a specific Mesopotamian valley and king. The word Eve taken from a specific high priestess. And so we believe Sumerians created it and didn't borrow it. This is long to explain but found in the lecture.
 
Top