jeudi 19 novembre 2015

What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?

1) Mike O'Neil Gets it All Wrong, 2) What can Sumerian King List Teach Us?, 3) Two Things You Might Be Asking Now?, 4) The plain reading of Scripture clearly supports six day Creationism

I will actually cite only the first ten Sumerian kings on it:

  • After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug (Eridu). In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28,800 years. (Beginning of year 1 to 28,800)
  • Alalngar was said to have reigned for 36,000 years. (28,800 - 64,800)
  • En-men-lu-ana was also the longest-reigning king on the list, which said he ruled for 43,200 years. (68,800 - 108,000)
  • En-men-gal-ana was said to have reigned for 28,800 years. (108,000 - 136,800)
  • Dumuzid the Shepherd ruled for 36,000 years. (136,800 - 172,800)
  • En-sipad-zid-ana was said to have reigned for 28,800 years. (172,800 - 201,600)
  • En-men-dur-ana was said to have reigned for 43,200 years (201,600 - 244,800)
  • Ubara-tutu (or Ubartutu) of Shuruppak was the last antediluvian king of Sumer. He was said to have reigned for 18,600 years. (244,800 - 263,400)

  • Deluge

  • Jushur of Kish (After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish.) reigned in Sumer for 1,200 years as the first post-diluvian king. (263,400 - 264,600)
  • Kullassina-bel was the second king in the First Dynasty of Kish according to the Sumerian king list, which adds that he reigned for 960 years (or 900 in some copies). (264,600 - 265,560)

I came here by looking up Shuruppak, on wiki.

Now, some diverse lessons are intrinsically possible:

  • Sumerian Kinglist is the truth, and the pre-Flood time of Genesis is ridiculously short.

  • Or, Sumerian Kinglist is false, Genesis plagiarises it with some moderation for lifespans, but not nearly enough. The 930 years of Adam's overall life are as mythical as the 43 thousand 200 years of Enmerluana's reign alone.

These are not compatible. One of them at least is wrong. Could both be wrong?

Well, here is a third one:

  • The very inflated numerals in this list, dating back to very roughly same times as Genesis was written, if not true, were at least believed and conceived. In other words, the people whom God spoke to would have understood larger spans of time than "six days" or even "thousand years".

That is, if not very inferior intellectually to Babylonians, which I think was not the case.

Thus, of Biblical Timescale is not exactly right, it is certainly not either a reasonable simplification of the real one to make "very simple Hebrews" (comparable in Mike O'Neill's world to five year old boys) understand what happened without bringing on too much complexity.

The real alternatives for Genesis are:

  • revealed by a truthful and all knowing God, and thus true, including in timeline;
  • revealed by a being perhaps not all knowing and certainly not totally truthful, explaining a wrong timeline;
  • not revealed but somehow first invented and later treated as if not invented but revealed.

Those who know me know that I consider the last as being extremely unlikely.

And the first as the actual truth.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Elisabeth of Marburg

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire