Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


Sumerians didn't worship the Mushussu


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

#16    draconic chronicler

draconic chronicler

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Banned
  • 6,229 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 March 2009 - 01:13 PM

[quote name='legionromanes' date='Mar 15 2009, 12:24 PM' post='2792345']
lol no, it states that the word Usumgal means great dragon, snake, it does not say that it was either a God, or worshipped as such. thanks for clearing that up

DC: Okay you do admit they believed it was a large reptilian monster of some sort, and not just an epithet.  Now we are making Progress.

do you know why it was used as an epithet DC, do you know the significance of likening someone to a snake, its not to do with appearence its to do with immortality which a snake represented. Snakes represented immortality all over the ancient world, calling someone a great snake just applies doubly so, how can you claim to know anything if you don't know that

DC: While epitthet's like "strong as a bull" are used in hymns, they clearly state that the gods ARE these dragons, and even give PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS of their physical appearance, as anyone can read.

riiight, so professor Jeremy Black doesn't know what hes talking about either then when he said  


funny isn't it how you need everyone to not know what theyre talking about, none of my qualified experts matches your knowledge according to you, I'm sure they'd be amused to knw that you think only you have it right and that the last 100 years of academic study was a waste of time

DC:  NO, the QUALIFIED EXPERTS Like Black support what I am saying, just like the expert used in the British Museum to correctly identify the dragon idol in their collection as a probable God.  Other tablets like this do depict Humanoid Gods as well, and these were all household idols.  You just know nothing about the archaeology, unlike the British Museum experts who in fact cited your own sources!
lol it also says "it is". deliberately misinterpret that if you can

DC  Usumgal  is listed in the dragon category, I agree.



its not mentioned in any translated text that I have ever read, if it was no doubt you would have posted an extract, I can only presume that as you havent you are now fabricating evidence again, whats that the third time now ?

DC  I believe just about everyone translates Usumgal as dragon or serpent dragon.  So doesn't your quoted source.  It DOES NOT say this word was only an epithet, but CAN be one. If a hymn say "like a dragon" it would be an ephitet, but many hymns physically describe these gods as dragons and to remove all doubt they are DEPICTED in art as Dragons.  It is no different than the Chines emyths of dragons who can change to the form of men, probably so they can intermingle with humans and not seem terrifying to them.

ok this is starting to resemble the plot of a straight to video movie now, this again is just your own vivid imagination, unless you have evidence froma credible source you are again just wasting everyones time with your fantasies


lol earlier you stated that Ningizzida was always depicted as a dragon,now you are claiming hes also depicted as a human, did you perhaps learn something, now please explain to me how it is that hes depicted as one human yet two dragons, when you can't manufacture anything half convincing perhaps you should look up the term "symbolic animal" or you could just read this again which was written as you know by about the most qualified Sumerologist of modern times

DC  I don't believe I ever said Ningishzida was ONLY depicted as a dragon, pleas show me where I did.  And in Nigishzida's case his physical appearance is even described as a dragon with claws and a serpent like heads.  Therefore this is not an Ephitet but a physical description in his dragon form.


yes as an epithet
the text actually states

funny that, doesn't say that there are actually any dragon gods, says its an epithet like I have been telling you all along, got hoist by your own petard there didn't you

thats another error on your part, there are two "basmu" dragons on the vase of Gudea. not one, so you are claiming that Nngizzida could transform into two dragons are you

DC  Unlike you, I am actually familiar with the Sumerian culture and legends.  What the vase depicts is the famous event in the legend of Adape and the Southwind in which Ningishzida and Damuzi (another shapeshifting dragon who actually cahnges in a story) are guardians of the gates of heaven.  This is why the great doors that they clutch have the symbol of a serpent on them (yes, you are right about that).  Ningishzida is the gatekeeper of the underworld in another story about Inanna as well, where she actually calls him a dragon.  The link I  posted previously has all of these Sumerian stories.

you have provided no evidene at all that they did so, compared to my overwhelming evidence that they didn't

DC :You have provided NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that has contradicted my statement that there were Sumerian Gods that were believed could take the shape of dragons, except perhaps, one of your "school teachers" agrees with you.
On the contrary, there are dozens of original sumerian hymns on the link I provided that  describe the various Gods as dragons.  This is why the exteemed British museum stated the dragon idol was believed to represent a God.  Now as for MY evidence, in addition to ALL the sumerian hymns that describe various gods as dragons  here is a long list of esteemed scholars who have cited in their books and papers as to which of the many near eastern gods that could become dragons was the "walking talking, dragon (who has his legs taken away as punishement), in the Biblical eden story in which a fantastic reptilian creature (which most of these authorities believe was originally a Mesopotamian dragon god reduced to a mere talking animal in the Hebrew version.  

This is taken from the same Bibleorigins link I have provided before, but since your fans are impressed with your "cut and paste antics"  here is a long list of scholars you can try to refute.  I think you and your school teacher are wrong, in light of the evidence.  The only reason there is a serpent (dragon) in the garden of Eden story is because it was an earlier Mesopotamian DRAGON GOD, and NOT an Epithat for a god.  


G. Smith:................................Tiamat, a female dragon personifying the salty sea (1876)

J. W. Reynolds:.......................Tiamat "the dragon of the sea" (1878)

W. H. Ward:............................Tiamat, with great reservation (1881)

A. H. Sayce:...........................Nina, daughter of Ea of Eridu (1887)

P. C. A. Jensen: .....................Gilgamesh Serpent possibly behind Eden's Serpent (1890)

Alice Bodington:......................Tiamat, "the dragon of the sea" is behind Eden's Serpent (1893)

W. S. C. Boscawen:................Tiamat's ability to talk and cast spells explains Eve's being beguiled by Eden's Serpent (1895)

M. Jastrow:.............................Enkidu's sexual passion might be "the Serpent" (1898)

J. Skinner:..............................Ea of Eridu (1910)

S. H. Langdon.........................The Sumerian mother-goddess Ninhursag (1915)

J. G. Frazer:...........................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1926)

R. Graves and R. Patai:............Ea of Eridu (1963)

P. R. Davies & J. Rogerson:.....The Gilgamesh Serpent (1989)

B. F. Batto:.............................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1992)

R. J. Clifford:............................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1992)

M. Rice:..................................The Gilgamesh Serpent (1994)

S. A. Nigosian:........................The Gilgamesh Serpent (2004)



Scholars identifying parallels between TWO MESOPOTAMIAN PROTAGONISTS and Eden's Serpent:



A. S. Palmer.....................Tiamat and Ea (1897)

H. Zimmern.......................Anu and Ea of the Adapa and the South Wind Myth and Tiamat (1901)

S. H. Langdon:..................Ningishzida and Dumuzi (1931)

J.  Campbell:.................... Enki (1959) and Ningishzida (1964)

T. Ziolkowski:....................The Gilgamesh Serpent and Shamhat's statement to Enkidu: "...you are wise..."(2000)



Scholars identifying MORE THAN TWO MESOPOTAMIAN PROTAGONISTS as behind Eden's Serpent:



W. R. Mattfeld:.................(1) Anu/An; (2) Dumuzi/Tammuz; (3) Ningishzida/Gishzida; (4) Ea/Enki; (5) Enlil/Ellil;      

                                      (6) Marduk/Merodach; (7) Inanna/Ishtar; (8) Nergal as the equivalent of Satan "ruler" of Hellcneserpents  md I.  


lol funny, reality is sliping away from you isn't it

right, these are the sources that a little while ago you claimed were wrong and now youre claiming they support you, how far does your delusion go DC,

sure, perhaps you should read the comments on my profile, third parties are already calling my knowledge superior, or the numerous private messages I have received congratulating me on pwning you
once again this is just another example of your inability to understand the truth isn't it, you want dragons to be real so badly you have allowed it to make a mockery of your hypothesis and your ability to reason and in doing so your popularity as a poster here at this site has evaporated
here endeth todays lesson

DC  If your fans think you are right, then they are as ignorant as you on this subject.  You have made no case at all.  You have merely cut and pasted stuff that says the same thing that I am saying.  If anyone is delusional here it is you.  

Edited by draconic chronicler, 18 March 2009 - 01:16 PM.


#17    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,492 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 10 June 2009 - 05:04 PM

As Legionrames is no longer a member and cannot participate i'll close this one down.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users