Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
draconic chronicler

Is the Biblical Yahweh actually a dragon?

458 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

draconic chronicler
DC... the priests walked into the jordan, carrying the ark, and the waters subsided.

Also, keep in mind DC that many of the events in the beginning of the Bible, probably up to around King David, are more likely than not mythological or fictitious accounts of the history of the Semitic peoples as they migrated into Canaan. Even once you get to King David the history is still a little dubious. Was there a King David? Probably, but most likely not what we think he was like. It would seem he was made into a sort of 'larger than life' character, as is want to happen when stories are passed down year in and year out.

I understand the 'minimalist' view, but the premise of my book is that the Old Testament is the story of Yahweh the dragon and his worshippers. And it all works quite well, and quite compatible with the historical record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
I understand the 'minimalist' view, but the premise of my book is that the Old Testament is the story of Yahweh the dragon and his worshippers. And it all works quite well, and quite compatible with the historical record.

::shrugs:: Ok, whatever works for you. I'm curious DC, a little off topic maybe, but do you think that any of these Gods actually exist? Or rather, existed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
You can claime it is all speculation, but then how can you explain why the Hebrews stated a 'talking serpent that walked' tricked Adam out of Eternal Life if Enki was generally believed to be a serepent dragon?

Ever scholar states the Genesis serpent comes from the Adape and the Southwind story. So here we have a talking serpent dragon who has a servant named Adam (Adape) in a garden called Eden?

You see, Grem, no one can refute that to the Hebrews, Enki was remembered as a sentient serpent dragon in Eden who deprived Adam of eternal life. This is black and white, and IMPOSSIBLE to refute........ you lose.

Irrelevant when talking about the Sumerian Enki. As you admitted earlier the Hebrews religion was not exactly like the sumerian, the creation story has similar ingredients and is likely to be based on the earlier Sumerian story, but the emphasis is clearly different in many respects.

We can not conclude from this that Enki was generally believed to be a serpent dragon, the corpus of Sumerian literature that i linked earlier demonstrates this clearly. Enki is only called 'great serpent' and 'furious serpent' on one or two occasions as a metaphoric epithet.....the frequency of him being called Great Bull is much higher. The Sumerian literature makes clear that his true form was humanoid, but able to use magic to transform his appearence.

Your own favourate source 'Bible Origins.net' investigates this 'ingredient' into the Eden story. The process by which the 'serpent' in the story came to be is not as straight forward as to say 'he is enki, so enki must be a serpent/dragon'; Ningishzda and Dumuzi are also brought into the equation. The etiological myth explaining why 'the snake has no legs' is also brought into the story.

I am aware that in the Sumerian story Enki dissuades Adapa from the food and drink of the Gods, saying it would bring him death, when infact it would have given him immortality.

In the Eden story the serpent persuades Eve to eat the fruit which gives the knowledge of good and evil, against the commandment of God.

in the Sumerian story Enki shows a wisdom we cannot understand by denying man immortality, whereas the fault in the Eden story is with Eve and Adam themselves going against a commandment they knew, by favouring the temptation of a harmful serpent.....the emphasis is different.

The whim of the gods is excluded from the Eden story, man is himself responsible for his own suffering.

In Chaucerian terms, a story has to have both 'sentence' and 'solas' for it to be successful, 'solas' is the entertainment part...the bringing together of known motifs and conventions, literary/mythical traditions etc. And the 'sentence' is the 'moral' if you will, the lesson.

That man is himself responsible for his own suffering is the 'sentence' of the eden story, the means by which this is expressed is the 'solas'. motifs from etiological myths, and from previous- perhaps 'parent' cultures, are included....but this does not mean that 'the serpent' is Enki; it is more of a device in the story.

The Hebrews, like the Sumerians clearly never really saw 'dragons'. For instance, if the serpent lost his legs in the first generation of man.....how could quadrupedal dragons exist? The story, as part of its 'solas' explains why serpents crawl on their bellies, and have no arms or legs.

Im sorry you see this in terms of a game, winning and losing...for me getting a clearer picture of history is the most important thing here. As i demonstrated in the previous few posts the argument that the Sumerian Enki was a dragon is incredibly weak. To try to salvage something you have had to go outside Sumerian culture, to try to prove what Sumerian culture itself does not support.

edit:

Since you havent answered any of my questions, i suppose the answer is 'no' in each case.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Read 3:14 again. It states the exact place where the water backed up, and I have been there. This is not to say the dragon wasn't an excellent 'showman', and was able to 'time' the event quite well. If this was 'magic', the water would be backed up in front of their eyes, so all could see. After all thats where the ark was. So if it were magic, it should effect the water close to it, not many miles upstream.

a much more feasible explaination was that the river was diverted upstream using basic engineering, we can see this practice in a number of ancient stories.

Far more rational than conjouring some impossible creature to come and block the river is the likelyhood that Hebrew sappers diverted the flow with stones + earth. Your interpretation of the story is entirely speculative, the fact that you have been there means nothing to the power (or lack of it) in your argument.

God is not mentioned here in physical terms, he does not lie accross the river, and nothing suggests that he is a dragon.

Entirely speculative= not reliable.

I understand the 'minimalist' view, but the premise of my book is that the Old Testament is the story of Yahweh the dragon and his worshippers.

But we're not talking about your book, we're talking about actual history, and the actual theology of the Hebrews. You have yet to prove that JHVH was Yam, and that Yam was Enki, and that Enki was a dragon. just by saying....'yeah i know the real version, but my version has Yahweh as a dragon' is meaningless. you try to explain these stories from this standpoint without any suggestion that your premise is correct, or that the story supports it; you have to use your 'creativity' to fill in the gaping holes.

It is just as valid as saying 'but my version has Yahweh as a Chimpanzee god....he blocked the river with bannanas'

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
a much more feasible explaination was that the river was diverted upstream using basic engineering, we can see this practice in a number of ancient stories.

Far more rational than conjouring some impossible creature to come and block the river is the likelyhood that Hebrew sappers diverted the flow with stones + earth. Your interpretation of the story is entirely speculative, the fact that you have been there means nothing to the power (or lack of it) in your argument.

God is not mentioned here in physical terms, he does not lie accross the river, and nothing suggests that he is a dragon.

Entirely speculative= not reliable.

But we're not talking about your book, we're talking about actual history, and the actual theology of the Hebrews. You have yet to prove that JHVH was Yam, and that Yam was Enki, and that Enki was a dragon. just by saying....'yeah i know the real version, but my version has Yahweh as a dragon' is meaningless. you try to explain these stories from this standpoint without any suggestion that your premise is correct, or that the story supports it; you have to use your 'creativity' to fill in the gaping holes.

It is just as valid as saying 'but my version has Yahweh as a Chimpanzee god....he blocked the river with bannanas'

Of course it isn't as valid. Half the Christian world though Yahweh was a dragon, the Persians did, he ordered a dragon idol, his highest assisants were dragons, he ate calves, lambs and virgins, spewes fire from his mouth, has wings, does all of the things the Sumerian dragon Enki does, and appears to be the dragon Yaw of the cannanites right down to the same Aheroth consort.

So how can you possibly say Yahweh is a chimp is just a valid? You are talking nonsense. When I state Enki is Yahweh and Yam is Yahweh, these ideas hve the support of scholars, though they are not acknowledging Yahweh Yam and Enki as real deities. I am just carrying their already acknowledged work one step further by proposing that not only are they the same dieties, but that the dietiy existed, though merely as a sentient creature and not a true God.

If Yahweh or Joshua had Hebrew sappers dam the river, everyone would learn it was not a miracle. While Yahweh is extraordinary as a sentient beast, he really does not seem to have supernatural abilities, so must create the illusions of these. The scripture states it was Yahweh that blocked the water, and he could do this with his body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
::shrugs:: Ok, whatever works for you. I'm curious DC, a little off topic maybe, but do you think that any of these Gods actually exist? Or rather, existed?

First, they are not really gods, but sentient reptiles pretending to be gods. They do in fact 'work' for an intelligent creator that sems to have modifived these creatures for the specific purpose. There ar many scientists that believe there must be an intelligence behind the universe, and world-wide mythology seems to suggest that this creator may have used beasts we now call dragons, as assistants. They seem to still be alive today, based on the sightings of various lake monsters and sea serpents around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Of course it isn't as valid. Half the Christian world though Yahweh was a dragon, the Persians did, he ordered a dragon idol, his highest assisants were dragons, he ate calves, lambs and virgins, spewes fire from his mouth, has wings, does all of the things the Sumerian dragon Enki does, and appears to be the dragon Yaw of the cannanites right down to the same Aheroth consort.

So how can you possibly say Yahweh is a chimp is just a valid? You are talking nonsense. When I state Enki is Yahweh and Yam is Yahweh, these ideas hve the support of scholars, though they are not acknowledging Yahweh Yam and Enki as real deities. I am just carrying their already acknowledged work one step further by proposing that not only are they the same dieties, but that the dietiy existed, though merely as a sentient creature and not a true God.

If Yahweh or Joshua had Hebrew sappers dam the river, everyone would learn it was not a miracle. While Yahweh is extraordinary as a sentient beast, he really does not seem to have supernatural abilities, so must create the illusions of these. The scripture states it was Yahweh that blocked the water, and he could do this with his body.

you havent replied to my post about Enki not being a dragon, and about the Eden story.

Here you are just trying to blast me with speculative assertions in the hope that the cumulative effect will pass as 'proof'.

My example was just to highlight how little of your theory is based on actual evidence.....yes thats right i was talking nonsense....parodying your own.

the theory has the support of marginal scholars. Carrying their work 'one step further' tips it over the edge of credulity.

Joshua's sappers were very accomplished, as the story of the fall of Jericho suggests. The scripture does not say that Yahweh blocked the water with his physical body.....that is your speculation.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
you havent replied to my post about Enki not being a dragon, and about the Eden story.

Here you are just trying to blast me with speculative assertions in the hope that the cumulative effect will pass as 'proof'.

My example was just to highlight how little of your theory is based on actual evidence.....yes thats right i was talking nonsense....parodying your own.

the theory has the support of marginal scholars. Carrying their work 'one step further' tips it over the edge of credulity.

Joshua's sappers were very accomplished, as the story of the fall of Jericho suggests. The scripture does not say that Yahweh blocked the water with his physical body.....that is your speculation.

Sure I have, probably a dozen times. The only reason the Hebrew Eden story could have a talking serpent is because it is based on the Adape story. Abraham came from Ur, so it is clear the early Hebrews knew the story. This pretty much 'clenches it'.

And Enki must be the serpent dragon, because it it Enki who tricks Adape in the earlier story. Ningishzida and Dumuzi still have a role in the Hebrew version as well, for they become the two Cherubim. And this is more good evidence that the cherubim were orignally dragons, in fact these very two dragons.

The Bible is clear that it was Yahweh, and not men that both stopped up the Jordan and knocked over the walls of Jericho. This too could be handily accomplished by multi-tonned dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Sure I have, probably a dozen times. The only reason the Hebrew Eden story could have a talking serpent is because it is based on the Adape story. Abraham came from Ur, so it is clear the early Hebrews knew the story. This pretty much 'clenches it'.

And Enki must be the serpent dragon, because it it Enki who tricks Adape in the earlier story. Ningishzida and Dumuzi still have a role in the Hebrew version as well, for they become the two Cherubim. And this is more good evidence that the cherubim were orignally dragons, in fact these very two dragons.

The Bible is clear that it was Yahweh, and not men that both stopped up the Jordan and knocked over the walls of Jericho. This too could be handily accomplished by multi-tonned dragons.

no you havent.

I know they must have known the story, my post doesnt claim that they didnt.

the stories are not the same, despite having similar ingredients. As i said while the Eden story must have the Adapa one as a 'parent' story, they are clearly not the same, particularly in terms of emphasis. Your inadequate response was expected.

Also yahweh is said to have crumbled the walls of Jericho.......what we have here is a later story attributing to God the deeds and accomplishments of Joshua's engineers. There is no suggestion that God is a dragon, or that he lay accross the river jordan. So to assert so is purely Speculation = Unreliable.

You seem eager to move away from the topic of Enki and Sumerian literature, I asked for evidence on a number of points you raised on the previous page. Do you wish to go back and answer them, or are you willing to conceed that Enki in his true form was not seen as a dragon by the Sumerians?

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
no you havent.

I know they must have known the story, my post doesnt claim that they didnt.

the stories are not the same, despite having similar ingredients. As i said while the Eden story must have the Adapa one as a 'parent' story, they are clearly not the same, particularly in terms of emphasis. Your inadequate response was expected.

Also yahweh is said to have crumbled the walls of Jericho.......what we have here is a later story attributing to God the deeds and accomplishments of Joshua's engineers. There is no suggestion that God is a dragon, or that he lay accross the river jordan. So to assert so is purely Speculation = Unreliable.

You seem eager to move away from the topic of Enki and Sumerian literature, I asked for evidence on a number of points you raised on the previous page. Do you wish to go back and answer them, or are you willing to conceed that Enki in his true form was not seen as a dragon by the Sumerians?

Enki's True Form is of course, a dragon. The Great Dragon who Stands in Eridu, as his hymn proclaims, and to prove this, we have the Hebrews who remembered this story from Sumerian times, the only explanation for why a serpent/dragon tricks Adam.

Yes, after centuries of retelling ths story as a oral tradition some of the elements changed slightly, but what didn't change was the talking reptile in the Garden of Eden. I agree that Enki is also portrayed in a human form. The ancients believed these gods could change thier forms. Even Ishtar, a female diety is identified as a dragon in the hymns. The numerous scholars quote in the Bibleorigins articles all acknolwledge this, as you must know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Enki's True Form is of course, a dragon. The Great Dragon who Stands in Eridu, as his hymn proclaims, and to prove this, we have the Hebrews who remembered this story from Sumerian times, the only explanation for why a serpent/dragon tricks Adam.

Yes, after centuries of retelling ths story as a oral tradition some of the elements changed slightly, but what didn't change was the talking reptile in the Garden of Eden. I agree that Enki is also portrayed in a human form. The ancients believed these gods could change thier forms. Even Ishtar, a female diety is identified as a dragon in the hymns. The numerous scholars quote in the Bibleorigins articles all acknolwledge this, as you must know.

please prove that his true form was a dragon....this one epithet is not enough.

The scholars that have made that mistake were from c.1910 or so, and their work often did not appreciate the complexities of Sumerian language and literature. Things are different today. Those scholars who rely heavily on the earliest translators often make the same mistake, the better ones do not claim that Enki was literally a dragon, or was thought of as a dragon.

i have posted this in the previous page, but here it is again... From Enki and the world order.....http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.1.3#

1-16. Grandiloquent lord of heaven and earth, self-reliant, Father Enki, engendered by a bull, begotten by a wild bull, cherished by Enlil, the Great Mountain, beloved by holy An, king, meš tree planted in the Abzu, rising over all lands; great dragon who stands in Eridug, whose shadow covers heaven and earth, a grove of vines extending over the Land, Enki, lord of plenty of the Anuna gods, Nudimmud, mighty one of the E-kur, strong one of heaven and earth! Your great house is founded in the Abzu, the great mooring-post of heaven and earth. Enki, from whom a single glance is enough to unsettle the heart of the mountains; wherever bison are born, where stags are born, where ibex are born, where wild goats are born, in meadows ……, in hollows in the heart of the hills, in green …… unvisited by man, you have fixed your gaze on the heart of the Land as on split reeds.

This is where you are getting it from, but if you read the passage it is as i described it previously. Enki is not literally a dragon, any more than he is literally a Great Bull as he is called more frequently elsewhere. There are just one or two instances of Enki being called Ushumgal, or Mushushu (Great Serpent, and Furious Serpent respectively) Where as he is called Great Bull many many more times as well as other things like 'eagle's claw', raging torrent, great flood, king, shepherd, prince....he is literally none of these.

to rely on this metaphoric epithet to argue that Enki was thought of as a dragon is incredibly weak, the corpus of Sumerian literature, and their depictions of him, including his symbols, clearly prove that this is not the case.

As i showed on the previous page, the Eden story is not simply a 'slightly changed' version of the Adapa and the Southwind one. While the eden story can be linked to its parent story, and shares some ingredients, the emphasis is markedly different. The 'sentence' is completely different, In the Eden story the whim of the gods is excluded, and it is humanity's own fault that it experiences suffering.

Your own favourate source 'Bible Origins.net' investigates this 'ingredient' into the Eden story. The process by which the 'serpent' in the story came to be is not as straight forward as to say 'he is enki, so enki must be a serpent/dragon'; Ningishzda and Dumuzi are also brought into the equation. The etiological myth explaining why 'the snake has no legs' is also brought into the story.

I am aware that in the Sumerian story Enki dissuades Adapa from the food and drink of the Gods, saying it would bring him death, when infact it would have given him immortality.

In the Eden story the serpent persuades Eve to eat the fruit which gives the knowledge of good and evil, against the commandment of God.

in the Sumerian story Enki shows a wisdom we cannot understand by denying man immortality, whereas the fault in the Eden story is with Eve and Adam themselves going against a commandment they knew, by favouring the temptation of a harmful serpent.....the emphasis is different.

The whim of the gods is excluded from the Eden story, man is himself responsible for his own suffering.

In Chaucerian terms, a story has to have both 'sentence' and 'solas' for it to be successful, 'solas' is the entertainment part...the bringing together of known motifs and conventions, literary/mythical traditions etc. And the 'sentence' is the 'moral' if you will, the lesson.

That man is himself responsible for his own suffering is the 'sentence' of the eden story, the means by which this is expressed is the 'solas'. motifs from etiological myths, and from previous- perhaps 'parent' cultures, are included....but this does not mean that 'the serpent' is Enki; it is more of a device in the story.

The Hebrews, like the Sumerians clearly never really saw 'dragons'. For instance, if the serpent lost his legs in the first generation of man.....how could quadrupedal dragons exist? The story, as part of its 'solas' explains why serpents crawl on their bellies, and have no arms or legs.

as I said the whole Eden story is investigated by Bibleorigins.net . it is made clear that the story, whilst having some root in the Adapa and the Southwind story, is not simply a 'slightly changed' retelling.

For one thing adam is compared with, not Adapa, but Enkidu. Other motifs come from other stories....

Genesis' Garden of Eden and its motifs are then identified as reworked or recast motifs from several Mesopotamian myths, Adapa and the Southwind, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Atrahasis Epic, Utu and Inanna , Ewe and Wheat and others.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/SynopsisFiveMo...hisWebsite.html

see also

http://www.bibleorigins.net/ningishzida.html

http://www.bibleorigins.net/MansFallFromIn...dapaEnkidu.html

http://www.bibleorigins.net/AdapaAdam.html

http://www.bibleorigins.net/genesisgenesis.html

http://www.bibleorigins.net/ParallelsListAdamEnkidu.html

http://www.bibleorigins.net/EdensTreeofKnowledgeLife.html

from the Ningishzida page....

It is my perception that the Hebrews are deliberately CHANGING _or_ RECASTING the earlier myths and their motifs inorder to REFUTE and DENY THEM,

Apparently they objected to the Mesopotamian portrayal of the exploitive relationship between man and his creators. The Mesopotamians portrayed man as the "victim" of callous, ruthless, exploitive gods. Employing an _inversion_ the Hebrews portray a loving, caring, merciful God as the "victim" of a callous, rebellious, and undeserving mankind. Man is to blame for his problems not his creator.

Some scholars have expressed the opinion that Eden's serpent "might be" a later Hebrew recasting of some unknown god or demi-god in some long-lost Mesopotamian myth.....The surprise ? I found _several_ Mesopotamian "prototypes" which apparently had been fused together, transformed and recast into Eden's Serpent.

Many scholars have suggested that the Mesopotamian myth titled Adapa and the Southwind might be a prototype of Adam's lost chance at immortality, however, NO SERPENT appears in this myth.

I discovered that Ea (Enki), Dumuzi (Tammuz) and Gizzida (Ningishzida) had "serpent associations" in various hymns, myths and literary works.

The SERPENT is a recast of Ea (Enki), Anu, Ningishzida and Dumuzi in the Adapa and the Southwind myth

who have been fused together.

1) The Serpent's URGING Eve (and thus Adam) to eat, CONTRA Yahweh's orders is a recasting of Anu, Ningishzida and Dumuzi, _all of whom_ URGED Adapa to eat forbidden food CONTRA Ea's (Enki's) orders.

(2) The Serpent's being RESPONSIBLE for Adam and Eve's ACQUISTION OF FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE is a recast of Ea (Enki) who GAVE Adapa FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE teaching him powerful curses and incantations to overpower the lesser gods (Anu being "upset" by Ea's doing this).

3) The Serpent's ability to WALK and to TALK to mankind (Eve) reflects the fact that:

(a.) Ningishzida (Gizzida) in art appears in human form which gives him the ability to "talk and walk"

and he also is represented in art as a serpent/dragon with wings, horns and four legs.

(b.) Dumuzi (Tammuz) although a human, in one myth is made into a SERPENT by the Sumerian sun-god

Utu (Akkadian: Shamash). Dumuzi specifically asks Shamash to "take away his hands and feet" to free

him of his bonds by making him a serpent and thus escape his captors. This may explain why the

Serpent loses its feet? And he bears the epithet ama-ushumgal-an-na, "[the] mother is a serpent-dragon

of heaven." Dumuzi also bears the Sumerian title mulu edin-na "Lord of Edin" perhaps an allusion to the

biblical Eden, and thus Dumuzi becomes another "Adamic prototype." Dumuzi is not ever portrayed

iconographically as a serpent, despite the fact he is briefly turned in to one by the Sumerian sun-god Utu

inorder to escape his captors the Ugalla demons.

Black on Dumuzi's seizure at his wife Inanna's behest under an "apple tree" in the "plain" (edin) of Kulaba

(identified with Uruk) and Dumuzi's request of Utu the sun-god and brother of Inanna, to help him escape the

demons who have bound his hands and feet with ropes to sticks which I understand has been "recast" in

Genesis as the serpent of eden loosing its feet as a "curse" by Yahweh-Elohim; the loss of Dumuzi's feet in

the original Sumerian account was _not_ a_curse_, it was a _blessing_ in that Dumuzi the ushumgal "great

serpent-dragon," was able to temporarily slither out of his bonds and briefly elude his demon captors That is

to say the Hebrews, employing an inversion, have recast these motifs as a "curse" when they were originally

a "blessing" and an act of "mercy" thereby allowing the ushumgal (Dumuzi) to briefly elude his captors and

escape death. Note: Snakes have no hands or feet, so the Sumerian author is apparently being 'playful' or

employing a 'poetical metaphor' in transforming Dumuzi's human hands and feet into "snake hands and feet,"

in effect, saying Dumuzi's loss of hands and feet allowed him to escape his bonds:

© Ea in his earlier life as the Sumerian god Enki, although human in form and thus able to "talk and walk" like Dumuzi, bears the Sumerian epithet ushumgal meaning "great serpent/dragon" (a mythical beast which has four legs to walk upon). However Enki the ushumgal is never portrayed in art as a serpent or

serpent-dragon (one king of Sumer bore the name Ushumgal). His identifying symbol is a so-called "goat-

fish" which is best imagined as the Greek astrological sign of Capricorn, the forepart being a goat with two

forefeet and the hindquarters being a fishes' body or tail. Enki bore the epithet "the leading goat."

and so on, thats not even half way down the page and there already is enough evidence to show that Bibleorigins does not support your argument......this final passage is most revealing. Ushumgal is not Enki's only epithet, there are many...and ushumgal is only used once or twice. The author supports my assertion that Enki was not really a dragon, or serpent.

As i stated, the serpent in the Eden story is not Enki, even though it takes on some of his role. The story is more than a simple retelling of a myth, it is a new story that recasts many of the motifs from Sumerian and later Babylonian culture, together with Assyrian motifs to create a story of a 'sentence' which is markedly different to the Mesopotamian stories.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
please prove that his true form was a dragon....this one epithet is not enough.

The scholars that have made that mistake were from c.1910 or so, and their work often did not appreciate the complexities of Sumerian language and literature. Things are different today. Those scholars who rely heavily on the earliest translators often make the same mistake, the better ones do not claim that Enki was literally a dragon, or was thought of as a dragon.

and so on, thats not even half way down the page and there already is enough evidence to show that Bibleorigins does not support your argument......this final passage is most revealing. Ushumgal is not Enki's only epithet, there are many...and ushumgal is only used once or twice. The author supports my assertion that Enki was not really a dragon, or serpent.

As i stated, the serpent in the Eden story is not Enki, even though it takes on some of his role. The story is more than a simple retelling of a myth, it is a new story that recasts many of the motifs from Sumerian and later Babylonian culture, together with Assyrian motifs to create a story of a 'sentence' which is markedly different to the Mesopotamian stories.

Of course the author doesn't believe Enki is a serpent-dragon. He doesn't believe Enki, or Yahweh or any 'god' is real. BUT numerous scholars that he quotes does indeed connect Enki the serpent-dragon, to the walking, talking serpent in the Hebrew Eden. An how could they not?

The evidence we have suggests Enki, and the other high goods were all originally dragons. This would probably be a 'no brainer' to the the orignal sumerians if we could speak to them, for their myths state the mother of all the gods was a reptilian beast. I think these people were smart enough to know that if a reptile had offspring, they would also be reptiles.

And there is far more proof. Dragons are still connected to Enki's son, Marduk, and when Enki's name is changed to Ea, he is still described in a dragon form.

But they also believed these gods had the power to transform their bodies, and this is why we see Enki portrayed and describe as both a dragon and in human form, and even as a fish man. But the way the dragon title is used, it is clear this is their original/most important form.

We see this confirmed in the other titles like "whose mother was a great serpent dragon of heaven". Is is possible that the ancients believed only the 'Serpent-dragons" came from heaven.

In the final analysis, I believe every scholar of near eastern religion would state categorically that if there had been no Sumerian serpent-dragon gods as we see in the extremely similar Adapa story, then there would have been no garden of eden with a talking serpent in the Hebrew one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Of course the author doesn't believe Enki is a serpent-dragon. He doesn't believe Enki, or Yahweh or any 'god' is real. BUT numerous scholars that he quotes does indeed connect Enki the serpent-dragon, to the walking, talking serpent in the Hebrew Eden. An how could they not?

The evidence we have suggests Enki, and the other high goods were all originally dragons. This would probably be a 'no brainer' to the the orignal sumerians if we could speak to them, for their myths state the mother of all the gods was a reptilian beast. I think these people were smart enough to know that if a reptile had offspring, they would also be reptiles.

And there is far more proof. Dragons are still connected to Enki's son, Marduk, and when Enki's name is changed to Ea, he is still described in a dragon form.

But they also believed these gods had the power to transform their bodies, and this is why we see Enki portrayed and describe as both a dragon and in human form, and even as a fish man. But the way the dragon title is used, it is clear this is their original/most important form.

We see this confirmed in the other titles like "whose mother was a great serpent dragon of heaven". Is is possible that the ancients believed only the 'Serpent-dragons" came from heaven.

In the final analysis, I believe every scholar of near eastern religion would state categorically that if there had been no Sumerian serpent-dragon gods as we see in the extremely similar Adapa story, then there would have been no garden of eden with a talking serpent in the Hebrew one.

Father Enki, engendered by a bull, begotten by a wild bull,
His mother is also called other things besides ushumgal.

Enki is not a dragon

He himself is called Great Bull in many places, outnumbering the one or two instances of Ushumgal by far.

the beliefs of the author of the site are besides the point, he has read and researched this subject, and has come to those conclusions based on the evidence infront of him, and the opinions of the scholars he has also read.

I agree with his statements that i posted above, you cannot refute them.

Ive enboldened a statement in the previous post which states exactly that there are no serpents in the adapa and the southwind story.

sorry this post of yours does nothing to change that fact that the sumerians didnt believe that Enki was a dragon, he is never one in the texts....although he is called ushumgal once or twice only, and only then as a metaphoric epithet. The stories and prayers, and hymns have him as Humanoid, he is also humanoid in depictions otherwise his symbols are the capricorn, the fishman. there is no instance where he is depicted as a dragon....or the least bit serpenty. I have read no story where he turns into a serpent or a dragon.

while you have 'mentioned' evidence you have not presented any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick

It really is hard to find any description of Enki looking like a Dragon. One can find only one symbol, which is

a double-helix serpent.

post-29090-1213634455_thumb.jpg

All other images show Enki with two rivers flowing out of his shoulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
It really is hard to find any description of Enki looking like a Dragon. One can find only one symbol, which is

a double-helix serpent.

post-29090-1213634455_thumb.jpg

All other images show Enki with two rivers flowing out of his shoulders.

No, that isn't Enki.

The winged dragons are Ningishzida and Dumuzi, who are close associates, even relatives of Enki. They are holding the gates of heaven, symbolized by a serpent cadeuces to denote immortality in heaven. These two are the origin of the Cherubim in the Genesis story, and escort the Sumerian Adam to and from heaven.

This type of winged dragon is almost always portrayed standing next to Marduk the son of Enki. It is probable this was intended to show that Enki, the great dragon of Eridu, was his father.

Enki, later known as Ea is described in detail in a hymn, with sharp teeth, head like a serpent, clawed feet, scales, etc. but in this hymn it is clear this is only one of his 'forms' or aspects, but certainly his most terrrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
No, that isn't Enki.

The winged dragons are Ningishzida and Dumuzi, who are close associates, even relatives of Enki. They are holding the gates of heaven, symbolized by a serpent cadeuces to denote immortality in heaven. These two are the origin of the Cherubim in the Genesis story, and escort the Sumerian Adam to and from heaven.

This type of winged dragon is almost always portrayed standing next to Marduk the son of Enki. It is probable this was intended to show that Enki, the great dragon of Eridu, was his father.

Enki, later known as Ea is described in detail in a hymn, with sharp teeth, head like a serpent, clawed feet, scales, etc. but in this hymn it is clear this is only one of his 'forms' or aspects, but certainly his most terrrifying.

Thats fine! I made a mistake. Anyway, can you please show me or tell me where I can read this hymn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin

here you go moro

The head is the head of a serpent,

From his nostrils mucus trickles,

His mouth is beslavered with water;

The ears are like those of a basilisk,

His horns are twisted into three curls,

He wears a veil in his head band,

The body is a suh-fish full of stars,

The base of his feet are claws,

The sole of his foot has no heel,

His name is Sassu-wunnu,

A sea monster, a form of Ea.

R. C. Thompson's Translation. 1

its an assyrio-babylonian hymn, rather than sumerian...so it dates much later. As DC says it is 'a form of Ea' and he had many being a bit of a wizardy type. It is not Enki (who later by Semitic peoples became known as Ea) but a Sea monster....one of his forms. It clearly does not describe any living being that anyone witnessed, but is a fantastical description made to terrify. ....I didnt even know that Basilisks had ears!

I have not read this hymn in any other translation than Thompson's, or know much about its context. One thing i find interesting is that it describes a sea monster, yet Enki is the god of the Earth and the Sweet Waters (a subterranean fresh water). One of the arguments against him being Yam (from Cannanite religion) is that Yam is a chaotic god of the Sea....It may be that with the assyrian influence on babylonian religion Ea and an Assyrian Sea monster were merged.....or that the sea monster became a form of the Babylonian Ea.

There seems to be no evidence to link Enki with Sassu Wunnu or a quadrupedal dragon form at all. If there was then DC would have a point, and could legitimately say that Enki was 'sometimes' seen as a dragon, but even then....as now....he cannot claim that a dragon was enki's true form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WARRIOR FOR THE LIGHT
Of course the author doesn't believe Enki is a serpent-dragon. He doesn't believe Enki, or Yahweh or any 'god' is real. BUT numerous scholars that he quotes does indeed connect Enki the serpent-dragon, to the walking, talking serpent in the Hebrew Eden. An how could they not?

The evidence we have suggests Enki, and the other high goods were all originally dragons. This would probably be a 'no brainer' to the the orignal sumerians if we could speak to them, for their myths state the mother of all the gods was a reptilian beast. I think these people were smart enough to know that if a reptile had offspring, they would also be reptiles.

And there is far more proof. Dragons are still connected to Enki's son, Marduk, and when Enki's name is changed to Ea, he is still described in a dragon form.

But they also believed these gods had the power to transform their bodies, and this is why we see Enki portrayed and describe as both a dragon and in human form, and even as a fish man. But the way the dragon title is used, it is clear this is their original/most important form.

We see this confirmed in the other titles like "whose mother was a great serpent dragon of heaven". Is is possible that the ancients believed only the 'Serpent-dragons" came from heaven.

In the final analysis, I believe every scholar of near eastern religion would state categorically that if there had been no Sumerian serpent-dragon gods as we see in the extremely similar Adapa story, then there would have been no garden of eden with a talking serpent in the Hebrew one.

Myth and hymn's....................

Edited by WARRIOR FOR THE LIGHT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
here you go moro

The head is the head of a serpent,

From his nostrils mucus trickles,

His mouth is beslavered with water;

The ears are like those of a basilisk,

His horns are twisted into three curls,

He wears a veil in his head band,

The body is a suh-fish full of stars,

The base of his feet are claws,

The sole of his foot has no heel,

His name is Sassu-wunnu,

A sea monster, a form of Ea.

R. C. Thompson's Translation. 1

its an assyrio-babylonian hymn, rather than sumerian...so it dates much later. As DC says it is 'a form of Ea' and he had many being a bit of a wizardy type. It is not Enki (who later by Semitic peoples became known as Ea) but a Sea monster....one of his forms. It clearly does not describe any living being that anyone witnessed, but is a fantastical description made to terrify. ....I didnt even know that Basilisks had ears!

I have not read this hymn in any other translation than Thompson's, or know much about its context. One thing i find interesting is that it describes a sea monster, yet Enki is the god of the Earth and the Sweet Waters (a subterranean fresh water). One of the arguments against him being Yam (from Cannanite religion) is that Yam is a chaotic god of the Sea....It may be that with the assyrian influence on babylonian religion Ea and an Assyrian Sea monster were merged.....or that the sea monster became a form of the Babylonian Ea.

There seems to be no evidence to link Enki with Sassu Wunnu or a quadrupedal dragon form at all. If there was then DC would have a point, and could legitimately say that Enki was 'sometimes' seen as a dragon, but even then....as now....he cannot claim that a dragon was enki's true form.

Indeed, I see your point Grem. As for that hymn; I just cannot see how DC gathers that Ea is being described as a dragon. Yes, it does say "sea monster" but, that in no way means that Ea is a dragon.

What I think DC needs to understand is that the word Dragon/Drakon, did not come to be until later with ancient greek's, which is mostly synonymous with serpent.

Edited by Moro Bumbleroot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cleomenes
First, they are not really gods, but sentient reptiles pretending to be gods. They do in fact 'work' for an intelligent creator that sems to have modifived these creatures for the specific purpose. There ar many scientists that believe there must be an intelligence behind the universe, and world-wide mythology seems to suggest that this creator may have used beasts we now call dragons, as assistants. They seem to still be alive today, based on the sightings of various lake monsters and sea serpents around the world.

does this ever end???

Edited by Cleomenes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
Indeed, I see your point Grem. As for that hymn; I just cannot see how DC gathers that Ea is being described as a dragon. Yes, it does say "sea monster" but, that in no way means that Ea is a dragon.

What I think DC needs to understand is that the word Dragon/Drakon, did not come to be until later with ancient greek's, which is mostly synonymous with serpent.

I am quite sure I understand this better than you. When I refer to 'dragons' in the near easterm context I mean the Mushushu or Sirrush, call a furious serpent or splendid serpent, but in appearance is a winged, four footed, honrned long necked reptile -- what we call a 'dragon' today.

The mushushu meets all the criteria of the hymn. We also do not know the original words. Perhaps water monster is a better translation that sea monster.

But the bottom line again:

Enki is called, "The Great Dragon who Stands in Eridu"

Enki tricks Adam in the oldest Eden story A talking 'sepent' tricks Adam in the Genesis Eden story.

Enki's relatives are clearly depicted as Dragons. (like Ningishzida)

Enki's son Marduk uses the Mushushu dragon as his most important symbol

When Enki becomes EA, his is STILL described as a scaly, serpent headed creature.

Some scholars suggest EA bcomes Yam, also sometimes believed to be a dragon.

Some scholar suggest Yam/Yaw becomes Yahweh, and indeed there are incredeilby close parallels.

And as I have shown in the OP, there is much that established Yahweh is a dragon deity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
When I refer to 'dragons' in the near easterm context I mean the Mushushu or Sirrush, call a furious serpent or splendid serpent, but in appearance is a winged, four footed, honrned long necked reptile -- what we call a 'dragon' today.

The mushushu meets all the criteria of the hymn. We also do not know the original words. Perhaps water monster is a better translation that sea monster.

how unfortunate! now we have to accept the translation of someone from the turn of the 20th Century.

regardless of which i agree that it is the mushushu that appears to be being described here.

What is also apparent is that the author of the 'spell/hymn' (im going with 'incantation') is well aware that the mushushu is a composite creature, and while he (im guessing it was a male priest) may believe in this sassu wunnu (in a spiritual sense) he has never witnessed a real live mushushu, or knows anyone who has.....why? because the mushushu is a composite construct, not a real live creature. Each part of the creature is significant and emblematic. Its great link with Enki is likely to be related to its symbolism.

The mushushu is made up (at various times) of a serpent's head, fish body, feline forelegs, raptor's hind legs, wings of a bird (apparently optional....there may be a reason for this, but we can only speculate at best) horn/s and beard of a goat, and overall shape of a deer, this is absolutely not a slightly inadequate description of a real creature....it is the significance of each part that gives the mushushu its meaning, and its role some traits are lost some become more important.....the reason why might be linked to politics (which is always religious).

Sassu Wunnu appears to be a mushushu it is important to recognise him as a form of Ea/Enki....but it is a mistake to claim that Enki was a mushushu.....(also in a logical sense....why would enki have a personified mushushu form/aspect if he himself was a mushushu????)

Enki is not a mushushu.....it is not his 'true' form. The Sumerians never depicted or described him in this way....he is called Ushumgal as a metaphoric epithet, but as we have seen, only once or twice.....he is called Great Bull, and many other things far more often....he is none of these. One prayer says he is impossible to describe. he is depicted as a humanoid, wearing the bull-horn crown, also as a manfish, also as capricorn (a goat fish.....hmmmmm goat....fish....hmmmmm)

The bottom line is......entirely speculative.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drakonwick
I am quite sure I understand this better than you. When I refer to 'dragons' in the near easterm context I mean the Mushushu or Sirrush, call a furious serpent or splendid serpent, but in appearance is a winged, four footed, honrned long necked reptile -- what we call a 'dragon' today.

The mushushu meets all the criteria of the hymn. We also do not know the original words. Perhaps water monster is a better translation that sea monster.

But the bottom line again:

Enki is called, "The Great Dragon who Stands in Eridu"

Enki tricks Adam in the oldest Eden story A talking 'sepent' tricks Adam in the Genesis Eden story.

Enki's relatives are clearly depicted as Dragons. (like Ningishzida)

Enki's son Marduk uses the Mushushu dragon as his most important symbol

When Enki becomes EA, his is STILL described as a scaly, serpent headed creature.

Some scholars suggest EA bcomes Yam, also sometimes believed to be a dragon.

Some scholar suggest Yam/Yaw becomes Yahweh, and indeed there are incredeilby close parallels.

And as I have shown in the OP, there is much that established Yahweh is a dragon deity

You are still only applying what you think DC! It does not necessarily mean it's fact.

When you are assuming that EA and his relatives are dragons such as Ningishzida (Which

portrays him in human form with two serpents coming out of his shoulders). That Ningishzida

is actually a Dragon?

EA is not a Dragon. As Grem has said before Enki is mainly portrayed with water coming from vessel's he is holding, with many filled vessels beneath his throne.

post-29090-1213663600_thumb.jpg

Edited by Moro Bumbleroot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
draconic chronicler
You are still only applying what you think DC! It does not necessarily mean it's fact.

When you are assuming that EA and his relatives are dragons such as Ningishzida (Which

portrays him in human form with two serpents coming out of his shoulders). That Ningishzida

is actually a Dragon?

EA is not a Dragon. As Grem has said before Enki is mainly portrayed with water coming from vessel's he is holding, with many filled vessels beneath his throne.

post-29090-1213663600_thumb.jpg

Sorry Moro, but you just don't know enough about this. Ningishzida is sometimes portrayed as a full fledged Mushushu dragon with nothing human about him, and sometimes as a man with two snake heads. Even Grem will probably admit to this. Certainly some of his sources say this.

And Grem also provided the hymn of Ea where he is described as a scaly, snake headed, clawed monster.

The facts I stated really cannot be refuted.

Did people believe Enki could also look like a human. Yes. But did they also say he was the Great Dragon who stands in Eridu? Yes.

This is no different than the Greeks believing Zeus could take the form of a Gander or Drakon to rape human females.

Do I believe these creatures could change like that? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gremlin
Sorry Moro, but you just don't know enough about this. Ningishzida is sometimes portrayed as a full fledged Mushushu dragon with nothing human about him, and sometimes as a man with two snake heads. Even Grem will probably admit to this. Certainly some of his sources say this.

And Grem also provided the hymn of Ea where he is described as a scaly, snake headed, clawed monster.

The facts I stated really cannot be refuted.

Did people believe Enki could also look like a human. Yes. But did they also say he was the Great Dragon who stands in Eridu? Yes.

This is no different than the Greeks believing Zeus could take the form of a Gander or Drakon to rape human females.

Do I believe these creatures could change like that? No.

Seems like moro's doing fine. There is an interpretation of this pic that says that Ningishzida is depicted twice, once in Mushushu form and then as humanoid escorting the king to Enki. But this is just one interpretation, another says that it is one of Ningishzida's attendant mushushu, and he/she is only depicted once....in human form.

your speculations DC are just that. as i stated previously about Sassu Wunnu and Enki ....why would enki have a personified mushushu form/aspect if he himself was a mushushu????

Enki's true form in Sumerian literature and depictions, is humanoid....without question....his symbols have been also noted previously....he is called Ushumgal once or twice metaphorically, while there are lots of instances of him being called Great Bull. In fact you have only alluded to one example from Sumerian sources to support your case.

One could not argue that Zeus's true form was as a bull....even though he assumes the form to rape Europa.....nor can we say his true form was a swan, a shape he assumes to rape Lyda. So it is with Enki.

Do 'these creatures' (meaning mushushu) exist? No.

They are composite constructs...just like many of the Sumerian composite creatures....there are many. Bovine ingredients are far more frequent in these sorts of creatures, so that if one was to ask which creature was most sacred to the Sumerian....it would have to be a Bull.

Edited by lil gremlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.