Talk:Gilgamesh flood myth

/Archive 1

Its only a myth if is isnt true. You have no evidence either way. SO stop calling it a myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.152.107 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Akkadian?

Question! I thought that The Epic of Giglamesh was babylonian.. well I don't know but thats what I thought because it was written in cuneiform which is for sure babylonian but I wasn't sure if akkadians where also babylonian. 74.203.168.58 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the language of the Babylonians was Akkadian which was written using cuneiform signs and the Epic of Giglamesh was written in Akkadian. Akkadian was named for the city Akkad, the city ruled by Sargon, which was not the same as the city Babylon. Scholars distinguish the language called Old Babylonian (a dialect of Akkadian used in Babylon) from Old Akkadian which preceeded it. Other languages such as Aramaic were also written using cuneiform signs. It is important to distinguish the languages (Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Aramaic), the cities (Ur, Akkad, Babylon), and the written signs (archaic, cuneiform). The word Babylonian blurs that distinction. Greensburger (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the title of this say flood myth while Noahs' ark doesn't say Noahs ark myth? Just wondering what determines the title. Couldn't it instead be written as the Gilgamesh Flood...much like Noahs ark.

Also, where is the comparison between the two- it is clear that Noahs ark is a copy of Gilgamesh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.214.81 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The Rod

Simple logic. Google the word rod and cubit and there is no set world standard for the rod. Why do scholars defy simple logic. It seems very clear that a rod would be just that, a pole or stick, or branch that is not going to be 12 cubits long (10 rods = 10x 12 cubits = 120 cubits); it makes more sense that a rod is 3 cubits, and correctly defines a height of 10 rods as 30 cubits, not 4 times bigger. As with the sumerian king list where a sar is 3600 days they say it is 3600 years merely due to one priest of Babylon who says it is, despite 8 sars of 8 decades being 28,800 days (not years) for the first king. This same practical logic (also questions why Wikipedia here puts a favored translation ahead of all other translations as an ALTERNATIVE heading). What right does WHO have to put a favored translation ahead of others as the truth proposed above and before the other ones?

Comparison between Chinese Gilgamesh and Hebrew Gilgamesh dates

Hebrew Flood starts 360-day calendar on Julian 2370 BC Oct 12 as 1-01-600 (his new year 600 from the calendar new year 1 after his birth) equal to Adams year 1656. If traced back to Chinese Flood 2953 BC it falls on April 15 with the 7th month on Oct 12 proving their awareness of Sothic Oct 12. The span is 592 years of 360 days, which is reminiscent of the fact that a Venus half-cycle is 600 egyptian years(600x 365 days = 75x 584 days minus 30 days to average 583.92 days noted as 2 days every 40 years) that the Chinese of 1437 BC Feb 2 mistake an 8-year Venus of 592x 365 days as being 600x 360 days from 2029-1437 BC. Mistaking 600 egyptian years (x365 days) of Venus as 592 egyptian years (x 365 days) because it is 600x 360days, also implies negligence can go further and mistake Venus as 592x 360 days, thus 2953 BC instead of 2370 BC since both years will have an Oct 12 for 1st month and 7th month swapped.

NOAHS DEATH in 2020 BC starts the 60-day calendar (within 360 days) on Feb 2 as 5-27-954. But in Chinese NOAHS DEATH starts the 60-day calendar (within 360 days) as 2637 BC on Feb 2 as 5-27-328 which is 316 years after Flood 2953 BC whose April 15 is year 08. Original Gilgamesh version #1 refers to Noah alone and single (as widower) being sought out by Gilgamesh to ask why all people are dying and not Noah. This places Gilgamesh as dropping his 126 year rule (2157-2031 BC) to go find Noah in 2030 BC who then AFTER Gilgamesh dies (at the current world longevity of 239) then too does die himself at 949 in 2021 BC, accredited with 950 in 2020 BC. Version #2 says he died long before Gilgamesh was born, 350 years Flood 2957-2907 BC, 350 years Flood 2947-2897 BC, or until Chinese calendar as Flood 2953-2637 BC. And so his wife is there in the underworld with Noah despite this visit being 440-480 years later and the two still have risen to heaven. The 40-day resurrection of Noah is the same 360-day calendar dates whether 2638 BC Dec 24 to 2637 BC Feb 2 (as 60-day calendar inauguration) or the Hebrew 2021 BC Dec 24 to 2020 BC Feb 2 (60-day calendar inauguration). (4-17-328 to 5-27-328 versus 4-17-954 to 5-27-954). The seance in Babel to speak to dead Noah as spirit Xisuthros in 2020 BC is thus 10 years after Gilgamesh spoke to him in 2030 BC. But the Chinese version has Gilgamesh campaign for Noah in his 1st year 2157 BC because it matches 2637 BC and 2157 BC not only as the same date of the 360-day calendar, but also as the same 60-year Julian calendar year name on Feb 2 of both years. This spans 480 years from 2637-2157 BC (as 487 x360 days as 5-27-328 to 5-27-815) of Noah and wife waiting in paradise hell just for Gilgamesh to visit before they get to go to heaven. Since the visit of Gilgamesh is after his last year and thus in 2030 BC, his visit might be presumed to be the same 360-day date (5-27-944 on Mar 27 of 2030 BC). Thus equating 1-27 with Nov 27 and 5-27 with Mar 27 retaining the ALL SAINTS DAY memorial 360-day new year Nov 1. If his flight to Noah was March 27, then because all indications equate Peleg Mesanipada as dying with the set of the star Sothis (May 6-8 of 2030 BC) including the suicide of Nahor Alumdug and Haran Meskalumdug as evdidence of the same dates a year later (Koyak 25 = May 6 of 2029 BC) then this means the death of king Gilgamesh's buddy occurred before the death of Peleg Mesanipada between 2031 BC Nov 1 and 2030 BC March 27.

Hebrew Adam 1656 = Noah 600, but 600 years later the natural years are 2256 while the 360-day calendar is 1208. Regarding the Flood 2953 BC as year 2256 thus has no error in the eyes of Chinese who se it calculates as year 08 despite being a Noah who is 600 not 608. They easily see his 600 years before Flood (Thoth 1 from 3552 BC Jan 28-2953 BC Aug 31) as also egyptian years and thus 608 in 360-day calendar (2953 BC Apr 15 to 2637 BC Sep 3 as 1-01-08 to 1-01-328 where 320x 360 days span 316 years). Note the new year Sep 3 of 2637 BC matches that after Noah's death as 2020 BC Sep 4 the year of Pharaoh unification 1-01-955 just 52 days after Egyptian new year 350 on Pamenot 1 July 14 (epagum July 9).

Reason for not eating plant

I have removed the clause that the reason he didn't eat the plant immediately was because he wanted to share it with older elders of Uruk. The entire reason that Gilgamesh went on his journeys was to try to bring Enkidu back to life. The reason he didn't eat the plant was because he wanted to use it to bring Enkidu back to life. Not because he wanted to share it with other elders of Uruk. Wjhonson (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I never thought of it, but both are correct. So you should put it back in. The kings are getting old and dying, and they all in need to be saved. This is why, it is because it was unique, no one had yet died old after the Flood. The kings are appointed elders of cities. The reason they must be appointed is because an elder occurs by getting old, but if young and appointed, you are then made an elder or a king when you are not old. Someone is daring to say you are as wise as older ones. However, as if punished for being made elders when they are young and not old, the sudden rapid aging starts aging them... is this reward as elders to look old, or punishment taking their lives for daring to take kingship or accepting the roles! And their parents who now look as if to be gods who can live 400 years, what do they think? Are these sons good or bad. Is it the serpent, or God doing this.

Thus in short Genesis, the kings are young. In short Genesis Reu (Aanipada) is ony 32 years old when his son Serug is born in 2207 BC and Reu is given the role as elder over the whole house, his name Reu Aanipada ruling 80 years until he is 112 in 2127 BC. He then lives 127 more years until he is 239 dying in 2000 BC, the 9 years of king Ur Nammu. This version is countered by NeoBabylon chronology which places him as king the same year 2207 BC but his father Peleg Mesanipada has died that year at 339. Thus Reu is already 209, and rules 80 years to 289 to the same year 2127 BC, and lives only 50 years more to 2077 BC. Oddly, the birth year of Haran in the Hebrew version, being used as a reborn into heaven for Reu.

Image upside down

This image [File:GilgameshTablet.jpg] is upside down. Could someone rotate it please? Here's the British Museum's picture of it the right way up: [1]. Thanks Chasuble (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Circular Link

The link for Utnapishtim takes you to the originating page. JohnVBoyle (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I saw this comment and removed the link. SamEV (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

terrible article

This article in unacceptable. It is confusing, doesn't fully explain the topic,. Doesn't outline the story etc. focuses too much on the copying of the tablet thing a ma jig128.100.71.45 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it would be good if this article contained a summary of the flood myth. As it stands, this article talks about the documents containing the myth but doesn't say what it is! Laetoli (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the requested material which now says what the Gilgamesh flood myth is. Greensburger (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging of article on Utnapishtim

In this article, article on Utnapishtim merged. It was not done properly. There is no mention or additional information of that figure, I feel this style of merging amounts to, in a way, deleting the original article. I regret for this style of working of wikipedia administration editors. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Photo of relic could show size (in hand)

Shows incredible density of text re: http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/nab/gilgamesh-tablet.jpg 217.43.154.238 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilgamesh flood myth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829004437/http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm to http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)