Mono-Mythology and Mesopotamian Literature

[Deleted]

Hello; New and excited about this board! My name is Ross and I am a Mesopotamianologist; student and follower, and publisher of Sumerian and Hindi researches, according to Genesis 10-11. I am an Euhemerist monogenetics, mono-mythologist. I consider all the gods as deified hero men, and all the pantheons as cultural duplicates of a single original as suggested in ancient Hebrew tradition in The Book of Genesis (Beginnings). As to the Sumerian King list, we Waddellist, following Dr. John Davis Pilkey's researches in the origin of mankind, believe the Hindu East Indian Kinglist is a duplicate mesopotamian-to-Bharat transplant. The Kings and ancient near eastern figures are the first family figures and patriarchs exiting the Ark, and the first city (empire) builders as alluded to in the Genesis chapters 10 and 11.
To add some exciting high level studies to the above bibliography of Sumerian King list books, see pubs.:
Dr. John Davis Pilkey & R S Marshall.
1. Kingship At Its Source" Barns and Nobel books; Publishamerica 2007
2. "Origin of Nations" Masters Pub 1984
4. "A Designed World" Amazon Pub., 2017 by R. S. Marshall
5. "The Genesis-10 Patriarchs" Amazon Pub, by R S Marshall, 2016 (by WeirdVideos.com pub.)
and, especially, this great Sumerian-Indian comparison of the Kinglists,
6. The Indian King Lists" (public domain), available on internet free.
www.originofnations.org/books,papers/JohnPilkey/
7-9 (Soon to be published commentaries on the Enuma Elish epic, according to Genesis-10; geographic-ethnic-political commentary on the Gundestrup Caldron panels in:
7. "A Continuous Narrative of Post-Diluvian Times"
8. "Noah's Family Speaks" (Sumero-Akkadian personi)
9. "A Post-Diluvian Timeline" Date by date events following the flood, and 1st Kish to end of Isin period.

Sumerian Proverb: "If you know something, why be quiet?"
R S MARSHALL

[us4-he2-gal2]

Hello Genesis10:






Welcome to enenuru. While I hope you will find the board in some ways useful, I should point out from the start that this view of 'mono-mythology' is obviously one that does not conform to the operating principles of enenuru: as started in the Orientation board, specifically in the posting policy thread, we embrace academic orthodoxy at this board on intentionally propagate it. That said, I am not going to simply shut down this line of inquiry because dicussion, debate and intelligent argument is also an academic tradition (a tradtion now under attack in modern campuses).


What makes me dubious about your angle, at first glance, is the influence of the Dr. Pilkey, who I knew nothing about before hand, but I am listening to him explain his ideas in his own words on youtube now.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDeSlqOMEZU

First of all, he was a professor of English at John MacArthur Christian college (now retired). How does that qualify him to discuss and explain textual material from the 3rd millennium BC? Even if it wasn't his field perhaps he could write insightful work if he did so in consultation with the findings of Assyriologists and Sumerologists, but he instead takes a 'one man army' approach. There are reasons why orthodoxy of a sort produces more powerful compelling results in the case of very ancient documents - its because of the immense linguistic and contextual difficulties involved in interpreting these texts... and today's Assyriologists stand on the work of 150 years of hard working researchers from major university across the globe. No one could ever develop the science in that way that it has been single-handedly. So alternative histories built on Mesopotamian literature seem immediately dubious, even before their claims are considered and that doubt stems from an understanding of what it would really take to pull it off. As you have contributed to at least one of his books, I'm sure you won't agree with that.



At 4:03, Pilkey refers to the Sumerian Kinglist saying that there are approx. 20 kingly dynasties - kingship was the theme of the age "because Noah's family were not simply survivors they were builders and they were rulers.. and they built nations with their eyes open." This assumes then that the Bible is a factual document, that it is legitimate to look back at history through the Biblical lense and take the Biblical author's construction as the definitive construction of history. This is the very antithesis of modern secular scholarship as we know it. The book of Genesis, while it may have come down through an oral tradition from unknown, was likely written down no earlier than the Post-Exilic period circa 586 BC. Why should any scholar adopt the presupposition that ancient writers writing in 586 BC had accurate and sustainable information of historical kings ruling more than 1500 years prior? Any attempt to harmonize the genealogies of the patriarchs with the Sumerian kings is a) making the claim that the Bible is a reliable (perhaps even infallible) guide to history and b) making associations that the Biblical authors themselves may never have intended to make.




Let's say that we trust the Bible's own dating scheme, like Bishop Ulster, and assume that Abraham did live sometime around 2100 BC (John J. Collins 2009, p. 8) - this would imply that Peleg, who Pilkey mentions at 4:43, approximately 150 years earlier (according the genealogy of Genesis 11) so about 2250 BC. Pilkey suggests that the 'war' between Uruk and Aratta was a result of a division of people that occurred in the days of Peleg (Gen. 10:25). But this suggestion cannot be sustained in view of Sumerological understandings of chronology, we know from the Sumerian king list and from the archaeological data that the Urukian king in question, Enmerker, ruled in about the middle of the Early Dynastic period, circa 2600 B.C. By choosing to privilege Biblical Chronology over modern scientific chronology, Pilkey discards the most exciting and sensational (to the historian) data to emerge from some 150 years of excavations and research in the region. For example, when digging in the 'Royal Tombs of Ur' an archaeologist may find an object inscribed with the name of a king from the Sumerian kinglist in a stratified context - from a layer of the site we know dates to a certain date range - it is because of work like this that we know when certain kings lived and can construct a scientific chronology.


But it's not just scientific chronology that makes Pilkey's suggestion about Peleg and the significance of the Uruk - Aratta war so very wrong. Viewed from the "history" provided in Genesis 10 and 11, which comes mainly from the genealogies and from a tiny amount of information included with the geneaologies, this suggestion may make a sort of sense. Viewed from the information Sumerologists are able to assemble from archaeology and from texts, the suggestion is preposterous. Pilkey admits that the Bible has no accounting of the Uruk - Aratta "war". There is, in fact, ALOT that the Bible has no acounting of. Mankind was not split in 2250 BC (which seems to be the date Peleg would have lived according to Biblical reckoning), and no he did not cause a "Schism" dividing Uruk and Aratta (imagining that Uruk was a unified center of humanity or something before that point). You can't conclude that with anything other than a Biblical reckoning. This reckoning places its its theoretical events in the middle or late 3rd millennium - In Sumerology, we know that the people of Uruk were expanding already in the 4th millennium, moving groups of traders north west into Syria where other cities, in fact, already existed (we have the archaeological remains), and they may have engaged in a primitive sort of warfare circa 3200 BC. It's called the 'Uruk Expansion'. It doesn't correlate to the what it says in the Bible at all, and the reason is that the Bible was never history. Uruk in the 4th millennium was already part of some sort of 'World System' which has to do with processes early urbanity and which did not come about in any 'flash-in-the-pan' or religio-magical transformation as portrayed in the mythological language of the Bible.


www.amazon.ca/Uruk-World-System-Mesopotamian-Civilization/dp/0226013820



The main reason I think no one has yet destroyed Pilkey point by point is because doing so takes quite a bit of time. No one has that sort of time who is busy with their own studies.

[Deleted]

Nice web site. Enjoy your materials much!
For you see the professor's new books I am publishing. REVIEW COPIES ON REQUEST. sample below
The following Genesis-10 materials introduces the reader to comparative mythology (Euhemerist based) and demonstrates a mono-mythological tradition, glossed over by the ancient destruction and dispersion (after the Erech-Aratta War) of the Near Eastern cultures. All national myths, when correctly interpreted, describe the same ancient Near Eastern events. We follow the "out of the A.N.E.," and not the "out of Africa" position on origins. The Y-Chrom and Mtdna maps support our mono-genetic view as well.

Enjoy...

ROSS S MARSHALL
NEW BOOKS: by Ross S Marshall, John D. Pilkey

www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Ross+S+Marshall
THE GENESIS 10 HISTORY Video with Dr Pilkey
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDeSlqOMEZU&t=2s

WEB SITES:
www.weirdvideos.com

[sheshki]

I dislike that you are using our board as a dumpster for the self promotion of your christianity based pseudoscientific theories.
And a closer look at your website (my eyes hurt now) clearly shows that
your main motivation is selling dubious material to gullible people.
(topics being terrorism, satanism, u.f.o´s, mind control, death, treason, 666, communism, etc. etc.)

This is an academic group and this sort of post is not acceptable here.

sheshki

[us4-he2-gal2]

Genesis10:




I am in agreement with Sheshki's post above. You have entirely ignored my Oct. 12 challenge of your positions above. I am rather certain any readers would take note of this blatant dodge. Note: as this forum's moderator I'd given you the chance to engage in discussion - I will not permit further unsubstantiated self-promotion.

[us4-he2-gal2]

Notice:



To anyone wondering why I have taken a rare move of moderation and banned and deleted 4 recent posts by GENESIS10 (posted April 8th 2018) - you need only review this thread from last October to see that I had already called on GENESIS10 to debate his proposals and establish why they belong in an academically orthodox discussion board. As you can see in the above exchange, instead of openly engaging my challenge he preferred to avoid the situation and go on posting as if no one had called him to debate. Today's flood of self-advertising is as Sheshki says - not acceptable given this history.

[mesopotamiarevealed]

*moderator edit*

[us4-he2-gal2]

R. Marshall: I banned you yesterday under a different name. DECISION FUCKING MADE.

[hukkana]

Apr 9, 2018 12:25:37 GMT -5 us4-he2-gal2 said:

R. Marshall: I banned you yesterday under a different name. DECISION FUCKING MADE.

Marshall ? I thought Genesis10 was Pilkey.

Unless he was posting under an asumed "real" name ?

[us4-he2-gal2]

It doesn't matter.

[rynathee]

Ick, sorry you had to deal with such a poster as this. Thank you for dealing with it appropriately, for all our sakes!! One of the many reasons I love this board is that it maintains an academic theme and I don't have to work so hard to avoid nonsense and/or garbage. So thank you!!