Sumer's Garden of Eden / Kulaba, the Tree, Snake, Sin, and Eve (Introduction)

[Ghost]

In my opinion, the tree in the Garden of Eden is the same exact apple tree written about by the Sumerians, Akkadians, and other cultures before Hebrew texts and Biblical texts were written. It is my opinion that Genesis is a factual record of events thousands of years prior. I believe that this can be seen in the geography, etymology, thematic story telling, and more. It is my opinion that Genesis is a summary of older written records, and that this is further evidence of the Bible's accuracy rather than an abomination of faith. I know it is controversial. However, my faith has been strengthened by the idea that the stories have always been the same.

I am going to include a few snippets of a 3-part doc I have been working on to help introduce people to Kulaba, a very important garden of the gods written about in Sumerian culture. Their stories talk about a great apple tree in the same location, a snake, a phantom lady, and the gods' wrath when plants are eaten. I would include more, but Part 2 of my research is 14 pages in Google Docs alone...

If anyone wants any sources, these are all translated by University of Oxford, Yale, and a few other respected institutions and documented on ETCSL.

---

Tablet (Gilgameš, Enkidu and the nether world)
At that time, there was a single tree, a single ḫalub tree, a single tree, growing on the bank of the pure Euphrates, being watered by the Euphrates

---

Tablet (Gilgameš, Enkidu and the nether world)
Five years, 10 years went by, the tree grew massive; its bark, however, did not split. At its roots, a snake immune to incantations made itself a nest. In its branches, the Anzud bird settled its young. In its trunk, the phantom maid built herself a dwelling, the maid who laughs with a joyful heart.


This tablet is so interesting because of the commands given for what not to do. For context, in this version of the creation story, the tree is used for its wood and leads to banishment from the garden forever.

The mentions of garments, anointing oil, kissing, and more is very interesting to me.

"You should not put on your clean garments: they would recognise immediately that you are alien. You should not anoint yourself with fine oil from a bowl: they would surround you at {its} {(1 ms. has instead your} scent. You should not hurl throw-sticks in the nether world: those struck down by the throw-sticks would surround you. You should not not hold a cornel-wood stick in your hand: the spirits would feel insulted by you. You should not put sandals on your feet. You should not shout in the nether world. You should not kiss your beloved wife. You should not hit your wife even if you are annoyed with her. You should not kiss your beloved child. You should not hit your son even if you are annoyed with him. The outcry aroused would detain you in the nether world."

199-204. "She who lies there, she who lies there, Ninazu's mother who lies there -- her pure shoulders are not covered with a garment, and no linen is spread over her pure breast. She has fingers like a pickaxe, she plucks her hair out like leeks."

205-220. Enkidu, however, did not heed not his master's words. He put on his clean garments and they recognised that he was alien. He anointed himself with fine oil from a bowl and they surrounded him at its scent. He hurled throw-sticks in the nether world and those struck down by the throw-sticks surrounded him. He held a cornel-wood stick in his hand and the spirits felt insulted by him. He put sandals on his feet. He caused irritation in the nether world. He kissed his beloved wife and hit his wife when he was annoyed with her. He kissed his beloved child and hit his son when he was annoyed with him. He aroused an outcry and was detained in the nether world.


---


Tablet (A tigi to Enki for Ur-Ninurta (Ur-Ninurta B))
Your father, An the king, the lord who caused human seed to come forth and who placed all mankind on the earth, has laid upon you the guarding of the divine powers of heaven and earth, and has elevated you to be their prince. An, king of the gods, has instructed you to keep open the holy mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates, to fill them with splendour, to make the dense clouds release plentiful water and make them rain all over the fields, to make Ezina lift her head in the furrows, to make vegetation …… in the desert, and to make orchards and gardens ripe with syrup and vines grow as tall as forests.


---


Tablet (Inana's descent to the nether world)
"Outstanding Lulal follows me at my right and my left. How could I turn him over to you? Let us go on.
Let us go on to the great apple tree in the plain of Kulaba."


---

In this story, many plants are eaten without any issue. However, when a final plant is eaten, they gain full understanding and the gods are enraged. They had already tried numerous other plants before, but the gods did not curse their life until this final plant was consumed.


Tablet (Enki and Ninḫursaĝa)
She grew the 'tree' plant, she grew the 'honey' plant, she grew the 'vegetable' plant, she grew the esparto grass (?), she grew the atutu plant, she grew the aštaltal plant, she grew the …… plant, she grew the amḫaru plant.

198-201. Enki was able to see up there from in the marsh, he was able to see up there, he was. He said to his minister Isimud: "I have not determined the destiny of these plants. What is this one? What is that one?"

His minister Isimud had the answer for him. "My master, the 'tree' plant," he said to him, cut it off for him and Enki ate it. "My master, the 'honey' plant," he said to him, pulled it up for him and Enki ate it. "My master, the 'vegetable' plant," he said to him, cut it off for him and Enki ate it. "My master, the alfalfa grass (?)," he said to him, pulled it up for him and Enki ate it.

211-219. "My master, the atutu plant," he said to him, cut it off for him and Enki ate it. "My master, the aštaltal plant," he said to him, pulled it up for him and Enki ate it. "My master, the …… plant," he said to him, cut it off for him and Enki ate it. "My master, the amḫaru plant," he said to him, pulled it up for him and Enki ate it. Enki determined the destiny of the plants, had them know it in their hearts.

220-227. Ninḫursaĝa cursed the name Enki: "Until his dying day, I will never look upon him with life-giving eye." The Anuna sat down in the dust.

This tablet is an amazing read, but hard to understand if you haven't read other tablets. I love it because it also mentions the Lady of Rib, or Ninti

After the amharu plant is eaten and they are cursed, the tablet continues...
But a fox was able to speak to Enlil: "If I bring Ninḫursaĝa to you, what will be my reward?" Enlil answered the fox: "If you bring Ninḫursaĝa to me, I shall erect two birch (?) trees for you in my city and you will be renowned."

This interests me because it mentions two trees being erected in the garden, directly before a creation story. In this story, many parts are used to create others.

"My brother, what part of you hurts you?" "My ribs (ti) hurt me." She gave birth to Ninti out of it.
"My brother, what part of you hurts you?" "My sides (zag) hurt me." She gave birth to Ensag out of it.

I cannot dive into it here right now, but if anyone is interested in ti/zag, I recommend the Hebrew's controversy about tzela, and side vs rib in original translations. Very interesting alignments over how this was phrased over time.


272-280. (She said "For the little ones to whom I have given birth may rewards not be lacking. Ab-u shall become king of the grasses, Ninsikila shall become lord of Magan, Ningiriutud shall marry Ninazu, Ninkasi shall be what satisfies the heart, Nazi shall marry Nindara, Azimua shall marry Ninĝišzida, Ninti shall become the lady of the month, and Ensag shall become lord of Dilmun."


---

As you read, you will obviously pick up on similar stories & themes. It's important to also track how the symbols were translated over time.

ĝišḫašḫur gul-la edin kul-aba4ki-še3 ĝiri3-ni-še3 ba-e-re7re-eš
- Gis = wood, or tree. Hashur = apple.
- gul-la = to destroy
- edin kul-aba = the plains of kulaba

𒀀𒇉𒂔 - The original cuneiform for 'steppe' or 'plain'. They refer to it as a general area of vegetation near a canal.

The Akkadians then modified the symbology, using: 𒂊𒁲𒉡
This is mentioned as "idīnum", closely related to "edinnu".
This can also be related to an Aramaic word for fruitful and well watered.
The Hebrew "edhen" is obviously most similar to our modern translations of Eden. There's also an Ugaritic base syllable of 'dn which can refer to something being well-watered.


Overall, the exact origins of Hebrew's ‘Eden’ {עדן} are unclear and there can be cases made that similarities are not exact translations. However, numerous tablets place Kulaba in the same exact location, and follow an eerily similar creation story, following sin, and the generations from Adam til the Flood and post flood stories are almost an exact match. All of this combined has led me to believe that Sumer's stories are the Bible's stories too.

 

[Frankj]

So what's the point, where do you intend to head with this (and why)?

 

[Ghost]

So what's the point, where do you intend to head with this (and why)?

For me, it strengthens my faith to know that ancient civilizations have spoken about creation in the same way for longer than modern Christianity acknowledges.

I look at it as "yes this is true, and it was also true thousands of years before Judaism & Christianity & Islam came to be". It is a significant cause of faith for me, so my only goal is to help share the information in the hopes that it can strengthen someone else's faith.

I believe that somewhere along history, we discarded polytheistic cultures & origin stories because we disagreed on the interpretations, without acknowledging that the interpretations were of the same shared origin stories.

For me, it bothers me that across so many years of religious education, not one pastor or priest truly dove into Jesus' spoken language, Aramaic, or the cultures prior. I think if they had done that, I would've learned a lot more and came to be faithful much sooner.

My journey began with the study of Enlil / Elil / Lil/ Il / El, or what Jesus calls him, Eloi.
At first I assumed this was just a coincidence. As I dove in, I found more shared stories than not. It baffled me and led me down an almost 2 year path of research.

My intention is to help the world maintain their Christian faith, but strengthen it with the understanding that the polytheistic religions before Judaism and Christianity essentially agree on almost all of the creation story, but just interpret it differently. I think that's a HUGE miss on the part of modern religious institutions.

There are a lot of alignments, whether it's Zi-ud-sura/Noah or Adam & Eve, or perhaps even Jesus.

For example, Dumuzid (DUMU-ZID), translated as the true righteous son, was sacrificed in place of Innana who was chased by the 7 demons. Dumuzid was also referred to as the Shepherd and Fisher of Men. His symbols and themes align with Jesus. He was made to stand on a tree, a Euphrates poplar in the garden. He was tied up, and they pushed nails into his head. The hanging corpse so to speak. After he died, Dumu-zid's garments were placed over his body. He went to the netherworld, but later was revived. When he walked through town, even his own family and followers did not recognize him. This then led to a tradition of death & rebirth on a 6/6 month cycle. Over thousands of years this eventually became known as the cult of Tammuzi.

Another obscure alignment is the tablet, The debate between Sheep and Grain.
I believe this is Cane and Abel's story, but again, thousands of years prior.
The deeper I go into the tablets, the more I feel that I am validating the Bible. On the surface, it may read like a debunk, but I believe it is verification of what many people believe is true.

My goal is to recognize that it's possible that the Bible is thousands of years older than most people would say it is now. For me, that strengthens the argument that God is real and it helps contextualize the Abrahamic religions. Modern society often fights over the 3 Abrahamic interpretations, while also ignoring all of the possible origins. Abraham was telling a story he learned on his journeys through the fertile crescent.
For that reason, I think the only controversy is to ignore the origins that Abraham taught in the first place. I would have to ask others what their intention is with ignoring the tablets, when even Abraham himself spoke of them & the stories they record, for what came to be known as the Old Testament.

 

[Lamb]

For me, it strengthens my faith to know that ancient civilizations have spoken about creation in the same way for longer than modern Christianity acknowledges.

I look at it as "yes this is true, and it was also true thousands of years before Judaism & Christianity & Islam came to be". It is a significant cause of faith for me, so my only goal is to help share the information in the hopes that it can strengthen someone else's faith.

I believe that somewhere along history, we discarded polytheistic cultures & origin stories because we disagreed on the interpretations, without acknowledging that the interpretations were of the same shared origin stories.

For me, it bothers me that across so many years of religious education, not one pastor or priest truly dove into Jesus' spoken language, Aramaic, or the cultures prior. I think if they had done that, I would've learned a lot more and came to be faithful much sooner.

My journey began with the study of Enlil / Elil / Lil/ Il / El, or what Jesus calls him, Eloi.
At first I assumed this was just a coincidence. As I dove in, I found more shared stories than not. It baffled me and led me down an almost 2 year path of research.

My intention is to help the world maintain their Christian faith, but strengthen it with the understanding that the polytheistic religions before Judaism and Christianity essentially agree on almost all of the creation story, but just interpret it differently. I think that's a HUGE miss on the part of modern religious institutions.

There are a lot of alignments, whether it's Zi-ud-sura/Noah or Adam & Eve, or perhaps even Jesus.

For example, Dumuzid (DUMU-ZID), translated as the true righteous son, was sacrificed in place of Innana who was chased by the 7 demons. Dumuzid was also referred to as the Shepherd and Fisher of Men. His symbols and themes align with Jesus. He was made to stand on a tree, a Euphrates poplar in the garden. He was tied up, and they pushed nails into his head. The hanging corpse so to speak. After he died, Dumu-zid's garments were placed over his body. He went to the netherworld, but later was revived. When he walked through town, even his own family and followers did not recognize him. This then led to a tradition of death & rebirth on a 6/6 month cycle. Over thousands of years this eventually became known as the cult of Tammuzi.

Another obscure alignment is the tablet, The debate between Sheep and Grain.
I believe this is Cane and Abel's story, but again, thousands of years prior.
The deeper I go into the tablets, the more I feel that I am validating the Bible. On the surface, it may read like a debunk, but I believe it is verification of what many people believe is true.

My goal is to recognize that it's possible that the Bible is thousands of years older than most people would say it is now. For me, that strengthens the argument that God is real and it helps contextualize the Abrahamic religions. Modern society often fights over the 3 Abrahamic interpretations, while also ignoring all of the possible origins. Abraham was telling a story he learned on his journeys through the fertile crescent.
For that reason, I think the only controversy is to ignore the origins that Abraham taught in the first place. I would have to ask others what their intention is with ignoring the tablets, when even Abraham himself spoke of them & the stories they record, for what came to be known as the Old Testament.

No other religion is older than the Christian one since it's based upon writings from Genesis which go back to the beginning of the world.

 

[Ghost]

No other religion is older than the Christian one since it's based upon writings from Genesis which go back to the beginning of the world.

I agree on Genesis being the writings about the beginning of the world, I am not disagreeing with that. However, the texts existed before Christianity existed, so on a fundamental level, it's not really accurate to say the Christian version came first when there are many years of Hebrew Genesis writings that also came before.

I am not trying to convince you or anyone to reject Christianity. The opposite. I am more confident in my faith knowing that the Bible is referencing real history that was recorded for thousands of years. The Bible never claims that Genesis' stories happened in recent times, compared to when it was written. In fact, it even acknowledges many many many hundreds of years passing. Noah himself was 600 years when the flood came, and he was not first man. So even by the Bible's own account, the stories are very old.

To make this possibly easier to discuss... I am open to saying that the old tablets are just earlier versions of the Bible. I'm in no way trying to invalidate the Bible as the source of truth. I am curious if that would change your opinion in any way. The oldest recognized bible is the Codex Sinaiticus from 325-360 AD. I wouldn't claim that Christianity began in 325-360 AD just because the oldest bible is from that time.

All I'm really trying to do is help piece this together in a way that can help non-believers understand that the Bible is not just random stories, it has more than enough supplemental evidence to support an argument that its a historical, accurate record. I think that's great, but obviously this is a controversial topic.

I think it's okay to treat Christian Genesis as the ultimate truth, but to say that there is no older religion isn't very accurate. Of course religions existed before Christianity, even the Bible mentions the old gods, idols, and religions. They say it is blasphemous and treat the old religions as disgusting, but Christians definitely didn't claim to be the first religion.

The purpose of my post is to highlight the fact that there are hundreds of references to Genesis from thousands of years prior in old tablets, and this gives further proof to the Bible's story.

I understand it's controversial, but to me, it's just a matter of dating and naming. I don't think it's bad to acknowledge that the Christian bible came after Hebrew texts, which came after Akkadian and Sumerian texts. The exile in Babylon for example is an extremely interesting time to study for example, to understand how early religions formed.

 

[Lamb]

I agree on Genesis being the writings about the beginning of the world, I am not disagreeing with that. However, the texts existed before Christianity existed, so on a fundamental level, it's not really accurate to say the Christian version came first when there are many years of Hebrew Genesis writings that also came before.

I am not trying to convince you or anyone to reject Christianity. The opposite. I am more confident in my faith knowing that the Bible is referencing real history that was recorded for thousands of years. The Bible never claims that Genesis' stories happened in recent times, compared to when it was written. In fact, it even acknowledges many many many hundreds of years passing. Noah himself was 600 years when the flood came, and he was not first man. So even by the Bible's own account, the stories are very old.

To make this possibly easier to discuss... I am open to saying that the old tablets are just earlier versions of the Bible. I'm in no way trying to invalidate the Bible as the source of truth. I am curious if that would change your opinion in any way. The oldest recognized bible is the Codex Sinaiticus from 325-360 AD. I wouldn't claim that Christianity began in 325-360 AD just because the oldest bible is from that time.

All I'm really trying to do is help piece this together in a way that can help non-believers understand that the Bible is not just random stories, it has more than enough supplemental evidence to support an argument that its a historical, accurate record. I think that's great, but obviously this is a controversial topic.

I think it's okay to treat Christian Genesis as the ultimate truth, but to say that there is no older religion isn't very accurate. Of course religions existed before Christianity, even the Bible mentions the old gods, idols, and religions. They say it is blasphemous and treat the old religions as disgusting, but Christians definitely didn't claim to be the first religion.

The purpose of my post is to highlight the fact that there are hundreds of references to Genesis from thousands of years prior in old tablets, and this gives further proof to the Bible's story.

I understand it's controversial, but to me, it's just a matter of dating and naming. I don't think it's bad to acknowledge that the Christian bible came after Hebrew texts, which came after Akkadian and Sumerian texts. The exile in Babylon for example is an extremely interesting time to study for example, to understand how early religions formed.

God created the world...so His story is the original. The others are the copycats.

 

[Ghost]

God created the world...so His story is the original. The others are the copycats.

Right, I agree with that completely. To me it doesn't matter who came first. If there were significant differences in every area, I might be more concerned, but when I focus on the shared truths and love in God, I start seeing everything as their creation. For me, everyone in history and in today's times are faithful in the same God, since God is in everything and everyone even if some people label God or gods or the messiah or a prophet differently. I believe that we all currently and all have always praised the same God and that copies or not, we're all reaching out to the same heavens at the end of the day.

 

[Lamb]

Right, I agree with that completely. To me it doesn't matter who came first. If there were significant differences in every area, I might be more concerned, but when I focus on the shared truths and love in God, I start seeing everything as their creation. For me, everyone in history and in today's times are faithful in the same God, since God is in everything and everyone even if some people label God or gods or the messiah or a prophet differently. I believe that we all currently and all have always praised the same God and that copies or not, we're all reaching out to the same heavens at the end of the day.

Those who deny Jesus as Savior of the world do not praise the same God.

 

[Ghost]

Those who deny Jesus as Savior of the world do not praise the same God.

I can somewhat understand that take, but don't personally agree. Unless every God is valid, then we're all worshipping God with our own interpretations. So even if someone is wrong or incorrect, they're still making an effort to praise the true God, or rather unless there are multiple Gods, there is only one God listening.

i view it differently because I do not view the New Testament as guaranteed canon, and I personally believe that we all do have the same God, but that over thousands of years, men and women wrote about it and it evolved over time.

For example, the modern Bible is written in English, but was translated from a combo of Greek and Hebrew texts for the most part. Jews and Christians have drifted far apart.

Was Jesus' God a fake God? His disciples and him were raised Jewish and would've been in temples and in similar communities to spread the good word. Unless the Gods changed places / there was a God swap, this would seem to make the case that the same God Jesus believed in and praised and came from is the same God today. Therefor I think it's easy to make the case that we do worship the same God, unless we're saying that Jesus' God was wrong and the right God jumped in after Jesus died. I can't believe that personally.

 

[Lamb]

I can somewhat understand that take, but don't personally agree. Unless every God is valid, then we're all worshipping God with our own interpretations. So even if someone is wrong or incorrect, they're still making an effort to praise the true God, or rather unless there are multiple Gods, there is only one God listening.

i view it differently because I do not view the New Testament as guaranteed canon, and I personally believe that we all do have the same God, but that over thousands of years, men and women wrote about it and it evolved over time.

For example, the modern Bible is written in English, but was translated from a combo of Greek and Hebrew texts for the most part. Jews and Christians have drifted far apart.

Was Jesus' God a fake God? His disciples and him were raised Jewish and would've been in temples and in similar communities to spread the good word. Unless the Gods changed places / there was a God swap, this would seem to make the case that the same God Jesus believed in and praised and came from is the same God today. Therefor I think it's easy to make the case that we do worship the same God, unless we're saying that Jesus' God was wrong and the right God jumped in after Jesus died. I can't believe that personally.

Jesus is God.

 

[Maranatha]

@Ghost
I think I can follow your reasoning.
Yes there is only one true God.
The difference is that in all the Religions people try to find their own way to please God and to have their sins forgiven. Some try to keep the law, some offer sacrifices etc.

Saul was very religious. When he was a Pharasee he was probably one of the best Bible students.
He probably thought he reached almost perfection
But all of that changed when Christ came into his live.

He wrote:
"I once thought these things were valuable, but now I consider them worthless because of what Christ has done. Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ and become one with him.
I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ" (Philippians 3v7-9)

"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost".(1 Tim. 1:15)

Jesus said:“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14v6)

 

[Ghost]

@Ghost
I think I can follow your reasoning.
Yes there is only one true God.
The difference is that in all the Religions people try to find their own way to please God and to have their sins forgiven. Some try to keep the law, some offer sacrifices etc.

Saul was very religious. When he was a Pharasee he was probably one of the best Bible students.
He probably thought he reached almost perfection
But all of that changed when Christ came into his live.

He wrote:
"I once thought these things were valuable, but now I consider them worthless because of what Christ has done. Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ and become one with him.
I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ" (Philippians 3v7-9)

"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost".(1 Tim. 1:15)

Jesus said:“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14v6)

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective.

I think for me, the part where I interpret this differently is that to me, even some of the translations and texts we have throughout time are technically earthly possessions, gospels, and interpretations of something that is fundamentally true prior to the interpretations.

for example I would say that before the New Testament, God's truths were already present. Before the New Testament was finished being written, Jesus Christ was real, and true.

In other words, before Christianity was a labeled and more organized religion with many branches, you can say it was true.

Were the believers in Christ not saved by him in the days of his death and resurrection, but before the Bible was written? It took time for the texts to be written and shared, and yet men and women were saved by God/Jesus before they were.

I am not trying to discredit anything written, especially for texts considered completely canon.

One thing to add onto this, also from Philippians 3. Specifically, it says we should not worry of our past or if we have reached the goal yet, but to continue making an effort.

It says if we think differently about any part of it, God will reveal this to us. This suggests we may have faith and different interpretations, but still praise God and move towards the same goal.

It also says specifically that we should live up to whatever truth we have. So this suggests also that it is more important to have faith and try your best than it is to have a perfect understanding of God/Jesus. The love of God, even if misunderstanding God or Jesus Christ is universal.

It finishes by saying we should imitate those that do have faith. This is a nod to the natural interpretations we will all have throughout time. The Bible does have many texts that we can take literally, but there are also stories like this that clarify the exceptions, acknowledging that we are not perfect in our faith and yet still faithful, saved, and Gods' children. In my opinion that extends as far as every religion that exists now, and always has existed. A misunderstanding of God but a goal to know Him, or a misunderstanding of Jesus but a goal in faith... These are the only requirements and I believe we are all fulfilling this in our own ways.

12 Not that I have already reached the goal or am already fully mature, but I make every effort to take hold of it because I also have been taken hold of by Christ Jesus.
13 Brothers, I do not consider myself to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead,
14 I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus.
15 Therefore, all who are mature should think this way. And if you think differently about anything, God will reveal this also to you.
16 In any case, we should live up to whatever truth we have attained.
17 Join in imitating me, brothers, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us.

Jesus is God.

Is it possible that all will meet Jesus/God and go through the same judgement, purgatory, or even Heaven, even if they call him by a different name?

Perhaps a different way of looking at it like this. If I was born on an island with no other humans, no books, no Quran, no Torah, and no Bible, then can I explore my faith?

If I'm born in a desert with no humans nearby, and no Bible, can I seek God?

If I am deaf, mute, blind, and paralyzed, can I find love and salvation in Jesus Christ?

When I personally think of other religions, or other names, or even the wrong beliefs, I also think about the person on the island or in the desert, with no books, or no way to read.

Are they abandoned by God and Jesus because they cannot read the texts written and shared by Man? Does God/Jesus rely specifically on the translations and books we quote?

I believe it's possible that God and Jesus and Heaven and every other concept exists for all, no matter what we name them, no matter how we interpret the truth, and anything we perceive, write, or say is only in the hopes that we are right about their original messages and intent. But I think they exist for all and love all, and created all.

 

[Lamb]

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective.

I think for me, the part where I interpret this differently is that to me, even some of the translations and texts we have throughout time are technically earthly possessions, gospels, and interpretations of something that is fundamentally true prior to the interpretations.

for example I would say that before the New Testament, God's truths were already present. Before the New Testament was finished being written, Jesus Christ was real, and true.

In other words, before Christianity was a labeled and more organized religion with many branches, you can say it was true.

Were the believers in Christ not saved by him in the days of his death and resurrection, but before the Bible was written? It took time for the texts to be written and shared, and yet men and women were saved by God/Jesus before they were.

I am not trying to discredit anything written, especially for texts considered completely canon.

One thing to add onto this, also from Philippians 3. Specifically, it says we should not worry of our past or if we have reached the goal yet, but to continue making an effort.

It says if we think differently about any part of it, God will reveal this to us. This suggests we may have faith and different interpretations, but still praise God and move towards the same goal.

It also says specifically that we should live up to whatever truth we have. So this suggests also that it is more important to have faith and try your best than it is to have a perfect understanding of God/Jesus. The love of God, even if misunderstanding God or Jesus Christ is universal.

It finishes by saying we should imitate those that do have faith. This is a nod to the natural interpretations we will all have throughout time. The Bible does have many texts that we can take literally, but there are also stories like this that clarify the exceptions, acknowledging that we are not perfect in our faith and yet still faithful, saved, and Gods' children. In my opinion that extends as far as every religion that exists now, and always has existed. A misunderstanding of God but a goal to know Him, or a misunderstanding of Jesus but a goal in faith... These are the only requirements and I believe we are all fulfilling this in our own ways.

12 Not that I have already reached the goal or am already fully mature, but I make every effort to take hold of it because I also have been taken hold of by Christ Jesus.
13 Brothers, I do not consider myself to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and reaching forward to what is ahead,
14 I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus.
15 Therefore, all who are mature should think this way. And if you think differently about anything, God will reveal this also to you.
16 In any case, we should live up to whatever truth we have attained.
17 Join in imitating me, brothers, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us.




Is it possible that all will meet Jesus/God and go through the same judgement, purgatory, or even Heaven, even if they call him by a different name?

Perhaps a different way of looking at it like this. If I was born on an island with no other humans, no books, no Quran, no Torah, and no Bible, then can I explore my faith?

If I'm born in a desert with no humans nearby, and no Bible, can I seek God?

If I am deaf, mute, blind, and paralyzed, can I find love and salvation in Jesus Christ?

When I personally think of other religions, or other names, or even the wrong beliefs, I also think about the person on the island or in the desert, with no books, or no way to read.

Are they abandoned by God and Jesus because they cannot read the texts written and shared by Man? Does God/Jesus rely specifically on the translations and books we quote?

I believe it's possible that God and Jesus and Heaven and every other concept exists for all, no matter what we name them, no matter how we interpret the truth, and anything we perceive, write, or say is only in the hopes that we are right about their original messages and intent. But I think they exist for all and love all, and created all.

The Bible doesn't give us answers to all your questions, but it does say that God is just and good.

We are all judged on whether we trust in Jesus' work on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. Those who don't trust in Him will not enter into heaven because they are judged on their own works, and without faith in the one true God for the forgiveness of sins, those works are tainted by sin and not good.

My personal thoughts on some of your questions, and not based on scripture, is that God can send the angels to preach the Gospel message about the Savior.

 

[Ghost]

The Bible doesn't give us answers to all your questions, but it does say that God is just and good.

We are all judged on whether we trust in Jesus' work on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. Those who don't trust in Him will not enter into heaven because they are judged on their own works, and without faith in the one true God for the forgiveness of sins, those works are tainted by sin and not good.

My personal thoughts on some of your questions, and not based on scripture, is that God can send the angels to preach the Gospel message about the Savior.

Absolutely, and that makes sense to me based on what's written and taught, and you're right that it's not up to us to change or alter this.

One thing I want to mention to add on to my thread, and I know this is controversial but in the world religions subforum. Dumu-zid or Dumuzid, also known as Dumuzi, Tammuz and Tammuzi is an important figure in ancient cultures. I mentioned before that in Ezekiel 8:14, it is written "14 Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the Lord’s house. I noticed women sitting there weeping for Tammuz. 15 He said to me, “Do you see this, son of man? You will see even greater abominations than these!” "


Another piece of evidence of the Bible referencing ancient cultures is in Jeremiah 50.

50 The Lord spoke concerning Babylon and the land of Babylonia through the prophet Jeremiah.

2 “Announce the news among the nations! Proclaim it!
Signal for people to pay attention.
Declare the news! Do not hide it! Say:
‘Babylon will be captured.
Bel will be put to shame.
Marduk will be dismayed.
Babylon’s idols will be put to shame;
her disgusting images will be dismayed.


This can discredit the important of the old texts, but it also lends a hand in the sense that in denying or avoiding the old cultures of idols and Marduk, we must also understand it.

Marduk is a name that goes far back, just like Tammuz was a translated name for Dumuzi, or Dumu-zid.

Marduk goes back to the Hebrew Merodak, and the name Merodach-Baladan, as well as Marduk-apla-iddina. There are many records of a Marduk, King of Babylon, who was praised similar to a god.

So, it makes sense that the Bible makes mention of Marduk, Babylon, and what the texts refer to as false idols.

Casting out Marduk and Babylon's disgusting images, and labeling the weeping women of Tammuz as abominations. All I hope to do now is suggest that if the Bible makes this distinction, which it does, then we should make sure to study what they are, or who they are to better understand the texts.

For me, I am going out on a limb to suggest that there are common enough themes to perhaps say that there are interpretations and worship that has been rejected, such as the praise of Marduk and old gods and idols in Babylon, but that they fundamentally praise what could be said to be the true God, and true Son, in a holy trinity.

Dumu-zid. Dumu is the child, or son, by translation. Zid is the word for truth, true, righteous, faithful. So the name dumu-zid is the true, righteous, faithful child. Based on the tablets and context, we know Dumuzid to be male, as the son.

The reason Dumuzid is important in the texts is because of why he died. Inanna was being taken, and Dumuzid was given to the 7 demons instead.

"Come on, Inana, go on that journey which is yours alone -- descend to the underworld.
12-21. They released holy Inana, they …… her. Inana handed over Dumuzid to them in exchange for herself.

The next part of the tablet, immediately after this text is a description of how Dumuzid is killed.

"As for the lad, we will put his feet in foot stocks. As for the lad, we will put his hands in hand stocks: we will put his neck in neck stocks." Copper pins, nails and pokers were raised to his face.

His hands are in stocks, his feet are in stocks, and his neck is in stocks. And they put pins and nails to his face and head.

Even more interesting, he is actually made to stand, crucified if you will...

As for the lad, they stood him up, they sat him down. "Let us remove his …… garment, let us make him stand ……." As for the lad, they bound his arms, they did evil …

Now, in the immediate next part of that same sentence, we see that Dumuzid, just like Jesus, was covered in his own garment too after he was made to stand, in hand, neck, and feet stocks with nails and pins and pokers in his face and head.

…. They covered his face with his own garment.

Dumuzid makes a plea to Utu, just as Jesus asked why he is forsaken.

The lad raises his hands heavenward to Utu: "O Utu, I am your friend, I am a youth. Do you recognise me? Your sister, whom I married, descended to the underworld. Because she descended to the underworld, it was me that she was to hand over to the underworld as a substitute. O Utu, you are a just judge, don't disappoint me!

This, to me, is similar to Jesus. Dumuzid is taken for the sins of Inana, and he is going to the underworld (dying).
But like Jesus, his story is not over.

Change my hands, alter my appearance, so that I may escape the clutches of my demons! Don't let them seize me! Like a saĝkal snake that slithers across the meadows and mountains, let me escape alive to the dwelling of my sister Ĝeštin-ana."
33-46. Utu accepted his tears. He changed his hands, he altered his appearance.

The next part is also interesting because Jesus walked again and they did not recognize him immediately.

We see this in John 20:14
14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.

15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?” Because she thought he was the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni” (which means “Teacher”).

So, Dumuzid asks Utu to escape death, just as Jesus said "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" in Aramaic, or My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Then like a saĝkal snake that slithers across the meadows and mountains, like a soaring falcon that can swoop down on a live (?) bird, Dumuzid escaped alive to the dwelling of his sister Ĝeštin-ana.

Ĝeštin-ana looked at her brother. She scratched at her cheek: she scratched at her nose. She looked at her sides: she …… her garment. She recited a lament of misfortune for the unfortunate lad: "O my brother! O my brother, lad who has not fulfilled those days! O my brother, shepherd Ama-ušumgal-ana, lad who has not fulfilled those days and years!"

Dumuzid's sister Gestinana did not recognize him either, not until she looked him up and down and recognized the garments.

 

[Ghost]

She was very ecstatic to see him, as when he had died originally she was extremely upset. Multiple tablets mention this, but this one stands out as further confirmation of how Dumuzid was killed, with his hands and arms restrained & fettered.

29-34. "My brother -- because of him I cannot rejoice. My brother ……. Dumuzid, my brother -- because of him I cannot rejoice, ……. …… in front of him ……. …… he who bound his arms went in front of him. …… he who fettered his hands went behind him. …… they who beat him went alongside him."

This was before he returned, but another important comparison is his dream.
Dumuzid had a dream that he would be struck on the cheek by the 'evil one', who would turn him into the demons, chasing him in place of Inana.

56-69. "Your holy drinking cup torn down from the peg where it hung is you falling off the lap of the mother who bore you. That your shepherd's stick disappeared from you means the demons {will set fire to it} {(1 ms. has instead will smash it}.

The owl (?) taking a lamb from the sheep house {is the evil man who will hit you on the cheek}

In the Bible, we have a similar story where Judas kissed Jesus to betray him in Matthew 26:47

47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent by the chief priests and elders of the people. 48 (Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I kiss is the man. Arrest him!”) 49 Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi,” and kissed him.

To tie this all together, it's also important to recognize that the Bible comes full circle in the same way as the old texts. Portions of the Bible describe Jesus as being hung or bound to a tree rather than a traditional cross. This could just be a translation error, and ultimately the old tablets' word for tree (gis) is similar to uses of wood, and can be swapped in some cases as a general reference to either a tree, or something made from a tree.

It's mostly in Peter, Paul or the apostles where we hear more about a specific cross.

Galatians 3:13
3 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)

1 Peter 2:24
24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness

Acts 5:30
29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than people. 30 The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior

Acts 10:39
39 We are witnesses of all the things he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40 but God raised him up on the third day and caused him to be seen,


I could go on and on, but this is a good place to pause. Ultimately, Inana was being chased by the 7 demons, and Dumuzid dies for her "sins" instead. She is briefly empowered by the 7 divine powers, and she hopes to escape the netherworld, and to avoid the 7 gates below. Dumuzid does take her place, but only for some time.

Their story continues to go on and Inana and Dumuzid swap places, sparking a tradition of death and rebirth roughly every 6 months. Over thousands of years this story transforms from Sumerian, to Akkadian, to other cultures throughout and into Babylon.

It is then rejected as an old, false story, and the followers of that story are called the abomination, and cult of Tammuz in the Bible.


I hope I have offended nobody in my aim to help spread awareness of what exactly is being rejected when the Bible talks about the old gods, idols of Babylon, and weeping women of Tammuz.

I honestly spent an hour just compiling info here but have been working on a more comprehensive comparison in docs & slides (google). Honestly it's really really interesting to me because of how many similarities there.

The most important thing is that people explore faith and their relationship with God. For me, I don't make a strong distinction between Dumuzid and Jesus, or An and the Father, or Enlil and the Spirit, Enki and the Lord, or what happened in Kulaba or Eden, or much else. I strongly feel that the Bible and old texts are both true in the sense that there weren't two gods in the same place doing the same things, with the same stories. I feel that they are both referring to the real, true story of God, Lord, Spirit, the Son, Heaven, and Hell, and they simply use different naming, wording, and provide different interpretations along the way.