creationist flood model

All posts tagged creationist flood model

Nimrod and Gilgamesh

Published November 25, 2015 by amaic


Tightening the Geography and Archaeology for Early Genesis

Part Two: The Epoch of Gilgamesh


Damien Mackey


Dr. David Livingston has, in his 2003 article, “Who Was Nimrod?”,

argued intriguingly for Nimrod to have been the same as the ancient potentate, Gilgamesh.

 My article will be based largely upon this possible extension of the famous tyrant.



Nimrod has been identified with various gods and semi-mythical, or real historical characters. In the following blog piece, for instance, he is connected with Sumerian, Egyptian – and even Greek (“Dionysus”) – deities (and one could add the god Bacchus, when linked with BarCush, or son of Cush):

In my blogs, “The Man of Many Names” and “The First Shall Be The Last,” we learned that Nimrod “began to become a [giant] mighty one” through some sort of defilement of himself. In the context of numerous other descriptions of this man, the word “gibbor” in this case was more than just a “mighty one” – Nimrod became a giant. Somehow, he activated Nephilim genes that apparently came to him through his ancestry. Thus, he became a Post-Flood member of the Demi-god Tier – an offspring of the Nephilim.

He built the Tower of Babel with intentions of killing God and taking over – a plan that was not at all unlike that of Zeus, the Olympian who sought to destroy the Titan gods who ruled before him. But Nimrod’s plans were thwarted by God and the people of the earth who supported him were divided into 70 languages/nations. Each people group went away talking about the same guy, only now, he had other names. The dominant name he became known by was Osiris, the god of the Egyptians. Let’s look a little deeper into this myth and how it played into the characters and events of our Hebrew Bible.

To the left is a typical diagram of the Egyptian god family tree.

Here we see Atum as the Ultimate Source Tier god. Shu and Tefnut are the Top Tier gods, followed by Geb and Nut in the Middle Tier and Osiris is in the Final Tier (the same tier that we found Dionysus, Apollo, Marduk, Ninurta and Gilgamesh – all of which are other names for Nimrod). Similar to Marduk in the Sumerian family tree, Osiris rises from the Final Tier to be the ultimate, ruling diety in Egyptian mythology.

[End of quote]


David Rohl would add other deities to this list for Nimrod. In his The Lost Testament – From Eden to Exile: The Five-Thousand-Year History of the People of the Bible (2002, p. 73), he wrote, referring to Ashur:


It appears that we are dealing here with a single historical character who established the first empire on Earth and who was deified by many nations under four main name groupings: 1. Early Sumerian Enmer, later Mesopotamian Ninurta (originally Nimurda), biblical Nimrod, Greek Ninus; 2. Old Babylonian Marduk, biblical Merodach, later simply known as Bel or Baal (‘Lord’); 3. Late Sumerian Asar-luhi (a principal epithet of Marduk), Assyrian Ashur, Egyptian Asar (Osiris); 4. Sumerian Dumuzi, biblical Tammuz, Phoenician Adonis, Greek Dionysius, Roman Bacchus.

[End of quote]


For Catholic readers (particularly), the mystical visionary, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, describing Nimrod in some detail, identified him as “Belus”, perhaps the same as Rohl’s “Bel or Baal (‘Lord’)”. According to what she wrote (Life of Jesus Christ):



[Nimrod] built Babylon out of the stones of the Tower …. He also laid the foundation of Ninive [Nineveh], and built substructures of stones for tent dwellings. He was a great hunter and tyrant. At that period savage animals were very numerous, and they committed fearful ravages. The hunting expeditions fitted out against them were as grand as military expeditions. They who slew these wild animals, were honored as gods. Nemrod [Nimrod] also drove men together and subdued them. He practiced idolatry, he was full of cruelty and witchcraft, and he had many descendants. He lived to be about two hundred and seventy years old. He was of sallow complexion, and from early youth he had led a wild life. He was an instrument of Satan and very much given to star worship. Of the numerous figures and pictures that he traced in the planets and the constellations, and according to which he prophesied and concerning the different nations and countries, he sought to reproduce representations, which he set up as gods. The Egyptians owe their Sphinx to him [My comment: Perhaps so, but the Sphinx was built much later than Nimrod’s time], as also their many-armed and many-headed idols. For seventy years, Nemrod busied himself with the histories of these idols, with ceremonial details relative to their worship and the sacrifices to be offered them, also with the forming of the pagan priesthood. By his diabolical wisdom and power, he had subjected the races that he led to the building of the Tower. When the confusion of tongues arose, many of those tribes broke away from him, and the wildest of them followed Mesraim [Mizraim] into Egypt. …. Among his numerous children [was] Ninus ….

[End of quote]


And historically, Nimrod has been identified with such early Mesopotamian/Akkadian rulers as Enmerkar of the Uruk I dynasty, e.g., by Rohl, and with the mighty king Sargon of Akkad. Commenting upon Rohl’s view, I wrote in Part One:


On Nimrod


I had previously thought that David Rohl’s view (in The Lost Testament) that the Uruk I dynasty after the Mesopotamian flood was the dynasty of Cush and Nimrod, with the latter being the historical Enmerkar. And this may still apply. However, I now think that we need to take into account our new geography/archaeology and also D. Petrovich’s compelling view of Nimrod as the legendary Sargon of Akkad.

Whilst Sargon was a real person, I would suggest that the Mesopotamians had borrowed this story of his infancy (dating much later than the similar Moses story) from the Book of Exodus (


A story about Sargon’s youth sounds like the Moses infancy story. The baby Sargon, nestled in a reed basket sealed with bitumen, was placed in the Euphrates River. The basket floated until it was rescued by a gardener or date grower. In this capacity he worked for the king of Kish, Ur-Zababa until he rose in the ranks to become the king’s cupbearer. ….


Finally, I shall be most interested to find whether further excavation work at the site of Jerablus (Carchemish), or its environs, yields any evidence for the famous Tower of Babel.

[End of quote]


Finally, in the opinion of Dr. Livingston, Nimrod is to be equated with Gilgamesh.


Gilgamesh the Hunter King


Here is the relevant part of Dr. Livingston’s article:


Was “Nimrod” Godly or Evil?




Part of Nimrod’s kingdom (Genesis 10:11), Nineveh along the Tigris River continued to be a major city in ancient Assyria. Today adjacent to modern Mosul, the ruins of ancient Nineveh are centered on two mounds, the acropolis at Kuyunjik and Nebi Yunis (Arabic “Prophet Jonah”). Pictured is Sennacherib’s “Palace without a rival” on Kuyunjik, constructed at the end of the seventh century BC and excavated by Henry Layard in the early 20th century.

The Gilgamesh Epic







Gilgamesh is Nimrod

Model of ancient ziggurat.


How does Gilgamesh compare with “Nimrod?” Josephus says of Nimrod,




Nimrod was mighty in hunting, and that in opposition to YHVH; not “before YHVH” in the sense of according to the will and purpose of YHVH, still less, . . . in a simply superlative sense . . . The name itself, “Nimrod” from marad, “we will revolt,” points to some violent resistance to God . . . Nimrod as a mighty hunter founded a powerful kingdom; and the founding of this kingdom is shown by the verb with vav consecutive, to have been the consequence or result of his strength in hunting, so that hunting was intimately connected with the establishing of the kingdom. Hence, if the expression “a mighty hunter” relates primarily to hunting in the literal sense, we must add to the literal meaning the figurative signification of a “hunter of men” (a trapper of men by stratagem and force); Nimrod the hunter became a tyrant, a powerful hunter of men (Keil and Delitzsch 1975: 165).

“in the face of YHVH can only mean “in defiance of YHVH,” as Josephus and the Targums understand it (op. cit.: 166).


Often attributed to Nimrod, the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) was not a Jack and the Beanstalk type of construction, where people were trying to build a structure to get into heaven. Instead, it is best understood as an ancient ziggurat (Assyrian “mountaintop”), as the one pictured here from ancient Ur of the Chaldees, Abraham’s hometown (Genesis 11:31). A ziggurat was a man-made structure with a temple at its top, built to worship the host of heaven.


Our English translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 10:8-10 is weak. The author of this passage of Scripture will not call Gilgamesh by his name and honor him, but is going to call him by a derisive name, what he really is — a rebel. Therefore we should translate Genesis 10:8-10 to read,

Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a tyrant in the earth. He was a tyrannical hunter in opposition to the Lord. Thus it is said, “Nimrod the tyrannical opponent of YHVH.”

Likewise, Gilgamesh was a man who took control by his own strength. In Genesis 10 Nimrod is presented as a type of him. Nimrod’s descendants were the ones who began building the tower in Babel where the tongues were changed. Gilgamesh is a type of early city founders. (Page numbers below are from Heidel 1963)


He is a “shepherd” ……………… page 18 From Uruk ……………………….. page 17  (Kramer 1959: 31 calls Uruk, Erech.) A giant …………………………….. page 17  (11 cubits) Builds cities ………………………. page 17 Vile man “takes women” ……… page 18 Mighty hunter ……………………. page 18


Gilgamesh Confronts YHVH!




Putting the Bible and the Gilgamesh Epic Together


The Gilgamesh Epic describes the first “God is Dead” movement. In the Epic, the hero is a vile, filthy, perverted person, yet he is presented as the greatest, strongest, hero that ever lived. (Heidel 1963: 18). So that the one who sent the Flood will not trouble them anymore, Gilgamesh sets out to kill the perpetrator. He takes with him a friend who is a monstrous half-man, half-animal — Enkidu. Together they go on a long journey to the Cedar Mountain to find and destroy the monster who sent the Flood. Gilgamesh finds him and finally succeeds in cutting off the head of the creature whose name is “Huwawa” (“Humbaba” in the Assyrian version; see Heidel 1963: 34ff).


“If I fall,” Gilgamesh says, “I will establish a name for myself. ‘Gilgamesh is fallen,’ they will say, ‘in combat with terrible Huwawa.'”



Why do we say that? Because Genesis 10:9 gives us the portion missing from the Gilgamesh tablets. Those lines include… “it is said, Nimrod (or Gilgamesh) the mighty vanquisher of YHVH.” This has to be what is missing from all the clay tablets of the Gilgamesh story. The Gilgamesh Epic calls him Huwawa; the Bible calls Him YHVH.









What a contrast Psalm 2 is compared with the Gilgamesh Epic!




Ancient Egyptian and Nahuatl

Published November 3, 2015 by amaic


Does the Name ‘Senenmut’ Reflect the Hebrew ‘Solomon’?


Part Two:

Egyptian and Nahuatl



 Damien F. Mackey


This short Part Two is not primarily about Senenmut.

It is really about the close similarity between ancient Egyptian and Nahuatl.  

Nahuatl appears to add the letter “l” which is uncommon in Egyptian, as noted in Part One in relation to the Egyptian, “Senenmut”, representing Hebrew “Shelomith” (or Solomon).


“One very obvious characteristic of the nahuatl language is the extensive use of the letter “l” in most of the words, either as ending to the words or juxtaposed to consonants and vowels within the words. One of the very apparent characteristics of the ancient Egyptian language is the almost total absence of the use of the letter “l” within most of its word-concepts. The letter “l” appears as an ending of words only a handful of times in E.A. Wallis Budge’s work, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. It would appear that this very dissimilar characteristic between these two languages would discourage anyone from considering a comparative analysis of possible linguistic correspondence between these two very apparently distinct idioms”.

Thus writes Charles William Johnson, in his fascinating article:

Linguistic Correspondence: Nahuatl and Ancient Egyptian


According to Johnson:

In our more detailed analyses of the possible correspondence among words of the ancient Egyptian language and nahuatland maya, we have seen that some word-concepts are almost exactly the same in phonetic values. Furthermore, the maya glyphs and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs share extremely common designs in similar/same word-concepts.

Today, the idea of linguistic correspondence among the Indo-European languages is a widespread fact. From the still unknown Indo-European mother language it is thought came Sanskrit (and the contemporary languages of Pakistan and India); Persian; and Greek, Latin (and many contemporary European languages). The correspondence of similar/same words among the Latin languages is quite visible, with Spanish words, for example, resembling those of French, Italian and Portuguese. English resembles the Teutonic ones, such as, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages.

On the other hand, no apparent linguistic correspondence has been observed between ancient Egyptian and languages such as nahuatl or maya, at least to any significant scholarly degree. In the aforementioned essay, we have examined numerous correspondences between word-concepts (and some glyphs) between the ancient Egyptian language and the maya system. The word for day name in maya is ahau, which means place or time in ancient Egyptian. Hom is ballcourt in maya; hem means little ball in ancient Egyptian. Ik means air in maya ; to suspend in the air is ikh in ancient Egyptian. Nichim signifies flower in maya; nehem means bud, flower in ancient Egyptian. And so on, for hundreds of word-concepts that we have examined in the comparison of these two languages.

When similar kinds of linguistic correspondences were perceived by William Jones, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, between Sanskrit and other languages, such examples were sufficient to convince scholars that all of those languages probably came from a mother tongue, the Indo-European language. Today, when linguistic correspondence is observed between the ancient Mesoamerican languages and ancient Egyptian, scholars are unwilling or hesitant to accept the idea that the same laws of linguistics may apply. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no historical basis for considering the possibility that the peoples of these different languages had any physical contact among themselves. Physical contact among the peoples who descended from the Indo-European family is established by historical data. There is no obvious historical data to think that the peoples of ancient Mesoamerica and the peoples of ancient Egypt ever met or came into physical contact with one another.

Nevertheless, historical data aside for the moment, let us examine some of the obvious examples of linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and the ancient Egyptian language.


However, as we eliminate the letter “l” from the nahuatl words, the remaining phonemes (listed in brackets) resemble the phonemes and morphemes of ancient Egyptian in many cases. Let us offer only a few of such examples to consider a possible linguistic correspondence between these two fascinating systems of human speech.

Nahuatl Egyptian
canoe ACAL [aca-] AQAI boat (page 139b from Budge’s work cited above)
reed ACATL[acat-] AQ AKHAH-T reed (139b) reed (8a)
a well AMELLI [ame-i] AMAM place with water in them, wells (121b)
house CALLI [ca-i] KA house (783a)

COATL [coat-]



snake (30b)


Linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and ancient Egyptian appears to represent a smoking gun; that is, a trace of evidence that these two peoples did enjoy some kind of contact between themselves ages ago. The fact that we have no real evidence of said contact, or that we have been unable to find any such evidence, should not serve as the basis for denying the possibility of that contact. To attribute all of these similarities in sound, symbol and meaning to mere happenstance seems to be a very unscientific way of resolving an annoying issue. To admit the possibility of physical contact between these cultures has implications for our own interpretation of history and the aspect of technological development of our societies. Such fears are unfounded, given the already obvious fact that our technical know-how could probably not reproduce and build something as majestic as the Great Pyramid.

[End of quote]

It is probably as a result of the evolutionary view of things – according to which human beings sprang up from lower animal forms, all in their various places – that anthropologists and historians are unable to make the obvious connections between cultures of similar types, that shared language characteristics, pyramid building technology, and hieroglyphics, to name just a few common features.

The wise King Solomon’s (Senenmut’s?) view of human origins was quite different from this, and far more enlightened, I believe:

“For God created man to be immortal,

and made him to be an image

of his own eternity.”

Wisdom of Solomon 2:23

Philistines and Persians. Part Four

Published October 22, 2015 by amaic


Velikovsky and those ‘Peleset’

 Part Four: The Cherethites


Damien F. Mackey





JewishEncyclopedia is of this opinion (






[End of quote]


Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac



we learned that the biblical pharaoh:


Which means that:

This particular pharaoh must have reigned for at least 60+ years

(the span from Abram’s

famine to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah).


We have also learned from archaeological analysis (see that:




[End of quote]


King David’s Philistine Contingent




David as Cadmus (Part One)



