The Buxter

With regards to whether or not the Sumerian Kings List dates the reign by "months" or "years" I think it is pretty obvious that it is years. The closer it gets to the actual time of the writing, the more realistic the life spans of the kings get and it mentions some of the time-spans in years, months and days.

(there is a translation of it here)

It seems to be pretty normal that myths about ancient cultural heroes gets very long life spans, which then gets more and more realistic the closer their supposed deeds gets to the actual writing of the text.

The Evil One

That was my understanding as well, but I didn't have a source so I didn't make the claim.

It is also my understanding that in the early part of the list the numbers are given in larger units than a year -- e.g. blocks of 3,600 years (Alulim's reign would thus be 8 of them) -- and these are converted to years in the translation. But again, I don't have a source for this to hand, so I won't offer this as a claim.

Dave Hawkins

(a) I treat the Sumerian king list just as critically as I treat Genesis

(b) I don't how else to explain this ... we would have very little knowledge of the events of history were it not for written records. Yes, they can be flawed. But they are in a class by themselves (that is, better) than any other type of artifact. What's amazing to me is that this is not obvious to everyone.

Faid

Bad, bad analogy, dave. And devastating to your "argument".
You see, many decades ago, paleontologists would also think the idea of "feathered dinosaurs" would be an absurd one...

...Until they started discovering them.

See dave, the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs is not something "evilutionists" came up with while drunk in a "hail darwin" meeting one night (as much as you'd like to think so. )

No dave. EVIDENCE came, and smacked them upside the head.

So, what does the EVIDENCE tell us about your claims, dave?

Why, it tells us that, not only people in the past did not live for millenia, but in fact, usually lived less than we do today.

Game over, dave. Thanks for playing.

Any other insights you'd like to share?

Sauron

So you believe these Sumerian kings lived for 10,000 years?

Kinda makes Methuselah look like a trivial youngster, doesn't it?

Try using some evidence to back up the claim - that's always a good start.

Says who? You?

Calisseia has already explained why your claim is wrong.

The nice thing about archaeological evidence is that it can be tested. A written text without any supporting evidence is actually the weakest possible claim.

The reason it isn't obvious is because it isn't true.

Dave Hawkins

It seems I remember reading something about the Sumerian King list being in Base 60 or some such thing. Here's a link on the Sumerians and Base 60. http://www.psinvention.com/zoetic/base60.htm I have not calculated to see if this brings the list in line with Genesis or not.

The Evil One

Excellent. That is a commendable stance. That being the case, I am sure you will be able to explain why you put credence in claims of people living ~1,000 years (as per Genesis) but not in claims of people living ~40,000 years (as per the SKL).

Personally, I think both sets of claims are mythological, but since you don't, you have some explaining to do.


You are wrong. There is no other way to put this.

Let's say we have a King Fred, otherwise unknown to history, who is claimed to have reigned from 750 to 736 BC. Which of the following is STRONGER evidence for this claim?

(a) the following statement in a religious text, the oldest surviving copy of which dates from circa 325 AD: "And Fred was 170 years of age, and he became king; this was the fourth year after the great battle of Kneb. And Fred begat Archie. And Fred reigned fourteen years, and then he died."

(b) a coin with Fred's name and a face on it, found in the city Fred is purported to have ruled, buried in a layer of ash which carbon-dates to 725BC +/- 50 years?

What do you think? Which is stronger evidence for Fred?

Since this isn't a game show, I will tell you the answer: (b) is MUCH, MUCH stronger evidence. If we only had (a), we would be justified in reserving judgement on whether Fred existed or not. (The existence of a king is a non-extraordinary claim, but the claim that a king ascended at age 170 is an extraordinary claim.) However, (b) establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Fred lived and ruled at roughly the time he is claimed to, though we would still be justifiably scepitcal about his age at ascension.

I am guessing, from your earlier statements on the evidential weight of ancient written testimony, that your instinct was to pick (a). This is wrong, however. If you do not understand why, you seriously need to study historical and archaeological methods.

The Evil One

Erm, the base that a number is expressed in doesn't change the value of the number. If you were going to argue (for instance) that Alulim's 28,800 year reign was actually circa 900 years (as per Genesis) you would have to argue that the unit commonly interpreted as indicating 3600 actually refers to 125. Good luck with that.

Faid

I think the Evil One summed it up quite nicely, dave. We've had this conversation before, though, and I'm afraid you will ignore his valid points the same way you did back then. But one can only hope.

Anyway, I think that this is as good an opportunity as any, to clarify your stance once and for all.

Dave,
What is your own, personal criteria to distinguish between "accurate historical records" and myths?

You do believe myths exist, right?

Please answer this simple question.

Roger Pearse

Yes, I was aware that Sumerian is not Semitic; that's why I asked whether the document was in that language. In view of the demise of that culture at a very ancient date, I presume that at least some of the material from it is in later languages, all of which must be Semitic.

But if no-one knows, then we can't proceed. Do you have any other information on the Sumerian king lists? Any kind of source that I can follow up?

All the best,

Roger Pearse