Feedback and Discussion on The Six Days of Creation

Please leave any feedback to The Six Days of Creation in the Comment box below. After moderation, a reply, if necessary, will appear on this same page. Thank you. (Most recent feedback is at the bottom of the page.) Note: the Bible Resource can be found at the following link:


  1. regarding exploding the Nimrod and Semiramis myth of many Christian writers, great work in one place.

    But regarding the LXX, it seems to have been translated in segments, originally only the Torah and the other parts later. This was from a Temple Scroll, predating the Masoretic text developed under Rabbi Akiva who violently hated Christianity and tweaked some things in Psalms that were often used to convert Jews to make them less usable. The text the Masoretes used was flawed according to something in the Talmud, they merely froze it without additional errors, and shortening the ages at which patriarchs reproduced would have encouraged Jews to breed earlier. I would trust the LXX more than the Masoretic where there is a dispute. The Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah and others often agrees more with the LXX than the Masoretic, sometimes with neither.

  2. Thank you and God bless you for your comments. I disagree totally with your conclusions, however. I see from your blogs that you are Greek Orthodox by persuasion, which explains your preference for the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a fine “Greek Targum”: meaning, a Greek interpretation of the Hebrew (more literal in the Pentateuch). However, some of the texts, if not most, or even all, were altered and interpolated in the early ages of Christianity, according to the pre-Nicene fathers. Origen’s text of the Hebrew in the Hexapla is the original Hebrew text, but most of that has been lost or destroyed. Origen’s text was translated into Latin by Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercelli, being disciples of the Cappadocian fathers, the disciples of Origen. Jerome cribbed these latter to produce the Vulgate Latin translation, but miserably altered and mutilated it in places to accord with Roman theological prejudices. However, the basic Vulgate text (mainly Hilary’s and Eusebius’), which agrees with the Masoretic form by and large, shows this was Origen’s text. These points and others are discussed on this site at the following places:
    Also, see the following (paragraph 626.21) on the chronology of the present texts of the Septuagint which is adapted to the Egyptian pagan system: para. 626.21.
    PS. I find the reference to “Jews breeding younger” to be disrespectful to God’s chosen nation, the Jews. Unfortunately there is a tendency in the large established cults (including the Western or Roman Catholic, so-called, and the Eastern or Orthodox Catholic, so-called) for anti-Semitism to infect theology.

  3. I’ve been studying the six days of creation for some time now. I’m a seeker of historical truth; with all the misinformation and disinformation out there it is not easy to find. Your information makes good sense. My question is about the location of Atlantis. In an earlier version of six days it was listed as located on the edge of the continental shelf south-west of the British Isles. Now it seems it is located in a much different area. How did this change come about?

  4. Thank you for your interest in this important Biblical topic. As you can see from the information given in the Six Days of Creation, Atlantis is the city of Enoch (Enoch = Greek “Atlas”) described in the Bible as having been built originally by Cain and named after his son. The Greeks got this story from the Egyptians, who described Atlantis as having been located in the “now sunken land” surrounding the continent west of the Straits of Gibraltar (in the “Atlantic Ocean” named after Atlas/Atlantis). The specific parts of the sunken continental shelf nearest the Straits are factually those around the coast of Britain, France, Spain etc., and that is why I located Atlantis there in earlier versions of the Six Days. Indeed it WAS there, because Atlantis was a “state” or what the Greeks called a “polis” — that is, a city state — rather than a city per se, as we understand the term. It was a (very large) state centered on a city. In fact, the city itself, according to the ancient sources quoted in the Six Days later versions, was located in “India” (which included Sri Lanka), but the state covered a vast area on the now sunken continental shelf of what formed a single vast super-continent in the Ice Ages, stretching from India via America (joined at the Bering Straits) all the way over to the coastal areas of Europe. The center of power in the ages c. 10000 BC was the American continent, but the Atlantians advanced from there, via adjoining coastal regions in the Atlantic into Europe, making it truly a global civilization. The latter enterprise was thwarted by the inhabitants of what we now know as Athens. (Plato Timaeus, Critias.) So yes Atlantis was a Stone Age civilization which spread mainly by sea, along the coastal rims of Asia, America and Europe, including those regions around the present coastland of Britain, with a larger urban or semi-urban center somewhere around Cadiz in Spain, lately investigated by archaeologists. There were two power centers, however, a “lesser” one being around Greece and Turkey, and nearer Asia, which opposed the invading Atlantian power from the Americas. To this group, probably, belonged such places as Gobekli Tepe, Catal Huyuk and Jericho etc.

    UPDATE (01/25/20):
    PS: you can find on the updated pages of Six Days of Creation the latest information on the site of Atlantis: that is, its central area was located in Sri Lanka, as noted above, but because the planet earth was tilted back in the prediluvian era to the north and west compared to its present position in space, the location of that zone (by geographical co-ordinates) was then in the Atlantic Ocean west of Gibraltar. Hence the belief that Atlantis was located just outside the straits of Gibraltar. Likewise in those days the near-eastern Levantine lands whither Cain migrated was located where the present American continent is (in the sense of its position by geographical co-ordinates), hence the belief that the people of that era lived in the Americas. Similarly the region of Indo-China (called “Cham” in Medieval times) where the faithful patriarchs of Adam’s line settled, was located where Athens and Greece is now, hence the belief that Athens and the Greeks attempted to thwart the oppressive regime of Atlantis. The prediluvian destruction tilted the earth to the south and east (as recorded by Plato [reference to earthquakes and floods, Phaethon, different geographical appearance of Athens, etc.] and in Chinese accounts of Nu-wa [Noah]) resulting in the present situation with Sri Lanka in the southern hemisphere, the Levant in the Near East and Indo-China in the Indian Ocean. The link with diagrams of the prediluvian globe illustrating the polar shift is:, and following paragraphs.

  5. I have recently completed a timeline of the Old Testament using the times and ages as given in the Bible. It is done on MS Excel, using the spreadsheet program to do the calculations, and dates from the fall of Jerusalem to the first human year of Adam with minimum and maximum possible dates. My dates differ somewhat from yours, generally being a little older. For example, converting the Biblical years to Gregorian years calculates the year of the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, to the Exodus in 1483 BC, to the Flood in 2482 BC, and to the first human year of Adam at 4116 BC and his death at 930 Biblical years old in 3199 BC. I did this because of the variations I’ve seen in carbon-datings. It seems there are quite a few different opinions…

  6. Blessings to you in Jesus. a good idea to do it yourself! I think, perhaps where we may differ, from what you have said, is over the dating of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel between Solomon and the Exile. I recommend Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, on this period, as he shows how overlaps occurred because of the different ways of reckoning reigns. You are right about the carbon datings. The variations are because of so-called “calibration” which is a way of “correcting” the figures given by simple radiocarbon analysis to accord more with other “historical” reconstructions! Obviously that is circular reasoning, and if we accept the simple uncalibrated radiocarbon dates for the third millennium BC we find they accord perfectly with the Biblical chronology, as I show in the Six Days.

  7. Thanks for your help, I appreciate it. Calculating the overlaps in Judges was a job in itself! But regardless of how they are calculated, it was 480 years from the Exodus to the start of the temple in Solomon’s reign. If the temple was begun in 1010 that would put the Exodus in 1483. I didn’t find any overlaps in Kings so I assume those years were consecutive. That’s how I came up with the date of 1010. Is that close to what you have?

  8. Blessings in Jesus. You are right about the difficulty of using the figures in Judges to work out absolute dates. Of course they weren’t intended for that purpose. The correct way, as you say, is by using the period of 480 years from the building of the Temple. To get the right start-point you have to have a reliable set of figures for the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel in Kings and Chronicles, and that’s where Thiele comes in, as he correctly links up the apparently “contradictory” figures for the various reigns by pointing out co-regencies, accession dating etc. That results in a date for the construction of the Temple in the 4th year of Solomon = 967/966 BC, the Temple being started in the month following the Passover 966 BC. That results in a very clear and precise date for the Exodus in 1446 BC (inclusive reckoning 480 years inclusive before 966 BC). The details are given at the following link on this site:, especially section B. Also more fully:

  9. I was looking at “101.17. Excerpta Barbari, 20b-22b” here:

    It seems to be a quote, but I can’t find it anywhere else on the internet. Searching “Excerpta Barbari” showed that the phrase means “barbarian excerpts”. I couldn’t find more. I searched all afternoon for more phrases, for any clue I could find, and nothing turned up. I couldn’t even find the author name or copyright for the “Six Days of Creation” pdf. I found a text by Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), but it doesn’t seem to be the same. Where did that information come from? Was it a translation of an older work? Was it from a book that got published somewhere? The question that led me to your page was to do with the relationship between Semiramis and Rhea.

  10. Blessings in Jesus! The bibliographical details of the Excerpta Barbari are given at paragraph 94 of the Six Days of Creation on this site at this link: It reads there as follows: “The Latin chronicle named from its description by Scaliger the “Excerpta Barbari” (MS. Paris. 4884. s.VII/VIII, ed. Schoene, Euseb. Chron. I [Berl. 1875], Append. VI, ed. Frick, Chronica Minora, vol. I, Leipzig, 1892) …..” That gives you the references to the editions containing the Latin of the Excerpta Barbari. The translation in the online page you refer to is my own. I am the author of the Six Days of Creation on this site (Richard T. Dodds). Please ask here if you have any other questions.

  11. You are a smart dude, Brother Richard. I look forward to verifying your evidence. Keep using what the Lord gave you.

  12. Shalom! I have got a degree — D.D. (Dumb Dude) so that probably doesn’t meet your description! Thanks for the kind words, always nice to get a boost and I appreciate your ascription of the work to the Lord Jesus — that’s high praise indeed. If you find any contradictions errors etc. please let me know. Thanks and God bless you.

  13. My 2c worth on the name Phanos for the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham as per Bar Hebraeus and the Arabic Tutis, Utis etc listed in “33. Appendix 4: The Story of Isis and Osiris”. I see these as completely spurious names which simply derive from the title Pharoah (Hebrew Par`oh) used in Genesis for him) via a series of idiosyncratic transliterations and scribal errors:

    Josephus renders Hebrew Par`oh in Greek as “Pharaoth(es)” typically strengthening the final Hebrew letter “he” (h) to a Greek theta when applying Greek grammatical suffixes to it. He uses this name not only for the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham but also for the one who was the father-in-law of Solomon, indicating that all kings of Egypt up to that point were so named because “Pharao” means king in Egyptian (he leaves out the theta only when giving the standalone form of the word without suffixes). There is no reason to try split Pharaothes into two words, although many have done so producing spurious names.

    In Eusebius the Greek transliteration of Par`oh when referring to the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham appears as Pharethoth(es). If not derived directly from Pharaothes via scribal error this would simply be an alternative transliteration scheme in which the Hebrew ayin has been represented by epsilon theta instead of simply an alpha. Either way it is simply a form of the word Pharaoh.

    Arab historians such as Ibn Abd Al Hakam (or his sources) misunderstood this and misinterpret the first two syllables Phare- as representing “Pharaoh” by themselves and the “-thothes” part as being a name and produced the spurious name Tutis for the Pharaoh. A scribal error occurring in manuscripts of Abulfeda in which the second letter Ta became a lam produced the spurious name Tulis for this Pharaoh. A similar scribal error going back to Al Yaqubi where instead the first Ta becomes a lam and the ya fell away produced the spurious name Loutas or Lotis (with short i) repeated by Masudi. Incorrect attempts to reconcile Masudi and Al Hakam produce the spurious form Lotis with long i. In Abu al-Makarim an alternative scribal error changed the initial Ta to an alif producing the spurious form Utis.

    To make things worse even if the form Pharethothes in Eusebius is a deliberate spelling choice and not a scribal error, what is certainly an error occured in one line of manuscripts turning the second theta into a nu producing the spurious name Pharethon(es). Similar to how the Arab historians misunderstood Pharethothes, Goodhugh and Taylor produce the spurious name Pharaoh Thones from this. We also find the spurious English form Pharetho which is non-commital on which version of Eusebius to follow.

    As the section in Bar Hebraeus mentioning this Pharaoh seems to be derived ultimately from Eusebius (it similarly only names the 4 Hyksos Pharaohs that Eusebius does) in my opinion, the name Phanos is a similar spurious name to the ones discussed above. Bar Hebraeus or his source has seemingly used a Latin version of Eusebius derived from the line of manuscripst having the Pharethon(es) form, rendered in Latin as “Pareton(us)” which has perhaps undergone a further scribal error of the t changing to an f or simply being misread as as an f in transliterating to Syriac producing a spurious Parefonus misinterpreted as Pharaoh “Fanus” (Phanos).

    What then is the real name for the Pharoah of Abraham? Bedford says he is Janias – also ultimately a scribal error for what was Jannas in Josephus’s extract of Manetho, which is also a scribal mess up for what seems to have originally been Siaan in Manetho’s original. Bedford gets this from Ussher who aligns Abrahams visit to Egypt with this Pharaoh. (Although often the mistake is made that Ussher identified Apophis as the Pharoah – he does not, he merely names the palace as being the same one as that of Apophis whom Ussher following Josephus places prior to Janias.) Ussher’s alignment of Siaan/Janias with Abraham can not be fully explained by calculations on various recorded periods, but seems to be based on the Arabian writers whose works he was certainly aware and even mentions. Here in Al-Tabari and Abulfeda the name Sinaan is given for the Pharaoh and it is indicated that he was from what would later become the Arabian lands implying that he was a Hyksos. Siaan/Janias is the only plausible match for the Arabic name amongst the Hyksos names and perhaps this is Usshers ultimate soucre for the alignment. Siaan is of course the Pharaoh Suesenere Khyan. The identification of Abraham’s Pharaoh with Khyan is corroborated by the Book of Jasher giving the name as “Rikayon” which is compared to ([Susene]re Khyan) independent of Ussher and Al-Tabari. Malalus gives the name of the Pharaoh as “Neracho” which is recognized as being a variation on but not plausibly the source of the name Rikayon in Jasher and indeed it too appears to derive from ([Suse]nere Khya[n]). Josephus gives the name Necho for the Pharaoh, here recognizable as a shortening of the same name Neracho used by Malalus, but prior and independent of Malalus. Jasher also indicates that he came from the land of Shinar implying he was a Hyksos king. Thus several sources indicate Suesenere Khyan as the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham, which ties in with the Book of Sothis identifying the Pharaoh of Joseph with Apophus who in sources other than Josephus came after Khyan and presumabley after the latter’s son Yanassi who appears to be Manetho’s Assis (garbled to Aseth or Archles in some manuscripts and perhaps being confounded with Siaan to produce the Jannas form in Josephus for his father). (The Book of Sothis has a line which attempts to identify the Pharaoh of Abraham, but it is contained in a section that has an entirely misplaced list of Pharaohs from a much later period, appearing spuriously next to the name Ramessameno for one of the Pharaohs named Rameses.)

  14. Thank you my friend for your observations (2c). Unhappily that’s all they’re worth, as in almost every case you ignore the textual evidence and rely on “scribal errors” to explain away the forms of the names, and then on a very late historian (Bedford) whose speculations you unreasonably hold to. The various points that you make are actually addressed in Six Days of Creation section 33, and in each case you will see I use the textual evidence rather than rely on speculative hypotheses. The Sirius Cycle evidence that I adduce you do not even mention. The 15 kings of that Cycle, recoverable from the Syriac sources, and from the Arabic legends, feature the Pharaoh contemporary with Abraham towards the end of that list, and that makes him a king during the later Old Kingdom, not the Hyksos period. No ancient source makes Abraham’s Pharaoh a member of the Hyksos, though they all do in the case of Joseph’s Pharaoh (Aphophis). The title Pharaoh is very common in the LXX and New Testament and is universally spelled Pharao, not Pharaothes. Josephus also attests the form Pharaon Pharaones for Pharaoh. You must explain the form ending in theta +, and that is adequately done by comparing the Coptic/Arabic Tutis (variant Tulis). For the reasons given in Six Days this can only be Teti (Dynasty V/VI). The form Tulis is not a mistake but a legitimate variant, the form being confirmed by its being employed as the eponymus of Thule (Ultima Thule etc.) in the ancient sources. I would point out that the chronology of the Sirius Cycle recovered in the Six Days account (which was Manetho’s source), coincides precisely with the chronology of the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures, and the uncalibrated radiocarbon chronology of the third millennium BC. (The calibration by tree rings is being abandoned in the academic community as it is proving unreliable.)

  15. HI,

    Josephus also uses Pharaothes for the Pharaoh of Moses besides the father in law of Solomon and the one at the time of Abraham. In only one case there are variant spellings in different manuscripts of Josephus with one having Pharaothes, one Pharaones and one having Pharao, Since Josephus states that all kings of Egypt were call Pharaothese, its clear that the first is the correct manuscript and that the term does not refer just to one particular Pharaoh. To my mind the ending theta is explained by Josephus following the pattern that occurs in Hebrew where a final Hebrew “he” turns into a “tav” when suffixes are added.

    As for the Arabic forms, the form “Tulis” definitely originates from Abulfeda as it occurs in some manuscript variants but others had “Tutis”. Similarly “Loutas” is first attested in Al Yaqubi but his material is of common origin with Abd Al Hakam who has “Tutis” and was slightly earlier. (Lotis with long i exists only in a modern redaction of Masudi.) The Utis of Abu Al-Makarim is derived ultimately from Al Hakam who had Tutis. So there are indeed numerous scribal errors occurring, not only with Tutis but with the other names for Pharaohs according to the Arabic historians. Their post-diluvium Pharaohs are merely city names followed by Calcan (recognizable as Manetho’s Kenkenes) and then followed by the Pharaoh of Abraham the only source for the name Tutis for him being Eusebius’ Pharethothes but the name Sinaan being a name for him from an independent tradition.

    Although no ancient source explicitly calls Abraham’s Pharaoh a Hyksos, Josephus’ extract of Manetho places the early days of the Hebrews during the Hyksos rule with Manetho treating the Hebrews as merely a part of the Hyksos. Masudi notes that Egypt was ruled by Amalekites and other Asiatics (“primitive Arabs”) and he places Abraham’s Pharaoh between native Pharaohs and the Pharoah of Joseph whom he calls an Amalekite implying that he was one of the other Asiatic Pharaohs or an earlier Amalekite Pharaoh. Others such as Abulfeda trace the Pharaoh of Abraham back to the ancestor of the Amalekites (which in the Arabic texts is a broader category than just the Edomite clan of Amalekite and includes Amorites and Canaanites.) The Book of Jasher also makes him Asiatic.

    To throw another 2c in (use or don’t use), the Aftutis of Abu Al-Makarim is never stated to be the same as his Utis except by Butler et al in the 19th century who assume it is. Abu Al-Makrim’s reference to Aftutis is from Agapius (whom he calls Mahbub). A manuscript variant of the latter has Antutis instead of Aftutis. My understanding is that this is the same Pharaoh who appears as Aphintos in Bar Hebraeus, not the Pharaoh at the time of Abraham – indeed Bar Hebraeus has relied on Agapius here and Aphintos is yet another variant of Aftutis. (Abu Al Makarim seems to think this Pharaoh lived at the time of Isaac but he has misread the passage in Agapius which indeed mentions Isaac but when he says “at this time” he in fact refers to a broad period discussed in the previous paragraphs covering many generations which Bar Hebraeus correctly understood.) Who this Pharoah is I have no idea.

    Your identification of Bar Hebraeus’ Panouphis with Menes is something I definitely agree with. Here again manuscripts are plagued with scribal errors. The Cave of Treasures has further corrupted this name to Puntos and the Book of the Bee renders it Yanouph, but the most accurate form seems to be Agapius who has Manouphis. This is recognizably based on the Egyptian name for Memphis and its use for Menes suggests a view that the name Menes was a shortening of the name of the city.

    I see Sonos and Pharoan Bar-Sonos of Bar Hebraeus as Sesostris and his son “Pheron” (i.e. Pharoah) of Herodotus, corresponding to the Sesostris and his son Libaros/Licharos of Manetho and identified as Senusret III and his son Nibmaatre.

    As for the Apiphanyos of Bar Hebraeus – again we see scribal errors as variants of Michael the Syrian have Eupipaphios or Eupropis. Here I would consider the possibility that Eupipaphios is the most accurate of these and that this is the same as the Apappus of Eratosthenes (corresponding to the Phiops of Manetho) and this would be the Pharaoh Pepi II.

    Rgds, Colin

  16. Shalom! Again you disregard the detailed textual arguments in the Six Days of Creation and focus on poor Arabic manuscript evidence, scribal errors etc. Please answer the points I raised about the reconstructed Sirius Cycle of 15 Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Pharaohs according to the majority of the Syriac and Arabic writers, with the Abrahamic Pharaoh towards the end of the list. Arabic manuscripts are notoriously unreliable in the transmission of ancient names, unpointed text, etc. etc., so that there are wild variations in some manuscripts is irrelevant. That is why, for example, I used Kircher’s summary of the Arabic tradition at the end of the Medieval period, because it summarized the accounts of a multitude of Arabic witnesses, one hopefully balancing the other in order to give a moderately accurate version of the names. What you have in Josephus is an anomalous form of the name Pharaoth including a theta, which is not found commonly elsewhere, and that makes it likely that this anomalous form is based on the name of the first Pharaoh so called in the Scriptures, viz. the Abrahamic Pharaoh. The theta is confirmed by pre-Arabic sources (Malalas and related texts), which shows the name Thulis (with Thule the geographical name allegedly formed from it) as a very early form of the name, corresponding to the Coptic Tutis. The Copts (pre-Islamic) based their tradition on native Egyptian sources reworked by the Greeks in the Hellenistic era. This name clearly goes back at least that far. You are indulging in wild speculation regarding the identity of the Pharaohs you name, whilst at the same time clinging to the belief that the textual forms attested are wholly unreliable. You can’t have it both ways. To take the name Bar-sonos and arbitrarily see in it the Pheron of Herodotus because of a very insubstantial similarity in the initial syllables is to indulge in historical obscurantism. In fact, your approach seems to be wholly obscurantist. You reject, a priori, any attempt at bringing order and clarity out of the ancient evidence and obsess instead on the scribal corruption. That is not a way to go forward. Peace and blessings in Jesus.

  17. Hi, sorry for not answering all your points in detail. A feedback comment box is not the best place to enter detailed discussions. I am a great admirer of your site and find I agree with many of your arguments in your articles, the ones I mentioned are the few where I disagree. Although even here I have to say that over the many years that I have been interested in the subject by opinions have changed many times as I have encountered new evidence and arguments – once I also felt that Pharaothes was based on a particular early Pharaoh although it is not my current view. My view is not that the texts are wholly unreliable but that where variants exist in manuscripts one has to carefully trace their history and compare with the sources the author used in order to obtain his original intended form. The suggestions I have made regarding Bar-Sonos etc are all suggestions that can be found made by other historians as well. One point I will address off hand here is that the Thulis of Malalus is not his name for Abraham’s Pharaoh in Malalus which is instead Naracho/Neracho. The only connection I see between this name and the variant Tulis for Tutis the Pharaoh of Abraham in a line of manuscripts of Abulfeda is that knowledge of it might have influenced the form.

    Rgds Colin

  18. Thanks Colin for the points made. However you say: “sorry for not answering all your points in detail. A feedback comment box is not the best place to enter detailed discussions.” All I am looking for is the same amount of detail given to largely irrelevant manuscript variants given instead to the main point of the Six Days account, which is: a reconstruction of the so-called Sirius Cycle underlying Manetho, preserved partially in the Syriac and later in the Arabic traditions. This is what will lead most securely to an identification of the Pharaoh(s) of Abraham — I say Pharaoh(s) because as you probably realize I claim there were two involved with Abraham, Neferirkare (Nakheros/Narakho etc. of the Greek accounts) and Teti (Tutis/Tulis of the Greek/Coptic/Arabic tradition), vying for first place in Dynasty V. The method to follow is to reconstruct as accurately as we can with the limited evidence available the ancient pagan tradition(s), noting how that material was linked with the Biblical account in the post-Biblical period, then seeing how the resulting combination matches other historical and archaeological evidence. This is a logical, historical process, and is much better than attempting to reconstruct the supposedly “original” form of poorly preserved names in ancient king lists and discordant legendary or semi-historical accounts.

  19. Please check out my newest map project in progress here, and let me know what you think. This shows what might be called “a Creationist view of history”, as I have synchronized everything through careful study. Your website was useful so I am letting you know first.


  20. Thank you for your positive comments on the Six Days of Creation. I like your map project. Very interesting, and nice to see a sensible timeline based on traditional historical sources, not on the pseudo-history/archaeology “invented” by academia. A positive criticism would be that you have mixed archaeologically attested names and events from the second and first millennia BC with names and events drawn from much later traditional sources. The latter of course give a better “overview” as it were of the early history, but I wouldn’t treat them as equally valid on a one-to-one basis or mix them indiscriminately.

  21. Eusebius, listing the kings of Argos, represents the reign of Eurystheus as coming immediately after Acrisius, but we know from Pausanius and Appolodorus there were several more kings there in between during the Mycenean age, after Perseus founded Mycenae.
    Jerome similarly, does not account for these omitted kings in his annals, showing only an 8 year interval between Acrisius and Eurysthenes. Eusebius and Jerome’s calculations are said to be based on now-lost Castor.
    The ultimate source for Castor must have been a fuller version of the ‘Manethonian supplement’ that included more entries for kings of Argos, etc. I will call this ‘the Master List’, it faithfully recorded the reigns in several polities down to the founding of Rome. But at some point some pages or leaves went missing from the Master List, this is evident because the Manethonian supplement that copied much information from it, obviously jumps in two places. There is a gap preceding the paragraph that begins : “In his 23rd year Caeculus surnamed Saturnus Junior reigns amongst the Aborigines.” This and the preceding paragraph must be from two different kings of Egypt. The second gap is immediately following this paragraph, since the next paragraph is from yet a third Egyptian king. The Egyptian pharaohs by the way, are not shown or synchronized accurately, as we now know, and must have been added into even earlier annals from erroneous calculations, to use as time dividers, but before the pages went missing. The gaps between the preceding and following information from the ‘missing leaves’ correspond exactly to the gap in Eusebius’ list of Argive kings. I discovered this by putting everything on my own timeline, and by my calculations, the missing years are from 1561 BC when Perseus founded Mycenae until 1318 BC when Eurystheus became king there.
    All the available king lists for the rest of Europe have the same gap 1561-1318 BC, because of the missing pages on the ‘Master List’, except Athens and Sicyon.
    There is also a gap in Eusebius’ lists of kings for Athens and Sicyon, but corresponding to the years 1485 BC (the end of Adrastus of Argos’ reign in Sicyon) until about 1215 BC, or 30 years before the Trojan war. The annals of these years for Athens must have been lost or cut out some time before 266 BC, since this same gap is also reflected on the Parian Marble chronicle.

  22. Thank you for your information. The Greek king-lists generally show there were a number of different traditions about the early kings of Argos, as you say. The details are laid out pretty fully in Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici vol. 1. p. 73ff., especially in the notes which quote the sources. What we should do in these circumstances is establish some fixed points in the chronology, if possible, using the more reliable sources. In this category I would put Manetho, who identifies Danaus with Haremheb of Dynasty XVIII. I quote from paragraph 897.2 of the Six Days of Creation section 4: “4) The immediate cause of the migration of Gadel Glas (Gelanor) and his descendants from Greece was an internal feud amongst the Argive kings, which was famous in Greek legend, too. Io, daughter of Iasus, of a collateral line of the kings of Argos, migrated to Egypt. She had a son called Danaus (the “Danaan,” or “Greek,” so called, presumably, because he had a Greek mother), whose Egyptian name, according to the Egyptian historian Manetho, was Haremheb (Harmais). Haremheb is a known Pharaoh of Dynasty XVIII in the latter half of the 14th century BC. The (rival) line of kings who ruled in Argos in the meantime included Sthenelus son of Crotopus, and his son Gelanor. The latter is said by the Irish chroniclers to have traveled to Egypt, also, and there to have fallen in with Moses around the time of the Exodus. That nobility from the Aegean area took up residence in Egypt at precisely this period, and as the Irish chronicles relate, is confirmed by the discovery of magnificent Minoan frescoes in Avaris (Ramesses), which date from the period immediately before the traditional date of the Exodus (1446 BC), and were discovered in the course of the ongoing excavations at the site. A prince called Ramesses, according to Manetho (not the famous Ramesses II), was born at the time of the Exodus, and became known as Aegyptus (“king of Egypt”) in Classical sources, the political rival in Egypt of Danaus-Haremheb. Aegyptus-Ramesses finally expelled Danaus-Haremheb, so Manetho relates, and Danaus-Haremheb then migrated to Argos, the ancestral home of his mother. He ousted Gelanor from the throne of Argos. Gelanor and his family wandered thereafter in the Mediterranean and the environs thereof, and his descendants settled for a time in Spain. Finally they migrated to Ireland. The Irish form of the name Gel-anor was Glas, and he was Gadel Glas, the ancestor of the Gadels or Gaels of Ireland.” The next fixed point is the Trojan War: “See the True Date of the Exodus on this site para. 58c. “Though no reliable dates for the history of Greece can be calculated before the First Olympiad in 776 BC, the traditional chronology of Argos, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (§S-206c, below, >> ), was the most ancient, and that dated Inachus, the contemporary of Moses, to around 400 years before the Trojan War (ibid.). The traditional date of the fall of Troy is c. 1183 (Eratosthenes). Excavations at Troy confirm a destruction layer (Troy VIIa) at precisely this time. The Pharaoh Thuoris who, according to Manetho, was Homer’s Polybus, and reigned in Egypt at the time of Troy’s fall, is the historical Tawaseret of the late XIXth Dynasty. Tawaseret’s 2-8 year sole reign terminated, according to a range of different authorities, c. 1201-1186 BC. These findings strengthen confidence in the traditional date of the fall of Troy, and give credence to the general reliability of the traditional Greek chronologies, such as that of Argos.” Between these two dates, which are pretty well established by history and archaeology we can locate the various kings of Argos you mention, allowing a lot of flexibility for the different traditions. As regards the Manethonian Supplement, this in its current form is a late document c. AD 700, which employed fragments of Berossian material and combined them with entries from Manetho’s history of Egypt. I don’t think it is currently possible to get back to a more “original” source document behind this work of Lucas (the Manethonian Supplement), as it would be impossible to say which particular line of tradition he was following in any particular case. Again the best thing to do is establish the fixed points, as above, and show the variants in between. Your date for the Argive Perseus, incidentally, is too high, as Danaus (Haremheb) himself is dateable around the 14th century BC.

  23. Here is why I still think the source for the “Manethonian supplement” must be even older than Manetho and Berosus themselves, and that they copied from the same source: they both, around 300 BC copied from the same source that already had the same gaps I indicated around the ‘Caeculus’ paragraph. The last kings in Mesopotamia and Egypt before the gaps in the Manethonian Supp. are given as ‘Pannias’ and ‘Ranses’ respectively. The next kings after the gaps are named as ‘Sosarmus’ and ‘Amenophis’. This is what both Berosus and Manetho saw too, and they ignored or missed the obvious gaps and listed nobody between ‘Pannias’ and ‘Sosarmus’, or between ‘Ranses’ and ‘Amenophis’. And both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian monarchs they gave, we now know, are heavily distorted from the actual record we can now read in cuneiform and hieroglyphic, eg Ramesses was well after Amenhotep. These distorted Mesopotamian and Egyptian lists were mostly mis-synchronized into the original annals and have caused a lot of confusion. So I do not assume Danaus is Horemheb, in fact the pharaoh who matches my chronology scheme at that point for ‘Aegyptus’ is Sobekhotep III in 1733 BC another military officer who seized power and erased the cartouches of his predecessor Seth Meribre, who could be the Danaus who then went to rule in Argos.
    The notice of the Exodus under Chencres did not exist in the original annals, they did not know when this happened at the time. Someone interpolated that note for Chencres on the Defloratio at some point based on other erroneous synchronizations that were current then. The name of Chencres seems to come from Khendjer 1766 BC but that is too early for the Exodus; he ruled during the Hebrew 14th dynasty, which is before they were enslaved. The actual pharaoh of the Exodus as I see it could only be Merneferre Ay and the Exodus occured in 1653 BC; the same year the Hebrews left and Pharaoh’s army was annihilated, the Amorite Hyksos (often confused with the Hebrews) swarmed into Egypt as the 15th Dynasty, and Merneferre’s successors no longer control the north of Egypt. I have many synchronizations that convince me of this, although I appreciate that many differing dates have been arrived at for the Exodus by others pursuing other methods or reasoning. And maybe some day the Lord will have a prize for whoever guesses closest the number of beans in the jar, or maybe we will never know, but it is always interesting and fun even though it is never as important as the main things the Lord requires, justice, mercy and humility (Micah 5:8)!

  24. Thank you for your comments. Overall, wouldn’t you agree, it is safer to follow a very clear synchronism given by Manetho, who had no reason to associate his native Egyptian kings with Greece, than a speculative or supposed original form of a very late source (the Manethonian Supplement, c. AD 736). The latter seems to incorporate material from the lost works of Berosus, but its use of Manetho’s king list is mainly to background the traditional history of Spain, and the western Mediterranean, which had more connections with Egypt. The gap you refer to occurs in the Supplement’s reproduction of Manetho at a point where Manetho, according to Josephus, inserted the name Amenophis, out of the proper sequence. Manetho did this because he had just mentioned the last king of Dynasty XVIII, Ramses (“Ranses, Ranises” in the Supplement). This Ramses was not the famous Ramesses II but a Ramses born at the time of the Exodus, which explains why Manetho then entered into a diversion relating to the Exodus and the Pharaoh (rather co-Pharaoh) of the Exodus Amenophis II. This Ramses born at the time of the Exodus was, according to Manetho, the Aegyptus of Greek legend, the brother of Danaus (Haremheb). That the Amenophis mentioned (BY WAY OF DIGRESSION) at the end of Dynasty XVIII in our current versions of Manetho is Amenophis II is confirmed, amongst other things, by the fact he is the contemporary of Amenophis son of Paapis who is a known figure dateable to the era of Amenenophis II, as explained in the True Date of the Exodus on this site. The Mesopotamian royal names Pannias and Sosarmus come from Ctesias, where they succeed one another in that order, shortly before the Trojan War era. In the Manethonian Supplement at the time of Caeculus whom you refer to, is inserted a mysteriously named Dynasty of Larthi (“as in Italy”), which duplicates the names Ranses and Amenophis. These are the Aegyptus (= Ramses in Manetho) and Menophis (= Amenophis) of sections 2-6 of the Supplement, which is the immediately preceding passage. You can compare the regnal figures 68/66 and 40 for the two kings Aegyptus/Ranses and Menophis/Amenophis respectively. This Dynasty lasting 194 years corresponds to Dynasty XIX in Manetho which likewise lasted 194 years (Eusebius). The extant lists of Manetho including Dynasty XIX are confused a little, but obviously in some earlier form Dynasty XIX (the “Larthians”) began with the same Ramses listed at the end of Dynasty XVIII, Amenophis being thrown in as well for good measure. The Larthian designation is an insertion here, based on some chronological scheme which is not explained in the Supplement, but has to do with Italy, and Larthi is an Etruscan word.

  25. In your explanation of the six days of creation, you state that on the sixth day God created mammal like creations which is consistent with evolution and God formed the Adamic race which is the human race. Please clarify. Where are the mammal like creatures currently and if they died out what happed to them and when. And which people specifically constitute the Adamic race.

    Thank you
    Nichelle Sowers

  26. Thank you for your Scriptural question. The mammal-like creatures are described briefly in Modern “evolutionism” as I prefer to call it is mistaken in its idea that modern creatures developed by hybreeding. As we can clearly see hybreeding consistently produces weaknesses and defects which contribute to the self-destruction of a species. What the Bible describes is God’s great evolution, that is the development over the ages of proto-forms into higher and higher forms, like a tree branching out into more complicated branches and fruit, till it reaches maturity (in evolutionary terms around the arrival of Adamic man). Most of these proto-forms have changed into different forms over the ages, as one can observe in the fossil record. Adamic man was debased by hybreeding with the hominid called Nahash (serpent, literally the Whisperer of spells), and this event can be traced in the admitted admixture of genes between homo sapens sapiens and a Neanderthal-like hominid. Pure Adamics, where they occur today, are throwbacks to the original type, and in that case they reflect the nature of Adam himself, who, although he fell, was repentant towards God and received the sacrificial covering. That is, they reflect true faith in God and Jesus, and demonstrate such by their nature and life.

  27. Thanks for the update on Atlantis. Josh Gates (Exploration Unknown) recently had a segment on it that agreed with what you have on your website. He also had a segment where a scientist gave him the same creation scenario as the Bible; i.e. that man was a separate line, not a descendant from a monkey. Quite interesting, and refreshing!
    But my question this time is about the Sixth Day. The Bible speaks of the creation days, particularly the 7th, as if speaking from a future time. Apparently, if the 6th day hasn’t already ended; we are living near the end it now. So would the 7th day be the Millennium, or it seems to me more likely, the time beginning with the new heaven and earth? I don’t see where there would be any “rest” for God until then…

  28. Shalom! I agree with you the 7th Day is the Millennium, which is 1000 years of God’s time and 360,000,000 years of geological time. The Millennium is a space of time comparable to the “sabbath” of an earthly week. The sabbath is when faithful Israelites entered into rest from servile labor (not labor of all kinds). Likewise God (being the perfect Sabbath-keeper) enters into ETERNAL REST immediately the Sabbath or seventh and last cycle of 1000 years begins. It is prophesied in Daniel’s 70 weeks that that last period of 1000 (divine) years (= 360 millions of geological years) will begin on the 70th (Jubilee) sabbath from the beginning of jubilees, that is in 1977. The last Jubilee cycle of 50 years is 1977-2026. Eternal Rest begins for those in the Spirit of the Resting Jehovah in that Jubilee, as they cross over in the Spirit into His Rest. The physical rapture or transfiguration and immortalization of the physical body is the outworking of that inner spiritual rest. That is a lot to claim, and you will find the Scriptural facts outlined in the Prophetic Reckoner of the Visions of Daniel on this site at I had to condense that Prophetic Reckoner pretty tightly to get through the whole thing briefly, so I recommend reading it very closely.

    ADDITIONAL NOTE (01-21-2021):

    Please listen to the end-time prophet William Branham’s message on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel to get the full info. on the Jubilee in 1977 at this link (better to right-click and Save As… to download it, as otherwise you might not get the full message).

    Also please read Hebrews 4. 3-11 to get how we enter into that Seventh Day Rest by FAITH:

    Hebrews 4: “3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”

    And see I Thessalonians 5. 1-9:

    “1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. 5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 6 Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. 7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. 8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. 9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    You can see here that that (heavenly) Day comes IN THE NIGHT (of the world), and that the Light which is that Day is our Father God Himself, Whose children we are, and unlike the world we will be aware when that Day comes.

  29. Subject: Who is the author of Six Days of Creation?

    I was going to cite a passage from Six Days of Creation, but the author does not appear to be listed in the document anywhere. How would you like to be cited?

  30. Shalom
    I am the author of Six Days of Creation — name Richard T. Dodds (“Brother Richard” on this blog). Please cite as “Richard T. Dodds of”. Thanks for your interest. Would be helpful if you could leave us on the feedback comments here, for the edification of readers, some info. on your interest in this and related matters.

  31. I’m just another chronologist trying to make sense of the classical Greek historians. I was particularly interested in your excursus on Ninus, Semiramis, and Ninyas.

    From my study it appears that some of the Greek chronologists counted from the 824 death of Ashurdaninpal who was Sardanapallus. But others confused Sardanapallus with either Tiglath Pileser II or Sargon II.

  32. Is there a Ancient Near Eastern Hero that is parallel to the biblical Lamech in the way that Utnapishtam parallels Noah. Thanks

  33. Shalom! Thanks for your interest. I have examined this briefly at the following link:

    From that you can see the Biblical Lamech is the person known as “Shuruppak”. He is the father of the person known as “Utanapishti”. I demonstrate at that link that both these names are misreadings of logographic signs in the cuneiform tablets. “Shuruppak” should be read Elamku (= Hebrew Lamech), and “Utanapishti” should be read Naggu-napishti (Hebrew Noah: Naggu = Noach/Noah).

    The relevant sections of the linked page read as follows:

    I quote:
    456. Lamech is a word derived from an unused root lmk. The meaning is uncertain, but since l and n are interchangeable as the initial consonant in some roots (e.g. lḥṣ = nḥṣ, “burn,” lḥš = nḥš, “whisper,” ltk = ntk, “pour out”) in this case the root lmk is probably equivalent to nmk (cf. post-Biblical Hebrew namak = Biblical Hebrew mûk), which means “bow, sink, bend, decline, be low, be heavy-laden, wither,” especially of the withering of flourishing plants or the melting, collapsing, and declining of solid substances. There are two Lamechs in the pre-diluvian generations, this one descended from Seth, and the other descended from Cain. The Cainite Lamech appears as Enmen-alima, “priestly lord Alima,” amongst the Sumerian pre-diluvian kings (see §419, above, >>). The word alima means “heavy-laden” (which is the presumed meaning of the Hebrew root lmk, whence the name Lamech, supra), and was also the name of a tree, the “alima tree.” The tree may have been so named because it was “heavy-laden” with fruit or boughs. Another way to spell the name of the tree in Sumerian was So, “alima” or “” was the Sumerian name of the tree. But the Semitic (Akkadian) equivalent name of the tree was “elamaku” (variously written elamakku, elammaku, elimakku, elamahhu, elamkû, etc.). This clearly is the Hebrew name Lamech (lemek in the Classical Hebrew dialect, representing a form lamku, or similar, with a terminal vowel, cf. the Akkadian elamkû, which is “lamkû” with an initial prosthetic vowel “e,” see infra on the latter phenomenon). Thus, the patriarch was called Lamech in Hebrew, “Elamkû” or “Elamaku” etc. in Akkadian, and “Alima” or “Elamgi” in Sumerian. According to the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (s.v. elammakku), the Sumerian form (as opposed to the alternative form alima) is a loanword from, and a transcription of, the Akkadian elamaku. When we examine the name of the Sumerian king supposed to correspond to the Sethite Lamech in WB62, the father of Ziusudra (Noah), we find it written two ways: SU.KUR.LAM and SU.KUR.LAM.GI. The first two signs SU.KUR are a place name, viz. Shuruppak, the home town of Ziusudra. Accordingly Ziusudra is termed the “son of Shuruppak.” The third sign LAM and its variant LAM×KUR are different ways of writing the name of almond-like trees (variously called in Akkadian shiqdu, lammu, luk’u, etc.), whose hard wood was used for making arrows. One of these almond-like trees is the same as that referenced supra, called in Akkadian elamkû, transcribed in Sumerian. Elamkû is a synonym in lexical texts of shiqdu, luk’u, lammu etc., and of shiltahu, the arrow made from the wood. In the reading SU.KUR.LAM.GI, the final sign GI is problematic and has never been satisfactorily explained. Probably the last two signs should be written LAMgi, with GI forming the phonetic complement to the sign LAM, showing the final syllable of the word represented by the sign LAM is “gi.” Since the sign LAM represents various trees of the almond variety, the final “gi” suggests it is to be read here elamgi, the elamkû tree, or the arrow made from its wood. LAM×KUR (which is the sign LAM incorporating within its structure the sign KUR meaning “land”) is also a way of writing the name of the city Shuruppak. It implies Shuruppak was the “land” (KUR) of the “almond-like tree” (LAM). Probably, therefore, the name in WB 62 should be written thus: Shuruppak(SU.KUR)Elamgi(LAMgi) and read, as indicated by the phonetic complement, Elamgi, the Sumerian transcription of the original name Elamkû. The initial determinative (Shuruppak(SU.KUR)) shows the name of the tree is also a reference to the city (LAM = LAM×KUR = Shuruppak), or rather the patriarch was known by the name of the city, “He of Shuruppak.” This name SU.KUR.LAM.GI, viz. Elamgi (Lamech), is not represented in Berossus.

    457. Noah means, according to the standard interpretation of the verb n-w-ḥ from which it is formed, “Settled rest, Long-term relief.” Ziusudra could be interpreted similarly to mean “Relief, rest, or life (zi) of long (sudra) days (u4).” However the Sumerian name is usually written with two only of these signs, viz. UD (u4), and ZI. One of the readings of the sign UD, pronounced “u,” is nagagu, “to groan, bellow, make a grunting sound.” With aspirated “h” exchanged for “g” this verb can be traced in the (unattested) Hebrew form n-ḥ-ḥ, which is well attested in Arabic, n-ḥ-ḥ, “grunt, make a hawking sound,” and n-ḥ-n-ḥ, with the identical meaning: its standard variation (this attested in Hebrew) is n-w-ḥ, from which it is usually understood the name Noah is formed, as the latter is treated in Genesis 5. 29 as equivalent to the verb n-ḥ-m, “to groan, make a comforting, or complaining sound.” However it is possible, indeed likely, that the form Noah (nōăḥ) is actually the infinitive of the otherwise unattested Hebrew root n-ḥ-ḥ (like sōb the infinitive of s-b-b), though the meaning is unaffected. The final consonant was liable to other variations: n-ḥ-b, for example, is found as well as n-ḥ-m. On n-ḥ-b Fürst (Lexikon, s.v.) remarks: “prop[erly] to breathe out, to groan aloud, to snort, Arab. n-ḥ-b, the same, transferred to the expression of strong sensuous feelings, as repentance, consolation.” This applies also to n-ḥ-m, and therefore to n-w-ḥ = n-ḥ-ḥ: in the name Noah, the meaning is “comfort, consolation, relief” but the literal meaning is “breathing out with a groaning sound.” In Sumerian the “groaning” element is expressed by the sign UD (“u”) = nagagu, and the “breathing” element by the sign ZI = napishtu, “breath, life, soul,” etc., so the signs UD.ZI with which the name Ziusudra is commonly written denote Naggu-napishti, “he who makes a groaning sound [Naggu] by breathing [napishti].” (“One characterized by groaning [the verbal adjective naggu from nagagu, like shakku from shakaku] of the breath [napishti].” The grammatical construction, as von Soden suggested [cf. George, Gilgamesh Epic I. 152f.], is analogous to damqam inim, “sweet of eye,” in which the first element, an adjective, governs a genitive. In this case the verbal adjective naggu governs the gentive napishti, lit. “groaning of breath.”) The initial element, Naggu, corresponds in consonantal form and in meaning to the Heb. Noah. On the uncertainty amongst Akkadian experts regarding the reading of the sign UD in this name, see Chic. Ass. Dict. s.v. atû vb. sub fin. According to this analysis the name UD.ZI (Ziusudra) should be read in Akkadian Naggu-napishti. The longer form of the name Zi-u-sud-ra would similarly mean “Breathing (zi) with a prolonged (sudra) groaning sound (u4).” The sign UD can be read “uta” and some scribes seem to have read it this way, in which case the name could be interpreted to mean “I searched for, or found, discovered, souls” (“uta” as if from from atû = search out, look for, napishti, souls). The initial element is thus made to convey a similar sense to nagagu, “groan, yearn for.” Alternatively Naggu-napishti might be understood to indicate Ziusudra was the “Sun (Uta = Utu = UD, the sun-god) of the soul.” End of quote.

    The same name Elamku (Shuruppak/Lamech) = Aratta (as can be seen from the following link, which was the name given to the mountains where the Ark landed, so the Biblical mountains of Ararat = Ar-Arat (the mountainous country of Arat[ta]), so the name of Naggu-napishti’s (Noah’s) hometown (Shuruppak) was given to the new region he first settled after the Inundation, rather as the name Plymouth was given to the place where the Pilgrims landed after the town from which they set out on their journey.

  34. Thank you.
    The rabbis identify Naamah, the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-Cain, as the wife of Noah. Does she have a female parallel in Ancient Near Eastern texts?

  35. Shalom!
    You’re very much on my field of interest here. Caveat for you. The conclusions outlined in the Six Days of Creation are my personal conclusions, and would not necessarily be shared by anyone else! On the other hand I have never had anyone properly challenge them. Perhaps you are the one to do it.

    The identification of Naamah with the Sumerian “goddess” Geshtin-ana is dependent on the identification of Tubal-Cain, the brother of Naamah, with Dumu-zi, brother of Geshtin-ana. This is outlined at the following link in Six Days of Creation:

    See also the chart at the following link, which shows the interconnection between the Sumerian prediluvian figures and the Biblical account: See also briefly

    See also, briefly for how this Ancient Near Eastern mythology was re-interpreted in the Eleusinian mysteries in Greece the following link:

  36. Thanks! Might you be suggesting that we understanding the verse (Gen 4:22) as “The sister of Tubal-cain established wineries”

  37. Shalom! Actually I never thought of that as a possibility. It would be difficult to defend it as an interpretation, because then a name would be lacking for this sister of Tubal-Cain, whereas names appear (for the wives) in the earlier part of the verse. However the Hebrew naamah does have connotations of “delightful, sweet-scented gardens”, and this fits with the idea Geshtin-ana = “sweet/pleasant” and is the patron deity of vines/vineyards. Of course, Dumu-zi the brother of Geshtin-ana was closely associated with wine also, as is Tubal-Cain (= Dumu-zi) in post-Biblical haggadah.

  38. Thank you once gain.
    1. Where in Jewish sources are Tubal-cain and/or Naamah associated with vineyards?
    2, Dumu-zi is in the list of 7 Sumarian kings that parallels the Cain genealogy here. Is Geshtin-ana also mentioned aside him in that Sumerian tablet?
    I am looking for an explanation as to why Naamah is the only sibling included in the Genesis chronology.

  39. Shalom.
    Reply to 1.: From Tabari: “Someone else knowledgeable in the Torah mentioned that the descendant of Cain who invented musical instruments was a man called Tubal (Tubal-Cain called also Tubal Jerahmeel XXVI. 18). He invented musical instruments such as flutes, drums, lutes, pandores, and lyres in the time of Mahalalel b. Kenan. As a result, the descendants of Cain became very much engaged in amusement. Information about them reached the descendants of Seth in the mountain, and a hundred of them thoughtof going down to them, acting contrary to the exhortations of their forefathers. When Jared learned about it, he admonished them and forbade them (to go down), but they simply insisted and went down to the descendants of Cain. They liked what they saw there. When they wanted to go back, they were prevented by a previous call (da’wah) of their forefathers. When they tarried where they were, some misguided people in the mountain thought thatthey remained (down there) because they were happy there. They therefore slipped away and went down from the mountain. When.they saw the amusement taking place there, they, too, liked it. They reached an accommodation with female descendants of Cain who rushed to them, and they stayed with them. They became very much engaged in iniquity. Wickedness and wine drinking spread.”

    From Cave of Treasures: “Yôbâl (Jubal) and Tôbalkîn (Tubal-Cain), the two brethren, the sons of Lamech, the blind man, who killed Cain, invented and made all kinds of instruments of music. Jôbâl made reed instruments, and harps, and flutes, and whistles, and the devils went and dwelt inside them. When men blew into the pipes, the devils sang inside them, and sent out sounds from inside them. Tôbalkîn made [Fol. 12a, col. 2] cymbals, and sistra, and tambourines (or drums). And lasciviousness and fornication increased among the children of Cain, and they had nothing to occupy them except fornication–now they had no obligation [to pay] tribute, and they had neither prince nor governor–and eating, and drinking, and lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and dancing p. 88 and singing to instruments of music, and the wanton sportings of the devils, and the laughter which affordeth pleasure to the devils, and the sounds of the furious lust of men neighing after women.”

    Reply to 2: Geshtin-ana does not appear in the King Lists, but in Inana’s Descent etc. as the sister of Dumuzi. Which would explain why she is located here in Genesis.

  40. Thank you so much for your patience and generosity of spirit in answering my questions.
    1. You said that Geshtin-ana appears in Inana’s Descent etc. as the sister of Dumuzi, but I cannot find her mentioned in https: // etcsl. orinst. section1/ tr141.htm . Am I missing it?
    2. The genealogy of Gen 4,17-22 includes seven generations. How do its cultural concerns (music, living in cities, forging bronze, etc) compare with those of the seven apkallu, cultural founders who appear in Mesopotamian tradition?
    3. Abarbanel suggests that Naama is mentioned in 4:22 because she used to sing along when her half-brother Yuvl composed music. Does Gestin-ana have any such interaction with any of the apkallu?
    4. FYI: Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto) identifies Naaama as the goddess Venus, and Tubal-cain as Vulcanus .

  41. Shalom!
    It’s a pleasure to interact with you on these problems. I believe the historical context underlying the Biblical accounts (as well as the Mesopotamian texts) has been misunderstood, and I am attempting to put it on a more reliable footing.
    1. On Geshtinana you can see the evidence summarized at http: // oracc. /amgg/ listofdeities/ getinanna/ index.html and that explains the connection with Inana’s Descent.
    2. The 7 Cainite generations are different from (but parallel to) the first 7 Adamite generations (Adam to Enoch). The Sumerian prediluvian kings are the 7 first Cainites and the 7 Adamite generations are the 7 apkallus (“patriarchs”). This is shown in the chart linked in the earlier reply ( and you will find the full details equating the Biblical and Sumerian figures in the text following the Chart.
    3. Abarbanel is one of my favorites! As regards Naamah and the apkallus, there is no connection, as stated in #2 above. Naamah = Geshtin-ana, sister of Tubal-Cain = Dumu-zi, and Dumuzi is one of the 7 Cainite kings (not apkallus/patriarchs/sages).
    4. I was unaware of this item of information, but as regards the equations with Classical mythological figures, these derive from the Exordium to Eusebius’ Chronicle: “The Biblical Naamah was the sister of the smith Tubal-cain. In some MSS. of the Latin Exordium to Eusebius’ Chronicle (ed. Schoene, Chronicorum Libri Duo, Appendix II [Appendices p. 45]) Tubal-cain (“Thobel”) is said to have been the smith-god Vulcanus (and his brother Jabal, Silvanus, his other brother, Jubal, Mercurius, and his sister Naamah, Minerva”. At least Tubal-Cain = Vulcanus derives from this source directly, and as Minerva = Egyptian Neith, and Neith = Isis/Hathor (Venus) in native Egyptian sources, the Naamah/Venus equation could be dependent on that too. See, etc. See also Naamah identifiable with Venus/Sothis at Bible Stones section A.c.iii (highlighted in red at

  42. 1. Who are the Mesopotamian gods who founded cities, kept livestock, created musical instruments, forged bronze and iron?2. Are these the counterparts of those mentioned in the Cainite genealogy?3. You might be interested in this website that collects Jewish commentators in one place: MikraotGedolot –

  43. 1. The most famous prediluvian king who was later (or in his own time also) worsiped as a god was Dumuzi, who is both a sipa (shepherd/herder) and a nagar (craftsman/metalsmith) and was the king of Bad-Tibira, “wall of the Metalsmiths”. He is the Biblical Tubal-Cain (Tubal = Offspring = Dumu, Cain = Reed = zi). For example Sumerian king list prediluvian section:
    In Bad-tibira, Enmen-lu-ana ruled for 43,200 years.
    Enmen-gal-ana ruled for 28,800 years.
    The divine Dumuzi, the shepherd, ruled for 36,000 years.
    Three kings; they ruled for 108,000 years.

    Then Bad-tibira fell and the kingship was taken to Larak.
    In Larak, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28,800 years.
    One king; he ruled for 28,800 years.
    Here Dumuzi is titled Herder/shepherd (sipa[d}) and the same word forms part of the name En-sipa[d]-zi-ana. These city-names are found first in historical sources here in the King List, and we can presume they were founded at that time, by the kings mentioned. The historical order was: kings became gods. And thus also the Biblical text represents the original historical status of these Cainite “kings”, whilst the (later) Mesopotamian texts emphasize their divine status. In the Byzantine chronographical tradition, the earliest form of paganism is described as “Scythianism” (which is equivalent to modern “buddhism”, since Buddha is called Scythianus in Classical sources). In mahayana Buddhism multitudes of what were originally pious rulers and sages have similarly become worshiped as gods. Dumuzi was later commemorated in song, viz. the lamentation rituals.
    2. Yes, these kings are paralleled in the Cainite genealogy, as demonstrated in detail in the Chart linked in the earlier replies and the following text in Six Days of Creation.
    3. Yes, great site, very useful.

  44. Thanks for all your thoughtful suggestion as to why Naama is mentioned as sister of Tubal-cain. Could you suggest why Serah daughter of Asher is mentioned in the Bible in the count of the Israelites who went down to Egypt (Gen. 46:17) and in the enumeration of the Israelites at the steppes of Moab (Num. 26:46). Why should she and not other women be mentioned in these counts?

    And may I add yet another question: Do Lemech’s wives Adah and Zilla correspond to anyone in NEA literature?

  45. Shalom
    Thanks for your kind comments. Serah daughter of Asher is mentioned rather unusually, in a very “patriarchal” genealogical context. I would assume, since this is not a genealogy like that of the Edomites (where intermarriage with pagan Canaanites occured, and females were more prominent in pagan cultures), that the reason a female is mentioned is because there was some situation in the background like that of the daughters of Zelophehad.

    On Zillah the mother and Adah the step-mother of Tubal-Cain, we could conclude the first of them is the same as the goddess whose name is written TUR.TUR, the mother of Dumu-zi. TUR.TUR is Akkadian Dallu from dalalu, be limp, hanging, puny etc. which is exact equivalent of Hebrew sade-lamed-lamed (or teth-lamed-lamed), whence Zillah = hang limp, which also provides a word for a lamb, teth-lamed-yod, and similarly the name TUR.TUR is also translated Duttur, female sheep. Adah is from the biconsonantal root ayin-daleth = aleph-daleth (cover, surround), whence Heb. ed = Akkadian edu, “flood” (a covering of water), which latter is a synonym of Naru, “River”. This is the Canaanite Nahar (River) = Yam = Tamtu/Apsu. So Adah may have been identified, through the semantics of her name, with (the water deities) Nammu and Apsu (Abzu), being the mother of Dumuzi-abzu (“true Child [Dumuzi] of the Deep [abzu]”): Dumuzi-abzu (a female deity) is in turn identified with the (male) Dumuzi. The female goddess of the Deep (Nammu/Apsu) is another form of Damgal-Nun(a), wife of Enki/Ea, god of the Deep, and also father of Dumuzi. The prediluvian king Enmen-alima (= the Cainite Lamech, father of Tubal-Cain/Dumuzi) could easily be identified with Enki, as the significant element in his name is alim, and Enki is alim, the Ox/Buffalo. This presumes the wives of Enmen-alima were deified as wives of the water deity Apsu/Enki (= Alim). Accordingly in para. 350 of Six Days of Creation (link:, I suggest Adah and Zillah are two forms of the goddess Berouth (Wells) mentioned in Sanchuniathon etc.

  46. Thanks again for your patience and generosity of time.
    The seven pre-deluge apkallu were Uanduga (Uannedugga), “who was endowed with comprehensive intelligence”Enmedugga, “who was allotted a good fate”Enmegalamma, “who was born in a house”Enmebulugga, “who grew up on pasture land”An-Enlilda, “the conjurer of the city of Eridu”Utuabzu, “who ascended to heaven”1. Why was Utuabzu called “who ascended to heaven”?2. Do you think Gen 5:24 links Utuabzu with Enoch? If so, why would only Utuabzu be linked to someone on the Genesis genealogies? Why would only Enoch be linked to one of the akallu?3. Are any of the other six akallu linked to any biblical personalities?

  47. Shalom!
    1. Yes the seven (patriarchs ab = pater/father, gal = archon/ruler) are the seven Biblical patriarchs Adam through Enoch. Utu-abzu or Utu-a’abba (otherwise written Adapa) is Enoch because Adapa = Akkadian Enqu, wise, and the root ayin-nun-qoph whence Enqu is identical basically to root heth-nun-kaph, whence Enoch. The root meaning is “grasp, get hold of” either physically or mentally. This is additional to the multiple parallels between these figures as regards ascension to heaven etc.
    2. The other patriarchs in Genesis line up one-for-one with the Sumerian apkallus. This is demonstrated in detail at the following link:, particularly section 448 onwards. (Note because of the Greek transcriptions of the names I prefer the alternative readings Ha-an-duga and Ha-an-utu-abzu rather than Uan-duga and Uan-utu-abzu, as explained at Section 448.1.)

  48. 1. The seven Apkallu taught humans the crafts, the arts, and other aspects of civilization such as writing, law, temple and city building and agriculture. Do we know which of the apkallu taught which of the various specific aspects of civilization? Does that match up with Jubal teaching music, etc.?
    2. You are saying that the names in both lists match up with the Apkallu, right? Do you agree with the academics’ suggestion that both lists are parallel traditions derived from the same source?
    3. I don’t see Utuabzu on your 412.2 table. Is he Enoch based on Gen 5:22?
    4. Why was only Utuabzu called “who ascended to heaven”? Is there a story about him that explains it?
    Thank you again

  49. Shalom.
    1. There are no specific details in the ancient Mesopotamian texts as regards each apkallu’s teaching. Generally they are presented positively as instructors in the knowledge of the divine and as benefactors.
    2. If you mean by this that the names of the patriarchs in Genesis Adam through Enoch match up with those of the apkallus, yes, as shown in the chart referred to, and in more detail in the accompanying text in Six Days of Creation. I would agree the two lists derive from a common source. Moses being learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, he would know the ancient Mesopotamian traditions. The Adapa story, for example, was known in Amarna a little later than Moses’ time.
    3. Utuabzu is Ha-an-utu-abzu in the chart, as for the reasons explained in the accompanying text, I read U-an-utu-abzu (= less fully Utu-abzu) as Ha-an-utu-abzu (corresponding to the later Greek transcription Anodaphos [= Han-utu-abzu], not Oanodaphos [= Uan-utu-abzu]). The name Utu-abzu becomes Adapa in later transcription, and the story of Adapa’s ascent to heaven corresponds to the account of Enoch in Genesis (see the link immediately below in #4).
    4. Yes, the story of Adapa is the Mesopotamian version of the ascent of Enoch, see

  50. Another question, if you would allow.
    Am I right that:
    The Cainite genealogy evokes a sense of the 7 Sages, with its seven generations and individuals introducing aspects of human civilization, yet its names matches up with the names of the kings.The Sethits genealogy evokes a sense of the ten generations of kings, yet its names match up with names of the sages.
    This seems counter-intuitive, if I got it right..

  51. Shalom. Thanks for your question. I think the seven generations of Cainites (the kings of Sumerian tradition) is truly related to, though not to be identified with, the series of 7 abkallus or patriarchs (sages), because seven kings were paired with the seven sages in Sumerian tradition: in the Uruk List of Kings and Sages they are paired as follows and a similar pairing can be traced in the Hellenistic writer Abydenus (see further Six Days of Creation para. 479.0.1 ff.):

    “During the reign of Ajalu {Ayalu, Alulim [= Cain]} the king, U-ana [= Adam] was sage.
    During the reign of Alalgar [= (the Cainite) Enoch] the king, Uan-du-ga (to be read: Ha-an-duga [= Abel]) was sage.
    During the reign of Ame-lu-ana the king, [= Jabal] Enme-du-ga [= Seth] was sage.
    During the reign of Ame-gal-ana the king [= Jubal], Enme-galam-ma [= Enosh] was sage.
    During the reign of Enme-ushumgal-ana the king [= Mehujael], Enme-bulug-ga [= Cainan] was sage.
    During the reign of Dumuzi the Shepherd the king [= Tubal-Cain], An-enlil-da [= Mahalalel] was sage.
    During the reign of Enme-dur-anki the king [= (the Sethite) Jared], Utu-abzu [= Enoch] was sage.”

    Though a selection is made here of the total possible number of kings mentioned in Sumerian tradition to match the seven apkallus, you can see why seven generations of kings (Cainites) appear in Genesis similarly. Different lists in Mesopotamia and in the Hellenistic writers had different selections of names. A clue to the process by which these seven generations of kings were extended to ten is found in the last name in the Uruk List above, Enme-dur-anki whom we equate with Jared at Six Days of Creation para. 453. It was, according to post-Biblical tradition, in the days of Jared that the descent of the “sons of God” occurred leading to an intermingling of Sethites and Cainites, which is specifically referenced in Genesis 6. Thus Jared (Enme-dur-anki) and (the Sethite) Lamech (SU.KUR.LAM.GI, to be read Elamgi), or alternatively Methuselah (Ubara-Tutu) and Lamech’s son Noah (Ziusudra), appear at the end of the list (extending 7 kings to 10), these latter kings being of the now mixed line of Cain and Seth.

    That the apkallus, not the kings, were the Sethites of Genesis is demonstrated by the fact that the first of them Uana (Oannes) was anciently equated with Adam (Six Days of Creation para. 448 [3]) and the later apkallus treated as so many duplicates of that patriarch (ibid. para 448.1, the Sethites likewise in Genesis being in the “image” of Adam), whilst the eastern and most ancient tradition equated the first of the kings, Aloros (Alulim = Cain) with Samiros (Shemyaza, Satan, ibid. para. 493.1, and 677.13.2): Cain was, as Jesus said, “of that Evil One”, the Devil being a “murderer from the beginning”. This accords with the Targumic and later Rabbinic tradition that Cain was the offspring of Sammael (Satan), operating in the body of the Serpent, who seduced Eve to bring forth a son “in the image” of Satan, viz. Cain. The Cainites are the first city-builders and inventors of metal technology, which matches the connection between the Sumerian prediluvian kings and the first cities, whilst the apkallus are credited with imparting the knowledge of God and wisdom more generally, and Oannes the first of them is said to have emerged out of the Indian Ocean, and to have lived a life of deliberate separation from the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the later apkallus following in his footsteps. In seventh position in the list of apkallus we have Ha-an-utu-abzu (Anodaphos, Uan-utu-abzu, Adapa) who ascended to heaven, just like Enoch the seventh from Adam in Genesis. None of the kings are credited with “heaven-ascending”. Such supernatural powers were characteristic of “sages” not kings.

  52. Shalom. No story duplicating the Biblical account has cropped up yet, but significant elements of the account are implied in the story of Dumuzi and Enkimdu. I am currently updating Six Days of Creation with additions relating to this episode at para. 422.1: the PDF version has this update but not the online html version yet, so here is how the updated section reads:

    “422.1. Already in the pre-Nicene age Christian commentators must have interpreted the words of Lamech as a reference to the seven generations of Cainites, as is demonstrated by the fact that the fourth-century exegete, Basil of Caesarea (of the school of Origen) makes reference to this as an already existing traditional interpretation (Basil The Letters LCL Vol. IV, LETTER CCLX To Bisnop Optimus [pp. 50-67] p. 62ff.): “There follows this a kindred question, regarding what was said by Lamech to his wives: ‘I have slain a man to the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising: if sevenfold vengeance has been taken for Cain, yet for Lamech seventy times sevenfold.’ And some think that Cain was destroyed by Lamech, on the ground that he lived until that generation that he might pay a more protracted punishment. But it is not true. For Lamech seems to have committed two murders, to judge by what he himself relates: ‘I have slain a man and a stripling, a man to my wounding, and a stripling to my bruising.’ Now a wound is one thing, and a bruise another. And a man is one thing, and a stripling another. ‘For Cain sevenfold vengeance shall be taken, but for Lamech seventy times sevenfold.’ It is just that I undergo four hundred and ninety punishments, if indeed God’s judgment is just in the case of Cain, that he undergo seven chastisements. For, just as he did not learn to commit murder from another, so he never saw a murderer enduring punishment, either; but I, though I had before my eyes the culprit groaning and trembling and the magnitude of God’s wrath, was not chastened by the example. Wherefore I deserve to pay four hundred and ninety chastisements. But some persons have arrived at the following notion, which is not out of harmony with the teaching of the Church: that from Cain unto the Deluge seven generations passed by, and the punishment was brought upon the whole earth, because the spread of sin had become great. But the sin of Lamech does not require a deluge for its cure, but Him who taketh away the sin of the world. Therefore count the generations from Adam to the coming of Christ, and you will find, according to the genealogy of Luke, that in the seventy-seventh succession the Lord was born.” The later Rabbinic tradition relating to the death of Cain in Lamech’s hunting expedition is a midrash on the following verses of Genesis (4. 19-24): “19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. 23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.” The Rabbinic tradition interpreted the “man” here killed by Lamech to be Cain, and the “young man” to be Tubal-cain. The ridiculous story recounted to explain their deaths was as follows: Midrash Tanhuma Bereshit 11: “How was Cain slain? For one hundred and thirty years, Cain became an angel of death, wandering and roaming about, accursed. Lamech, his descendant in the seventh generation, who was blind, would go hunting led about by his young son. At the sight of game, the lad would apprise his father of its whereabouts. One time the lad said to his father: ‘I see some kind of beast in the distance.’ Lamech sent his arrow in that direction, and Cain was slain. As they approached the corpse, the lad saw a horn protruding from the forehead of the slain creature, and he said to his father: ‘The corpse resembles a man, but a horn protrudes from its forehead.’ Thereupon, Lamech cried out: ‘Woe is me, it is my grandfather.’ In his grief, he clasped his hands together, and accidentally struck the child’s head, killing him. As it is said: I can slay a man by a wound of mine and a child by a strike of mine.” Cain’s “sign,” here is a horn on his forehead, which led to his being mistaken for a stag! Setting aside the fabulous outgrowth of that midrash, the context of the verses in Genesis 4 suggests the Rabbis correctly identified the “man” and the “young man.” When Lamech acquired his sons by his two wives, he appears to have interpreted their names in a prophetic manner, as in the passage cited. That is, the bi-consonantal root verb from which the names of the males was formed is bl, whence ybl meaning “carry, take out, bear,” etc. It is used in the Hebrew Scriptures to signify, amongst other things, “a carrying away to the grave.” There is an implied reference here also to Abel, Heb. Hebel, whose name was formed from the same bi-consonantal root. Jabal would then mean “he carried away to the grave,” Jubal “he is carried away to the grave” and Tubal-cain a “carrying away of Cain,” or, if the element -cain (qayin) is interpreted to mean “shaft,” the “carrying away by a shaft.” This explains how it came to be believed Cain’s death resulted from his being shot with an arrow by Tubal-cain. The generation of these three brothers was the seventh (inclusive) from Cain, and Cain was promised divine protection for “seven times” only. The “seven times” could be understood to have terminated in this seventh generation with the death of Jabal, Jubal and Tubal-cain in the Flood of Noah. (Naamah their sister married Noah, according to one Rabbinic tradition, and thus was saved on the container along with her husband. The seven generations were generations experienced by Adam as follows: Adam-Uana as the contemporary of [1] Cain-Alulim, and [2] Abel-Uanduga, the contemporary of Enoch-Alalgar, both these in the Sadeh period c. 120,000 BC, and then of [3] Irad-En-sipa-zi-ana, [4] Mehujael-Enme-ushumgal-ana, [5] Methushael-Kidunnu-sha-kin-kin, [6] Lamech-Enmen-alima, and [7] Tubal-cain-Dumu-zi, the latter, [3] through [7], in the Adamah period, c. 4000 BC and forward, after Adam’s return from his translation; see further on the chronology, §461, below, >>, §463, below, >>.) In the very act of acquiring these children, Lamech had therefore 1) terminated (“killed”) the line of Cain, as indicated by the name Jabal, “he carried away to the grave” the line of Cain, when he himself (the “man”) perished, 2) brought death upon (“killed”) these individual sons (each “young man” severally) in the seventh generation from Cain, as indicated by the name Jubal, “he is carried away to the grave,” and 3) fulfilled the promise of the “carrying away of Cain” (Tubal-cain, thus interpreted) in the seventh generation. Lamech himself believed he would be spared the destruction, on the other hand, with a seventy-seven-fold divinely provided protection. Tubal-cain being the Biblical name of Tammuz and Nagar (Annakos, Nannakos), it is remarkable to find that the death of Tammuz, and the abandoning of his body in the open plain, is said to have been the immediate cause of the Flood (the Flood of Noah) which swept Tammuz’s body out into the Persian Gulf (§325, above, >>); and equally the death of the long-lived Annakos/Nannakos was predicted to be coincidental with the destruction of mankind in the Flood of Deukalion (= Noah), hence his compatriots are said to have gathered to the temple to weep and mourn his demise. (See §172.1, above, >>.) As in the Rabbinic tradition, the death of Tubal-cain (Tammuz, Nagar/Annakos/Nannakos), prophesied beforehand, marked the destruction of the pre-diluvian Cainites, or (employing the eponymus) of “Cain,” in the great Flood. An indication that the ancient Mesopotamian tradition knew of a connection between Tubal-cain (Dumuzi Sipa) and Cain (A-lulim) is found in the myth of the Farmer and the Shepherd, where Inana prefers to marry the prototypical Farmer, Enki-imdu, rather than the prototypical Shepherd, Dumuzi. (Inana is usually Venus, but here is more probably the “Bow-star” viz. the constellation of lesser stars surrounding Sirius. The seasonal agricultural cycle marked by the disappearance of Sirius was seen as an icon of the cycle of death and rebirth of vegetation through the year. Thus when Inana [Sirius and the surrounding stars] disappeared into the Underworld, it was a harbinger of the death of Dumuzi. Otherwise Lamech [“the Arrow-Star” Sirius] caused the death of Tubal-cain [Dumuzi].) Here the name Enki-imdu is probably a translation into Akkadian of the Sumerian name a2-lulim (Cain), who likewise in Genesis is a farmer, since the word imdu (“support”) is used to translate Sumerian DA and DA is a synomym of a2, whilst lulim is a divine title, being in this case a reference to the bovine Enki. (Alulim = A2 [= DA = imdu] + lulim [= Enki].) The myth represents Enki-imdu (Cain) and Dumuzi (Tubal-cain) as on good terms in their personal relationship in spite of their rivalry for the hand of Inana. In Genesis Tubal-Cain is directly descended from Cain. Inana (Sirius and the surrounding stars as a time-reckoner) is said to have favored Enki-imdu because Cain (Alulim/Enki-imdu) was spared for seven times, but Dumuzi was not favored, because Tubal-Cain (Dumuzi) was slain immediately in the Inundation. It is likely that the mythology of Dumuzi developed out of a mixture of pre-diluvian and post-diluvian elements. The pre-diluvian Dumuzi perished in the waters of the flood. He was identified (as implicitly in the Oracle of Lamech) with Abel, the first Adamic human to die, and was called “Chief of the Westerners (the Dead),” Nin-gish-zida = Egyptian Khenty-Amentiu. Abel (Ha-an-duga/Uan-duga), in turn, was considered to be a duplicate form of the Primal Man, Adam (Uana, Oannes), see further §447ff., below, >>. Mizraim (Men) founder of Egypt died similarly in the waters of the Nile whilst on an hippopotamus hunt and therefore was identified likewise with Khenty-Amentiu (= Nin-gish-zida, Dumuzi, Khenty-Amentiu being the more primitive form of the god Osiris). The seasonal disappearance and reappearance of Sirius in Egypt, marking the Inundation of the Nile Valley, was seen as a duplicate in the annual agricultural cycle of the waters of the Inundation, so now the death of Khenty-Amentiu was connected with the Sirius cycle. Finally Mizraim’s re-embodied form, Djer (Sidon, Dumuzi Shu-nigin-pesh, the post-diluvian Dumuzi), was killed mysteriously in a hunting accident in Lebanon, seen as yet another example of the overwhelming of the hero king (Osiris) by the demonic forces of catastrophic destruction (Seth), this time in the form of a boar rather than an hippopotamus.”

  53. What is the ancient Mesopotamian myth of the Farmer and the Shepherd, where Inana prefers to marry the prototypical Farmer, Enki-imdu, rather than the prototypical Shepherd, Dumuzi.

  54. Shalom. Translation below is from the Oxford ETCSL site:
    Dumuzid and Enkimdu:

    1-6″Maiden, the cattle-pen ……; maiden Inana, the sheepfold ……. …… bending in the furrows. Inana, let me stroll with you; …… the emmer ……. Young lady, let me …….”

    7-11″I am a woman and I won’t do that, I won’t! I am a star ……, and I won’t! I won’t be the wife of a shepherd!” Her brother, the warrior youth Utu, said to holy Inana:

    12-19″My sister, let the shepherd marry you! Maiden Inana, why are you unwilling? His butter is good, his milk is good (2 mss. have instead: He of good butter, he of good milk) — all the work of the shepherd’s hands is splendid. Inana, let Dumuzid marry you. You who wear jewellery, who wear cuba jewels, why are you unwilling? (1 ms. adds 2 lines: His butter is good, his milk is good — all the work of the shepherd’s hands is splendid.) He will eat his good butter with you. Protector of the king, why are you unwilling?”

    20-34″The shepherd shall not marry me! He shall not make me carry his garments of new wool. His brand new wool will not influence me. Let the farmer marry me, the maiden. With the farmer who grows colourful flax, with the farmer who grows dappled grain …….”
    1 line fragmentary
    approx. 7 lines missing
    “The shepherd shall not marry me!”

    35-39These words ……. ……the farmer to the shepherd. My king ……, the shepherd, Dumuzid ……. …… to say ……:

    40-54″In what is the farmer superior to me, the farmer to me, the farmer to me? Enkimdu, the man of the dykes and canals — in what is that farmer superior to me? Let him give me his black garment, and I will give the farmer my black ewe for it. Let him give me his white garment, and I will give the farmer my white ewe for it. Let him pour me his best beer, and I will pour the farmer my yellow milk for it. Let him pour me his fine beer, and I will pour the farmer my soured (?) milk for it. Let him pour me his brewed beer, and I will pour the farmer my whipped milk for it. Let him pour me his beer shandy, and I will pour the farmer my …… milk for it.

    55-64″Let him give me his best filtered beer, and I will give the farmer my curds (?). Let him give me his best bread, and I will give the farmer my …… milk for it. Let him give me his little beans, and I will give the farmer my small cheeses for them. (1 ms. adds 2 lines: Let him give me his large beans, and I will give the farmer my big cheeses for them.) After letting him eat and letting him drink, I will even leave extra butter for him, and I will leave extra milk for him. In what is the farmer superior to me?”

    65-73He was cheerful, he was cheerful, at the edge of the riverbank, he was cheerful. On the riverbank, the shepherd on the riverbank, now the shepherd was even pasturing the sheep on the riverbank. The farmer approached the shepherd there, the shepherd pasturing the sheep on the riverbank; the farmer Enkimdu approached him there. Dumuzid …… the farmer, the king of dyke and canal. From the plain where he was, the shepherd from the plain where he was provoked a quarrel with him; the shepherd Dumuzid from the plain where he was provoked a quarrel with him.

    74-79″Why should I compete against you, shepherd, I against you, shepherd, I against you? Let your sheep eat the grass of the riverbank, let your sheep graze on my stubble. Let them eat grain in the jewelled (?) fields of Unug, let your kids and lambs drink water from my Surungal canal.

    80-83″As for me who am a shepherd: when I am married, farmer, you are going to be counted as my friend. Farmer Enkimdu, you are going to be counted as my friend, farmer, as my friend.”

    84-87″I will bring you wheat, and I will bring you beans; I will bring you two-row barley from the threshing-floor. And you, maiden, I will bring you whatever you please, maiden Inana, …… barley or …… beans.”

    88-89The dispute between the shepherd and the farmer: maiden Inana, your praise is sweet.

    90A balbale.

  55. More quick questions. Thanks!
    1. When you use patriarchs do mean either those mentioned in Genesis 4-5 and those in the King lists, and nothing else
    2. Do you use Sages as the same as apkulla
    3. You said that names in the Sethite list of patriarchs matches with patriarchs of the Urik list, but Enoch matches with the seventh apkallu, “Utuabzu, who ascended to heaven”
    4. Who is devine/semi-devine/not devine? What does semi-devine mean?
    Be well.

  56. Shalom.
    1. I use the term patriarch here as equivalent to Sumerian (apkallu), and it refers to the Sethites, not the Cainites. The Cainites are the kings of the Sumerian tradition, and the Sethites (from Adam to Enoch, also including Abel) are the apkallus. Jared, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah (in the Sethite line) were not apkallus, they were kings, I suggest on account of the intermarriage in Jared’s time between Sethites and Cainites. So we have seven to nine Cainites, plus Jared, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah as “kings” in Sumerian tradition, with various selections of the same in various forms of the king-list, and seven apkallus (Adam, Abel, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Enoch).
    2. Yes, “sages” is the term used here for apkallus.
    3. See answer #1 above for more detail on this.
    4. I presume you are referring to Abydenus’ account of the Sumerian tradition (para. 479 Six Days of Creation): “After him Alaparos reigned three saroi: to him succeeded Amillaros from the city of Pautibiblon, who reigned thirteen saroi; in his days came up a second time Annedotos [this could be understood to mean “a second Annedotos,” and so in
    Syncellus supra] not far along the sea, Oannes, a semi-divine being [Greek: hemidaimon] in bodily form.”
    This is Abydenus’ version of the account of Berossus, and here he seems to use the term “semi-divine” as meaning, not a god, but a creature with supernatural powers. The sign for god or divinity (dingir) was attached to some of the names of the prediluvian kings in Sumerian tradition, viz. e.g. Dumuzi (Biblical Tubal-Cain). This means the human king was later treated as a god.

  57. Re: 422.1
    1. Where in in the Hebrew Scriptures is ybl used to signify a carrying away to the grave?
    2. How are you translating Tubal-cain:Carrying away of CainCarrying away by a shaftReed offspring (offspring of a reed)
    May I ask, with which Christian community is Christian Hospitality associated and where is it located?

  58. Shalom.
    1. Quoting Gesenius (Tregelles translation) s.v. y-b-l Hophal (2) “…. to be borne as to the grave, Job 10:19, also 21:30, 32.”
    2. y-b-l also = be brought forth (Gesenius, loc cit. hiphil [3]). So Tubal-Cain originally meant “That which is brought forth [tubal] (from) a reed [qayin]” = “offspring of a reed” (which is Dumu-zi[d] in Sumerian) but it also could be interpreted: “That which is carried away (to the grave) [by] a shaft”, which is how it is inerpreted (by implication) in the midrash.

    As regards our mission we are an independent, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing fellowship, and we follow the Apostle Paul’s dictum: “follow me as I follow the Messiah”. This means (as you will see from Galatians chapter 1 in the New Testament) that we depend on being led and guided totally by the Holy Spirit, whilst fellowshipping with (though not being dependent on) any established organization. Where we might have major differences with some organizations is in our adherence to the ministry of William Branham, the spear-head of the post-WW2 healing and charismatic revival. (You can get a relatively unbiased or at least sympathetic academic assessment of that ministry in All Things Are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America David Edwin Harrell Jr. Also from a personal eyewitness and later professor in UK, The Pentecostals Walter J. Hollenweger, Better you can go to our Gospel videos page: here,

    Our location is Texas (mainly Dallas).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments of all kinds are welcome.

If you have no email or want to keep it private, just enter or similar in the Email box. Thankyou.