When will the schools or churches tell our childern about the Anunnaki and the Sumerian Text ?

The Sumerian list assigns an average reign duration of 30,150 years, with a total duration for the period of 241,200 years, compared to an average age of the biblical patriarchs of 858 years and a sum of 8575 years for their full lives.

The antediluvian portion of the King List does not include the Sumerian first man nor the Flood hero. If Adam and Noah are dropped from the biblical list, the number of people in the two lists is then the same—eight. Also, the total of the durations of the kingdoms and the total of the ages of the patriarchs are numerically related and are equivalent if the number base of the Sumerian list is changed from sexagesimal to decimal.

It is likely that the Sumerian scribe that composed the original antediluvian list had available a document (possibly a clay tablet) containing numerical information on the ages of eight of the patriarchs similar to that of the Genesis record and that he mistakenly interpreted it as being written in the sexagesimal system.

That the two documents are numerically related is strong evidence for the historicity of the book of Genesis. The fact is that the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded, incomplete version of the Genesis description.

Most of the existing manuscripts of the King List have been dated to the second half of the Isin dynasty. An examination of the grammar of the List, however, shows certain usages that had disappeared by that time. Jacobsen has compared these manuscripts with well-dated documents outside of the King List and has determined the time when these usages disappeared from the then current language.

Jacobsen came to the conclusion that the first part of the List was composed earlier than the reign of Utu-hegal of Uruk (2119–2112 BC) and that the later section was added by a different scribe as he brought an older copy of the List up to date with information about new kings and dynasties. [Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King List, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 217 pp, 1939].

There are evidences that some of these local lists existed in pre-Sargonic times even as far back as the Fara texts (c. 2500 BC). But the author appears to have merged the independent local lists to a sequential list produced under the theory that there was only one king at a given time in all of Babylonia, which was not the case.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is thought to be the oldest writing in secular human history, ignoring the evidence corroborating the Bible.

Ancient old age secular dates are still only opinion, historians admit the date of the Epic is unknown.

The person, Gilgamesh, a legendary king of Uruk, is recorded as one of the post-diluvian kings in the Sumerian king list. Interestingly, the flood is also mentioned after the antediluvian kings whose reigns were said to be more than ten thousand years.

Uruk is recorded as “Erek in Gen. 10:10.” [Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, p. 66, 1982]. Cush, grandson of Noah (son of Ham), is listed in the previous verse. Are you aware that Cush is also listed in the Sumerian King's List from the Tablets found at Elba?

Now which do you think came first, according to the evidence, when the Bible lists the city of Erek, and the Tablets reference Sodom? The city of Sodom was considered myth until the tablets were found. Do you think their dates might also be errant, as are yours?

Ebla dates back to before 2000 BC and was a thriving cultural center. Its records contain references to Sodom and Gomorrah. Before the tablets were found, there was no other reference; and again, thought to be myth.

The extensive circulation of the Gilgamesh Epic in the ancient world is confirmed by the parts of it which were put into Hittite and Hurrian, non-Mesopotamian languages. Before the Tablets were discovered, the Hittites were considered a myth by secular historians, although extensive data about them is given in the Bible.

Bible critics had long sneered at references in the Bible to a people called the Hittites (Genesis 15:20; Exodus 3:8, 17; Numbers 13:29; Joshua 1:4; Judges 1:26 and elsewhere). Their opinion was that the Hittites were simply one of the many mythical peoples made up by Bible writers.

The Bible was right all along! Today, no one questions the existence of the Hittites. Volumes of books exist on the history, art, culture and society of the Hittites. Yet an anti-Bible prejudice still exists as you so plainly show us.

Heidel states, “It has long been recognized that the Gilgamesh Epic constitutes a literary compilation of material from various originally unrelated sources, put together to form one grand, more or less harmonious, whole.” The story is not an independent account; it draws on an identifiable source, the myth of Atrahasis [Moran].

The date of the original composition of the Atrahasis Epic also seems to trace back to before the reign of Hammurabi because of the superiority given to Anu and Enlil in the Epic.

Even though the extant oldest tablets of the Atrahasis Epic date to the days of King Ammizaduga (1646–1626 B.C.).

The Epic cannot be used to deny the authority of the Bible. Their differences show that the Gilgamesh Epic has little reliability, and it would be unlikely that the author of Genesis would use the Epic as the source for the Flood account.

There is no evidence or indication of the Bible borrowing from an inferior text or any other literature.

While a study of the Sumerian list is a fascinating journey in discovering the way Sumerians looked upon their ancestry and how their numeric and commercial systems worked, the quality of the biblical text is distinctly superior in both completeness, information, and spiritual and moral quality. The biblical text does not reflect a borrowing from an inferior text. If anything, the very mention of this kings list that matches so closely to the biblical account is a confirmation of biblical authenticity.

It is clear to historians and scholars that the Epic lacks detail and consistency to be a valid historical document, and is rather regarded mostly as myth. So how do YOU compare the historical narrative of Genesis to the myth of Gilgamesh in order to come to your empty conclusion?

The Bible on the other hand is the most verified and corroborated document of ancient history in the world as to accuracy, authenticity, and with the genealogies, an accurate timeline.

We would know very little about ancient history if it were not for the Bible. In Genesis Chapter 10 is the Table of Nations. Each nation mentioned in the table can be traced down to a modern-day country, and is considered to be one of the most accurate records of the ancient world.

And we've only begun to confirm the Bible in the last century.

Modern archaeology has challenged the world of education to admit that the Bible is factual. Solid, documented evidence outside the Bible record confirms events and persons that were at one time considered to be suspect or plain false.

Of course the account of Creation should be taught in public school, and any other evidences that confirm the first Man. Or what, just leave it out, the most oft-asked question in human history by all? Where do we come from? Kids should be taught that abiogenesis is false, as proven by thousands of experiments.

What does evolution really say? What survives, survives... apart from the obvious tautology do you really need to take a class to figure that out?

What use does evolution really have? It provides atheists with the ability to pretend to be scientific. Beyond that it is really useless noise and has no real place in any science curriculum.

Operational science is not the authority on history. What would you think of a historian who refused to consult the historical records of the Bible, because the Bible was not written for the purposes of history?  

The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each truly read, proves the truth of the other. There is no other ancient literature so well attested by so many manuscripts (handwritten copies of the original text) over such a length of time, as the Christian’s Bible.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, director of the British Museum for 21 years, expressed confidence in the Bible text: “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries” (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895, p. 55).

I've written before about the differences in the Epic description of the Flood compared to the Genesis account:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20161...

Bible Accuracy

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170...

Eight Evidences for a Young Earth (outside the Bible)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160...

Five Evidences of Noah’s Flood  

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20190...

All to do with money.

Such utter ignorance, demon, nothing can predate  Jewish doctrine by 6000 years

They didn't do that because they would need to be human to interact with other hominins.

First is true, the second is false. It is a belief based on faith. 

Neanderthals were the naturally evolved hominids, Homo Sapiens are the alien-human hybrid created by the Anunnaki overlords. At least that is the conspiracy theory I will use for this question.

Oh wow. Ok. First off...humans are not Neanderthals. We're an entirely different hominid, capable of interbreeding, but still VASTLY different. Homo Sapiens out performed Neanderthals in pretty much every way.

Second...the Anunnaki are cool, intriguing, I admit. It's all very fun to speculate about. But if you want to start teaching something, it needs to have harder evidence than an episode of Ancient Aliens on the 'history' channel.

If someone takes ancient history, they will learn about Sumeria.

But if you want them to learn specifically about Sumerian religious texts, they should take Religious History.

the original source for many of the Bible stories would be more accurate.

Why would my kids school even touch on the sky people when they barely touch on the bible, yet they do go over the Sumerians/Mesopotamia, as well as others.

TRINITY CHURCHES WILL NOT BE DOING THAT...