@@sharondavidson7594 🧐 very interesting! Thanks for sharing!!

@@jamesbean7612 You’re correct! Likely similar origins for the cryptid…

@@kimberlyblaszyk Like how that orange cat got misidentified as a mountain lion recently 😂

@@TheReaper-tu2rp you’d actually be surprised by how these accounts mirror the Bible: such as Gilgamesh and Atrahasis! I would say there is truth buried in the myth for these.

Confirmation bias is dangerous!

@@AlethicAvenger I’m sorry you felt the comparison was misleading! Let’s dive into your concerns and analyze the texts a little more. I’m always down for a good discussion of the evidence. The first 4 of 7 tablets (over half) of the Enuma Elish are focused on primordial beings and the conflict of the gods, culminating in Marduk’s victory over Tiamat and rise to power. Let’s compare that to Genesis: we get 1-2 verses of the state of the universe before creation starts. Tablets 5 and 6 of the Enuma Elish focus on bringing order to the cosmos via creation and then creating humanity. Humanity’s creation is more of an afterthought to make the load easier on the gods - while the creation comparison in Genesis is that everything is being created FOR humanity. Two very different motifs. It’s very clear when we analyze these two texts that the majority of the Enuma Elish is focused on pre creation, while Genesis itself is focused on creation. Logically, if we try to analyze these texts from a comparative analysis: it becomes clear these two are very different. The overlap of Genesis 1-2 would be in tablets 5 and 6 of the Enuma Elish, which means most of the Enuma Elish sequentially preludes Genesis. In saying this, I’m targeting Billy Carson’s misinformation that “Genesis copied the Enuma Elish” by demonstrating the texts don’t even align in sequential material. I did also put a qualifier in this video in the comparative analysis “If anything, it would function as a mythological prequel”. We can’t literally merge these texts, but the underlying theme is clear: the Enuma Elish covers earlier events that Genesis wouldn’t on a single chronological time scale. To your final point: I’m a bit confused. The myth certainly has complex themes, and that’s evident in the story. What other complex themes do you think we should have addressed to avoid oversimplification? Babylon’s supremacy is a key theme: as tablet 7 is establishing Marduk, their deity, as supreme above all others. Were you hoping we’d address more nuances as a whole perhaps? These videos are a series: I’m not aiming for a deep dive analysis on every detail, that’s more for the podcast. These videos are primarily for the casual viewer to get their feet wet and understand the myth. I appreciate your detailed feedback and insight, and I look forward to hearing more of your perspective so I can make future videos more engaging to those who want to dive deeper into the complexity of these myths, such as yourself.

@@m.quad.musings 1) comparing myths isn't just about lining up events on a timeline. it's about analyzing themes, motifs, literary devices, and cultural contexts. sequential analysis is one tool, not the only tool, in comparative mythology. 2) despite differences in sequence and emphasis, the Enuma Elish and Genesis share important motifs like the creation of the cosmos from primordial chaos, the establishment of order, and the creation of humanity. these shared motifs suggest a relationship, even if not a direct "copying" or prequel relationship. your response downplays these similarities. shared themes are important even with different narratives. 3) while the Enuma Elish portrays humanity's creation as serving the gods, it also emphasizes humanity's role in maintaining cosmic order. similarly, while Genesis emphasizes God's provision for humanity, it also includes the concept of humans working the land and having responsibilities. both creation accounts have more nuance than your response suggests. 4) the purpose of creation in both narratives is complex and multifaceted. reducing it to a simple "afterthought" or "for humanity" statement ignores these complexities. it's important to look for the deeper meaning and symbolism, not just surface-level descriptions. 5) the term "prequel" implies a direct narrative connection, which is not accurate. while there may be shared cultural and mythological influences, there is no evidence of a direct literary dependence of Genesis on the Enuma Elish. "influence" is different from "prequel." 6) your response ignores the distinct cultural and historical contexts of the two texts. the Enuma Elish is a Babylonian creation myth with strong political and religious implications within Babylonian society. Genesis is part of the Hebrew Bible and reflects the religious beliefs of ancient Israel. context is crucial in interpreting ancient texts. 7) Marduk's rise to power in the Enuma Elish is directly connected to the legitimization of Babylonian kingship. this political dimension is crucial to understanding the myth. your response doesn't elaborate on this. myths often reflect and reinforce social and political structures. 8) the Enuma Elish also deals with themes of chaos and order, divine conflict, creation through violence, and the role of humanity in the cosmos. reducing it to simply "Babylonian supremacy" is an oversimplification. myths often have multiple layers of meaning. 9) while accessibility is important, it should not come at the expense of accuracy. it's possible to present complex information in an engaging and understandable way without oversimplifying it to the point of being misleading. simplicity doesn't have to mean inaccuracy. 10) a better approach would be to acknowledge the limitations of the video format and encourage viewers to seek further information if they are interested in a more in-depth analysis. it's okay to say "This is a brief overview."

@@AlethicAvenger ​ Thanks for the clarity! I appreciate and respect your dedication to these mythology accounts - its a crucial trait to have when studying them. I think we both agree more than it may appear on the surface: we just have different approaches and intents in mind in our analysis. Lets dive into your points and find some common ground! 1. 100% agree with you here. But the intent in a 1-2 minute comparative analysis is not to dive into every single point in great depth. Again, my goal here is not a comprehensive analysis of the Enuma Elish, but to dispel common pop culture misinformation. Despite this limitation, I did hit themes, motifs, and cultural context in my brief analysis. If you're interested in a deep dive of the text, I'd highly encourage you to check out our podcast "Episode 035 - The Enuma Elish, Nibiru, & Pyramids on Mars", then feel free to email added thoughts and corrections you have! It will likely get read and addressed on the show. 2. You are correct that both of these accounts share common motifs of creation and order from chaos. I would add to that, however, and say the order from chaos stems from two different motifs in the accounts: Genesis is focused on a good natured being creating the universe, like an artist painting a canvas. While the Enuma Elish is focused on war, conflict, betrayal, and death to bring order to the cosmos. I believe you're missing this in your analysis - as this factor greatly plays into my response. 3. There are nuances, sure. Your response also missed some: such as Genesis saying that the world is "very good" after man and woman are created, a phrase not used elsewhere. The motifs are there, I would agree, but the nuances are also present: stewardship of creation in Genesis, vs servitude in the Enuma Elish. It's similar, yet each is distinct. 4. How would you say the creation in both narratives is multifaceted? Context matters: I stated that "creation in the Enuma Elish is ALMOST an afterthought" (emphasis added). The intent of this phrase is primarily to show that creation is NOT central to the narrative, like it is in Genesis 1-2. Again, sure, I'd agree there are always nuances you can look at in almost anything, but that doesn't take away from the key themes being key. We would have to disagree that boiling a story down to the most prominent themes is "ignoring [its] complexities". It sounds like you wanted a deep comparative analysis: that was not my intent here. My intent was a brief overview: those that want more can go check out the podcast! 5. Again, context matters. I did not just say "prequel". I said "If anything, Genesis would function more as a mythological prequel than the original source material to Genesis." There are certainly more nuances to consider, but you're taking my statement out of context and ignoring the intent of what I was addressing. We would agree on the myth I was trying to dispel: That Genesis is a literary copy of the Enuma Elish, put forward by Billy Carson. I've just approached dispelling this myth in a way that caused some confusion in our discussion. 6. I agree here that context matters for cultural and historical aspects. But my intent isn't to break down every aspect of a mythology account in a comment. I'm focused on referencing aspects of the myth that are relevant for us to discuss and to clarify why I chose to focus on retelling the story the way I did, with the analysis I provided. I think you've missed my intent here. 7. You are correct about Marduk's rise to power being used to legitimatize the Babylonian's supremacy: and we analyze this some in the podcast, Episode 035. Again, the intent of my response in a comment thread here is not to offer a comprehensive analysis of the Enuma Elish, but to rather explain my reasons for the analysis I provided. It sounds like you are misconstruing me not mentioning certain details in conversation (that aren't relevant to the point I'm attempting to make) as intentionally excluding them altogether. 8. I'm confused here. First you say I don't mention the rise of Marduk being tied to the Babylonian's supremacy mindset, and then you say I've reduced it solely to "Babylonian supremacy". There are certainly more themes - but it is not an oversimplification to focus on one theme when an entire tablet of text is dedicated to establishing Marduk as supreme. Again, these other themes you mentioned are addressed in both the video through the story itself, and the podcast. 9. I agree, accessibility should not come at the expense of accuracy! I put a good deal of thought and work to ensure this retelling met that end: so I'm sorry you feel that the accuracy of this retelling suffered. I did hit all of the key points of the story without introducing the entire pantheon, and offered a brief comparative analysis addressing "pop culture" inaccuracies. It sounds like your disagreements stem more from misunderstandings of my intent than a failure to be true to the original text with the intent I had. 10. You are right here: I often do encourage listeners/viewers to seek out the source material, but I did not do that in this particular video. Its an important clarification I'll keep in mind for future content. But to a degree it is also implied that, if you want to study the text word for word, you should read it directly, or seek out an audio book source (plenty are on KZbin) rather than a retelling with a time cap. Most viewers do approach the type of video I've created with an understanding of natural limitations, including creative liberties (such as depicting Tiamat as a serpent, despite her never being described as one directly in the Enuma Elish). In conclusion, I think we're on the same page more than it seems. We're both dedicated to a true and accurate account of the myths. My focus in the comparative analysis, again, was largely dispelling pop culture myths. It was not to offer a comprehensive, all inclusive analysis in under 2 minutes. As you've pointed out, and as my podcast demonstrates, there's too many nuances for that. It would be impossible! Hopefully this clears up the confusion.

@@dr.madthumbz2689 It’s a great story! Deff one of my favorites from Mesopotamian mythology. Dissected it on the podcast and retold it on the channel in our myths and mystery in under 10 minutes. What specifically about Atrahasis in relation to this video?

@@donaldday5459 I’ve heard many accounts like these! We’ll be mentioning the Smithsonian potential cover up on an upcoming podcast ep.

They are still stored in hiding. What crazy shit is that. Like so much disclosure is possible. Truth. It's about time

This is an insightful perspective! Thanks for sharing. I agree with you: I think people should study not just the Bible, but ALL of these topics put forward, especially by Billy Carson. Just a little study can go a long way to revealing the truth that many of these public figures tend to cover up. There is indeed much historically validity to the Bible! We've dedicated about 5 episodes of our podcast to exploring this idea.

@@m.quad.musings I'm guessing you're not aware of the videos where Christian theologians deep

You've hit the nail on the head - I agree! Flood myths spanning a region could be "coincidence" or "copying", but its a stretch. But flood myths around the world? This speaks to a common memory that is preserved differently from one culture to another. Now the question becomes... why do so many people reject this idea, despite its logical approach?

@ I think if they learned about the flood in a history class there would be no problem. But since it’s in the Bible, a lot of people reject it right away. The Bible tells us how people will act when the return is near. I have also learned in my 60 years that some people just aren’t big fans of logic.

@ It defies the Evolutionary Model... fast geological changes, ancient humans that were advanced beyond cavemen.... People in school are taught what to think, not HOW to think! But yes, you're right. Some people aren't fans of logical at all... some even love their logical fallacies too!

@@luistiznado3604 This is a fantastic question to ask! By “right”, what are you referring to? Accurate flood account, or something else?

@@m.quad.musings which book is the book that is telling us our real past

@@luistiznado3604 My conjecture would be whichever one gets the most details right and plausible, but they all would likely add to the picture in some way. What would your thoughts be?

@@m.quad.musings what if there’s books that we don’t know about that exist? Why do the government and the Vatican get to choose what we believe in why are some scriptures rewritten? Why is the Old Testament the Old Testament and why is the New Testament the New Testament? Why are we rewriting the Bible’s? We will never know the real truth The book of Enoch makes sense, but then again the book of Enoch was forbidden to be written on to the Bible because it talks about beings that came to help us

​ @luistiznado3604 I love the idea about books we don't know exist! There's TONS of books in monasteries that have yet to be translated. Now I'm not familiar with scripture being rewritten... my research has shown the exact opposite - that scripture tends to remain unchanged for thousands of years. I have a copy of P52 next to me that is the Book of John, and we can identify the exact phrases with the original Greek text. The nice thing is, if you disagree, the Vatican nor the government can make you believe it! The Old Testament and New Testament are split from time periods of writing and topics. Unless you're hinting at some revision I'm unaware of? Now the Book of Enoch: we're close to the same page again. Its not so much forbidden but its source was questioned, as it didn't prove as reliable of a document as other scripture. But I 100% believe there is merit to reading it - in fact we'll be dissecting it on a podcast episode in the near future. It adds SO much insight to Genesis 6. You may think there's a cover up.... but I think its clear in the text, if you know what you're looking for, something weird was going on... the evidence is there!

@@joelopez5320 you’re close! Babylon is near Ur (up the Euphrates) but Ur and Babylon, like many cities in the region, were their own clear distinct city states. There were a number of powershifts in the area over the years: you’re likely thinking of around 600 BCE when Babylon become the supreme power before the Babylonian exile of the Israelites.

@@thegoodspear17 archeologists and evidence! 🔬

@@m.quad.musings I commend you for how polite you are to these trolls.

@@michaelgalotto1764 Thanks for your question! I think there’s some confusion here, it’s hard to explain everything on this topic in 60 seconds. Let me try and clarify: I’m not arguing that tablets such as Gilgamesh predate our earliest known copies of the Bible. We would expect that Gilgamesh would date to before, even if the Bible was 10,000 years older, because clay tablets outlast papyrus. Original documents would long since disintegrate. What I am demonstrating in this video is that, the key time that many scholars (even current scholars) believe the Bible was copied from Mesopotamian texts was during the Babylonian exile (~500BCE). But this find shows it cannot be true because a verse from the text supposedly copied was found dating to before the exile (~600BCE). Attributing the Bible to copying Babylonian myth before the exile (the only logical option left if you want to insist the Bible did copy it) is challenging without numerous leaps and assumptions, as these cultures were well removed. It comes with its own slew of questions as well… Much of our recent content addresses these issues, but I’m happy to elaborate here if you’d like!

@m.quad.musings yes please do because what your saying is the bible copied the story and passed it off as it's own. I'm not doubting that the story happened. What i'm doubting is that it happened in the timeline of the bible. I believe there was a flood.

@@LeonWoods-m7j I welcome another insightful perspective! What’s your take?

@@vanjernigan997 Thank you! Appreciate the positive feedback.

This was a great expose! Some body mis -understood me, or I probably was not clear, more likely

@@Crayz919 this is always an intriguing one. What are your thoughts on Mesas being petrified giant tree trunks 🧐

Whatever Roger spurr @mudfossil university KZbin channel says it is it is ...

@@terrenrich4097 so most of us are giants now?

@@rockhardtech965 Numbers is indeed a long book! It definitely wouldn’t all fit on an amulet, but we don’t necessarily need it to for us to learn about the past. A verse from a book from the same collection (the Pentateuch), specifically a verse from a later book than Genesis, shows evidence of the material as a whole existing before the Babylonian exile. I was sure to include names, an actual photo of the amulet, etc, so I’m sorry you didn’t think anything was actually said in the video! Feel free to rewatch and, if you hear anything said, fact check me! 🙂

The only thing that stood out to me was one word….. supposedly lol

@@RobertBurbage what do you mean?

Rockhardtech,you been playing withyourself?

@@RobertBurbage The "supposedly" was in reference to the claim that the Book of Numbers was written after the Babylonian exile. You misunderstood what was said.

@@horacegandy such as? I provided direct information on the find (including an image) along with the person responsible for the dig so you can fact check me yourself. If you found an error, please share!

@m.quad.musings first off, the bible is fake.

@@horacegandy I appreciate the clarity. I'm not addressing if the Bible is fake or real in this video: I'm addressing how a find in the 1970s shows the book of Numbers existed around 600 BC, which predates the Babylonian exile in history. The presence of a verse from the Pentateuch before such a pivotal historic event demonstrates that the Bible could not have copied Mesopotamian mythology as a whole. Now I'm not addressing if the Bible was "made up" before 600BC, but historical evidence shows it at least existed at that point, from this one find. Hope this clears up some of the confusion, let me know your thoughts

​@@m.quad.musingsI am a Merovengian. My Israelite bloodline left Mesopotamia 7,000 years ago, heading into the lands of Kemet. Thousands of years passed before my bloodline ended up as slaves in Babylon. So what exactly are you trying to say in this video? Billy Carson is only partially right. Gilgamesh was not apart of Noah's bloodline but rather traveled to meet with them. He did not meet Noah. He met Shem. The Israelites are bloodline of Nimrod, Cush, and Ham. Shem's bloodline trained the Hicsaus Pharaohs, who later became the Roman emperors. Shem's bloodline is the true meaning of Jew, as the Israelite tribes have been tribes since before leaving Mesopotamia. The Israelites were in Kemet for 1,000 years, not 100. The bloodline of the Hicsaus Pharaohs are the reason the Isrealite tribes are lost. They are the reason for the way our planet is today.

and you are not?? HA! But obviously know all things . Why don't you

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Can you elaborate on this proof that spans continents?

I can't seem to find a way to post a comment even though I have subscribed and clicked the bell for all feeds...​@@m.quad.musings

Thanks for your feedback and thoughtful insight! You bring up a great question: What do we miss when we retell a mythology account as a summary/shortened story? The goal here is always to be as historically accurate as possible without overwhelming the viewers with excessive detail. The intent of this channel is to provide a basic understanding that allows the audience to springboard into our podcast discussions, and perhaps even their own study, with a heightened understanding of the key themes of the story. Works like mine function well as an introduction to the myth, but not as a sole basis for academic study. There's certainly more to explore in terms of context and culture to the ancient beliefs! I see you're also a mythology story teller - great to see you here! Don't hesitate to shoot us an email at [email protected] if you want to explore collaboration in the future!

@@MAMSA-o8d exactly! They teach people WHAT to think not HOW to think. Crucial difference!

@@m.quad.musings No... not my point. Schools don't teach well enough to counter the dumbest conspiracy theories ever. A 9th grader with a thirty-minute research time could pick this argument to pieces on how the Egyptians had electricity and prove it false.

@@energeticdarkliquid We strive to make ancient stories like Gilgamesh accessible and engaging for everyone. While ancient reliefs provide a fantastic glimpse into the past, they don’t exactly capture the narrative detail needed for modern storytelling. We use AI to fill in these gaps and bring these epic tales to life in a way that everyone can understand and appreciate. It’s definitely not a process we take lightly and involves a lot of creative decision-making, though there is only so much we can do as a small channel with a limited budget. We appreciate your passion for authenticity and always aim to respect the original sources. We’d love to hear any specific suggestions you might have!

@@m.quad.musings I think it works well

@ So these are some great questions, but I think you’re perceiving me as more fringe than I actually am. Mainstream history puts the pyramids being built from 2700-1500 BCE, possibly much older. Our ancient history seems to indicate severe cataclysmic events disrupted society in the past. So where are the devices? Well, what would happen to a car if you left it outside for 2,000 years and forgot what it was? How much would be left? Same for the cables and other pieces, if it even used those. Just because we can’t find definitive remains of advanced tech doesn’t mean there wasn’t any. Between looters and the natural passage of time, we don’t need “aliens and spaceships” for it to vanish from known history. A power plant is just one possible theory. Depending on how you look at the world, there’s different type of advancement as well beyond what we think of as technologically advanced. Hope this clears some of it up!

I believe it does have some "ancient graffiti" (please correct me if I'm mistaken) in a couple spots, but you are correct that there's no traditional hieroglyphs inside. Thanks for pointing that out!

Except the Rosetta Stone was found in 1799, yet many speculations on the pyramids being something more are recent. Specifically with works like Christopher Dunn's "The Giza Powerplant". There's also issues where the tensile strength of hemp rope wouldn't have been enough to move the pyramid blocks in some instances (some of our modern machinery can't even move certain blocks). In fact, I think some have actually discussed how steel ropes wouldn't even have the tensile strength to handle the weight. Curious to hear your thoughts on these points!

There are NO markings of any kind inside the Great Pyramid. Never has been.

@rgrim11 yes there is work gang graffiti created by the workers who built it includes kufos name but also the drawings of the sand sleds and scaffolding imotepts name as well as as dates of construction. Sorry your ignorant of the facts a simple Google search could have saved you this very embarrassing encounter. Go upstairs and apologize to your mother for the shame you bring your family

@@m.quad.musings not reading you're inaccurate essay

@@Jimmy_carters_ghost A bit uncalled for, don't you think? I think you missed some facts, detailed in my "essay"... maybe you should've googled them first 🤔

🤣 You can do anything with those, if you're MacGyver!

@@karlkertez8943 or maybe Atlantis?

There has never been any evidence to support the claim that giants existed. No single shred of evidence. Everything you think counts as "evidence" has been debunked by legitimate experts.

@@scottchilds5726 Then the next question is: what was the shell for?

So you don't think it could have been advanced humans alone?

There is no evidence to support aliens built them or that it was a power plant. The Hyloglyphs on the walls describe exactly why when where and how they were built. When 4000 years ago. Over the course of 50 years Why a tomb for kufu his wife and his son Who imotept How sand sleds and scaffolds and ramps and pullies the stone blocks are 2.5 tons a Subaru weighs 2.912 tons you can push a Suburu by yourself if it's in neutral . You could push a pyramid stone yourself if it was in a sand sled but they had an army of Labor they didn't need to push it by themselves.

Great addition to the discussion! It shows how rooted this belief was in the culture. Thanks for sharing your insights!