Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz the truth The Myths behind the myth ( Short version part 1) You can watch my quick 5 minute video explaining this study (basics) youtube video here https://youtu.be/4kBGMhGDktU Are you ready? .....Do
Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz the truth. - Follow In Truth Toggle Navigation Top posts About Follow in Truth Bible Online Home Learn biblical Greek Learn biblical Hebrew Learn the biblical languages Buy my books Study Materials to help with your Bible study Buy Christian products Contact Us Search Subscribe Patreon F.I.T Categories About Follow in Truth Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz the truth.Published by ljthriepland on April 4, 2018April 4, 2018 2 shares Share Tweet Pin Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz the truth The Myths behind the myth ( Short version part 1) You can watch my quick 5 minute video explaining this study (basics) youtube video here Are you ready? …..Do you have your concentration hat on? This study is not an easy one to understand. However, stay with it. I do believe after you have read this study you will have a much better understanding regarding the origins of the story. Please consider supporting my work https://cash.app/LJFollowInTruthMost people will be aware of the claims made regarding Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. These 3 characters being the start of pagan sun god worship throughout the world. There are, in fact, actually a few different stories about the “pagan trinity” as they are sometimes called. The most popular version of the story is that Nimrod and Semiramis were king and queen of Babylon. They ruled the people and turned them against the true God YHWH. However, Nimrod eventually died. Semiramis, in a desperate attempt to hold onto her thrown, derived a plan that would ultimately lead to not only retaining the throne but would elevate her to the status of a goddess. Semiramis claimed, that after Nimrod had died, he ascended to the sun and became the sun god himself. She then told the people that her son, Tammuz, was the reincarnation of the sun god, Nimrod, and that she had been impregnated by the rays of the sun. Tammuz was conceived before Nimrod died or as some versions state, she conceiving through an extra marital source. She would later marry her son, Tammuz, who was, in fact, Nimrod reincarnated. This is why some versions of the story have Nimrod marrying his own mother. In some versions of this tale, Tammuz is later killed by a wild boar. In other versions, he is cut up into numerous pieces and his body parts spread throughout the world. This cutting up into pieces and the body parts being spread over the world is, however, more often asserted as to how Nimrod met his death. Semiramis, is then depicted as going around and collecting his parts in an attempt to reassemble her husband and bring him back to life. She is said to have found all his body parts, apart from his male organ. This then prompts her to build an obelisk which then becomes a phallic symbol. Some versions of the story have Semiramis commanding 40 days of mourning for Tammuz. Some even state that a wild pig should be killed and eaten after the 40 days as a remembrance to Tammuz. After this, God came down and confused the languages at the tower of Babel, as outlined in the Biblical texts found in Genesis 11, when, due to the evilness of this religion, they tried to build a tower so tall it would reach into heaven with Nimrod having said he was angry at God. The religion went “underground” and became a hidden religion. Known only to a select number. This religion has since remained and has integrated itself into every major culture and religion of the earth. Each religion’s central characters can be traced back to Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. They became the gods of Egypt, Greece and Rome and now are worshipped by the Catholic Church in the form of the father, son and MARY the mother. Semiramis has been worshiped under the names Ishtar, Astarte, Rhea and Isis to name just a few, while Nimrod has been Ninus, Osiris and Baal. Tammuz has also been known as Horus and Adonis . All 3 have had many more names accredited to them. It’s quite a story isn’t it? Or rather a mixture of stories.But is the story are the stories, actually true? Buy my books on Amazon.com Amzaon.co.uk The truth This story of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz in any form, regardless of the details or variation, is found nowhere in the Bible. So it simply cannot be stated that the story is a biblical one. Semiramis is not stated as being Nimrods wife, they are are not described as the King and Queen of Babylon and never described as having a son. In fact, Semiramis is NEVER mentioned in the biblical texts, not even once. Tammuz though, is spoken of, just once, in relation to the women weeping for him, which will be looked at and explained later on in this writing. He is, however, not stated as being the son of Nimrod or Semiramis.NIMROD Nimrod himself, appears just 4 times in the Bible. Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah. His father was Ham’s son Cush. Twice we are given the information that cush was his Father. 3 times we are told that he was a mighty warrior and or he began to be mighty and once we are told that Assyria was known as the land of Nimrod. Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. Genesis10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. Further to Genesis 10: 8 and 9 we have Genesis 10:10 and 11 where we are told that he had a kingdom Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 1 chronicles 1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth. Micah 5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders. That’s it. That’s all the information that the Bible actually gives us about Nimrod. No mention of his wife, no mention of his children if he had any at all. The Bible never states that Nimrod built the tower of Babel and it never mentions how or indeed when he died. All of which seem, by its silence on the matter, to be irrelevant to the biblical narrative. Surely a story as relevant as this, so important, if it were true, would have at least some biblical support, at least a verse attesting to the fact, but it doesn’t. There is nothing in the Bible that would even hint at the narrative, let alone give us this story. So this story regarding Nimrod and his wife is not, in fact, a biblical story. This fact alone, should, at least cast doubt over its veracity. We must discern what we consider authoritative. The biblical silence on the matter and so, in actuality, the lack of biblical support for the theory, and so negating the theory, is actually categorically supported by history itself. It must also be acknowledged that there is not one single piece of written historical evidence from anyone from antiquity that directly links Nimrod and Semiramis together…in ANY way. There is nothing in the Apocrypha writings that can be used to link them together. There is no mention of them in ANY Hebraic/Jewish writings, including the Talmud. Not even Josephus the famous Jewish historian mentions Semiramis being Nimrods wife. While it may be surprising to those that have heard this story, there is no mention of them having a son called Tammuz or having any children for that matter which shouldn’t be a total surprise seeing in fact there is NO mention whatsoever of Nimrod and Semiramis together by ANYONE, ANYWHERE until the 1850’s…..AD. Yes that’s right the 1850’s AD. Less than 175 years ago when Alexander Hislop made this claim in his infamous book the 2 Babylons.Alexander Hislop’s theory Alexander Hislop stated: “The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod – Tammuz – and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” – The first divine incomprehensible trinity.” – The Two Babylons; Alexander Hislop, page 51 Anytime it is said, written or placed into a meme, yes we all know those notoriously truthful Facebook memes that the poster believes is actually counted as evidence for the claim within the meme but proves absolutely nothing, that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod, the source of the information in that claim will undoubtedly be direct from or based on the information and claims made inside the pages of this book. The claims in this book are the basis on which the claims made by most people who state Nimrods wife was Semiramis. Even if the person making the claim does not know it themselves. Many of those said people have done little to no personal research at all into the claim. They simply take the claims as if they were true. It sounds good, it looks good, it must be good. Now, i’m certainly not saying that this is the case for everyone, there are many highly studied people who still believe this. I have certainly come across many in my time both studied and unstudied, hey I even used to use this myself. Of course it was true. The video on Youtube said so. They even gave the “evidence”, which so turns out to be the information provided in the 2 Babylons book……and round in a circle we go. Most of the claims made by Alexander Hislop catch the attention. They draw upon the emotions. They feel like they are revelational, eye opening, revealed long lost hidden secrets that the devil wants so desperately to conceal from humanity, theologically sound and historically supported arguments. They are most likely, although I cannot say for certain intentionally so. Now, I am almost as certain, almost is the correct word, that Hislop believed what he wrote. I believe that he was passionate and meant no harm by his deception, I highly doubt he was aware of the fact he was wrong. He may very well have thought that the way in which he connected the dots was correct. He may well have believed he had uncovered this mystery. But no matter of the extent of his convictions or the nature of his intent, wrong he was and wrong he remains. So the question must be asked, a question that is vitally important to the understanding of this theory. If nobody before Alexander Hislop had ever written about Nimrod , Semiramis and Tammuz together how did he come up with the theory in the first place? The answer to this question is indeed much simpler than the way in which Alexander Hislop went about drawing his conclusion. Through assumption, comparative theology, the use of incorrect and inaccurate historical information, association, misrepresentation and a whole heap of amalgamating together numerous and unrelated ancient myths and stories based on similarities ,cherry picking pieces of information while simply ignoring others or imposing any one or any combination of the aforementioned. Alexander Hislop “creates” this story himself a story that is never told or known by anyone before him.A story unheard or untold in the ancient world. A story that has since been embellished, conflated and confused by those that have retold it. It is now applied to virtually every deity that has “existed”. As already stated there is no historical written evidence of Semiramis and Nimrod being married but that little fact did not derail Hislop or his theory. Seeing that Semiramis is not attested to in the Bible alongside Nimrod, the first thing that Hislop needed to do, was “prove” that Semiramis lived at the same time as Nimrod. Placing Semiramis in the same time period as Nimrod was vital to the theory. In the 2 Babylons book, Hislop uses Marcellinus, Justinus and the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea as proof that Semiramis lived at the same time as Abraham He stated: “* AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS compared with JUSTINUS, Historia and EUSEBIUS’ Chronicle. Eusebius says that Ninus and Semiramis reigned in the time of Abraham.” Hislop further states: “ For the age of Shem see Genesis 11:10, 11. According to this, Shem lived 502 years after the flood, that is, according to the Hebrew chronology, till BC 1846. The age of Ninus, the husband of Semiramis, as stated in a former note, according to Eusebius, synchronised with that of Abraham, who was born BC 1996. It was only about nine years, however, before the end of the reign of Ninus, that the birth of Abraham is said to have taken place. (SYNCELLUS) Consequently, on this view, the reign of Ninus must have terminated, according to the usual chronology, about BC 1987. Clinton, who is of high authority in chronology, places the reign of Ninus somewhat earlier. In his Fasti Hellenici he makes his age to have been BC 2182. Layard (in his Nineveh and its Remains) subscribes to this opinion. Semiramis is said to have survived her husband forty-two years. (SYNCELL) Whatever view, therefore, be adopted in regard to the age of Ninus, whether that of Eusebius, or that at which Clinton and Layard have arrived, it is evident that Shem long survived both Ninus and his wife. Of course, this argument proceeds on the supposition of the correctness of the Hebrew chronology. “ Syncellus we must note, himself drew upon the works of Eusebius and Justinus. The king list of Eusebius in his Chronicle has Semiramis succeeding her husband Ninus who lived at the time of Abraham. Therefore Hislop concludes Semiramis lived at the time of Abraham. While this kings list places Semiramis at the time of Abraham and so therefore as it is also claimed that Nimrod was alive at the time of Abraham, this also places Semiramis at the time of Nimrod it still does not actually connect Nimrod and Semiramis together. It merely demonstrates that Semiramis lived at the same time as Nimrod. But her husband was called Ninus, she according to even Eusebius was not the wife of Nimrod. Hislop however overcomes this “slight” problem in his reasoning by then claiming that Nimrod can be linked to Ninus and in fact Nimrod was none other than Ninus or maybe better put Ninus was Nimrod. (linking seemingly unrelated people, gods or things together plays a major part of Hislop’s theory) Hislop claims that Ninus is clearly Identified with Nimrod. He then uses some things that are attributed to Ninus such as being warlike and a hunter.These attributes are linked to Nimrod through similarities. Hislop using evidence (Eusebius) to clearly identify Ninus as an ancient king of Assyria. So both Nimrod and Ninus being the most ancient King of Assyria. While this all might seem like it does what it is supposed that it does, and prove that Nimrod was none other than Ninus and Semiramis was married to Ninus who was Nimrod and so therefore also proves Semiramis was indeed married to Nimrod, there are some major and irreconcilable flaws in the evidence used to prove it. First Hislop rather than seeing an error in one of, or both of, the understandings of who the most ancient of Assyrian kings may be as surely having conflating accounts would incline a person to deduce, Hislop concludes that one must in fact simply be the other. This doesn’t make the conclusion incorrect but it would require more than just similarities to actually prove that they were one and the same person. More importantly it is almost certain that Ninus didn’t actually exist and neither did Semiramis. The Assyrian king list of Eusebius, which Hislop used in order to place Semiramis at the time of Nimrod, is factually incorrect. At the time when Hislop penned his book, Assyrian and Babylonian studies was in its infancy. During the 18th Century many cuneiform tablets were found in sites throughout Mesopotamia. It wasn’t until the late 18th century that the markings on these tablets came to be known as actual writings. So began the arduous task of decipherment. In 1778 Carsten Niebuhr a Danish mathematician published accurate copies of three trilingual inscriptions from the ruins at Persepolis. It was found by Niebuhr that the writings went left to right each of the three inscriptions contained three different types of cuneiform writing. These he called class 1, 2 and 3. Class I was determined to be alphabetic and consisting of 44 characters, and was written in Old Persian. It was first deciphered by Georg Friedrich Grotefend and Henry Creswicke Rawlinson between 1802 and 1848.[8]The second inscription, Class II, proved more difficult to translate. In 1850, Edward Hincks published a paper showing that the Class II was not alphabetical, but was in fact both syllabic and ideographic, which led to its translation between 1850 and 1859. The language was at first called Babylonian and/or Assyrian, but has now come to be known as Akkadian.From 1850 onwards, there was a growing suspicion that the Semite inhabitants of Babylon and Assyria were not the inventors of cuneiform system of writing, and that they had instead borrowed it from some other language and culture. In 1850, Edward Hincks published a paper suggesting that cuneiform was instead invented by some non-Semitic people who had preceded the Semites in Babylon. In 1853, Rawlinson came to similar conclusions, and the Class III inscriptions were recognized as being written in this more Ancient language, a language which was then called “Akkadian” or “Scythian” but which is now known to be Sumerian. This was the first indication to modern scholarship that this older culture and people, the Sumerians, existed at all. The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character, by Samule Noah KramerSir Austen H Layard retrieved from the ruins of Nineveh cuneiform tablets during the 1840’s and 50’s. Sir Henry Rawlinson started deciphering the previously unknown information contained on these tablets. These works were published under the permission of Sir Henry Rawlinson between 1870 and 1884. Previously unknown history was literally being uncovered as Hislop wrote and subsequently brought to light. History which even Hislop himself was unaware of. Prior to the discovery of the Assyrian king lists on the cuneiform tablets, scholars only had access to the full kings list of Eusebius and a list found in the the Excerpta Latina Barbari. However with the discovery of the cuneiform tablets it showed that what was previously believed may not be as accurate as what was once believed. Unlike the cuneiform tablets the kings list attested to by Eusebius is not factual. This new information shed new light upon the true history of the Assyrians. Bringing with it the revelation that previously believed history was actually not history at all. Neither Ninus nor Semiramis are attested to by any of the kings lists which the Assyrians themselves compiled. They are not mentioned in any cuneiform literature or any Mesopotamian writings. Semiramis and Ninus emerge as monarchs of Assyria only in Greek versions of Assyrian history and never in the history of the Assyrians themselves It was for many centuries that most of the information regarding Mesopotamia came from these classical Greek writers. But today modern Assyriologists have much more to go on and a completely different picture of the Assyrians and Mesopotamia as a whole has emerged. Ctesias of Cnidus Many historians up until the discovery of the cuneiform tablets had followed the works of Ctesias of Cnidus for Assyrian history. Ctesias was thought to have been the best available source. The discovery of the Cuneiform tablets however showed that Ctesias writings on which both Eusebius and Justin indirectly drew upon was nothing more than fables. Ultimately invalidating both.The work of Justin were an epitome of Trogus Pompeius (cited by Hislop) whoes own works were based upon the works of Ctesias. Eusebius own works were summaries of Greek writers who drew upon Ctesias. Ctesias of Cnidus was both a Physician and Historian. He was a Greek who lived mainly in the 5th century BC. He wrote many works. His history of the Assyrians is found in books 1-6 of his Persika called the… truncated (35,198 more characters in archive)