Talk:Nimrod/Archive 1

Archive 1

Regarding Nimrod

I reverted Nimrod to a previous state, I think someone vandalized it. If I am mistaken, I apologize, Bob 20:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Antecessor

It should be interesting to state, in a disambiguation page or elsewhere, the person or object from whom others derive, if it is known and relevant. In our case it is the king which appears in the Bible who came first. --Harvestman 10:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

City of Nimrod

The German Wikkipaedia makes reference to a battle in 614 in which Nabopolassar sacked a city called Nimrod (carrying on to capture Niniveh in 612). I can't find any references that appear to be decent source material, only a few places that mention it matter of fact (and plenty of wikkipaedia mirrors). Agathoclea 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this means Nimrud, the modern name for the Assyrian city of Calah, although that was destroyed in 612. john k 21:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

that is the one. It seems that dating is a bit contended.

• "Nimrud continued to be a major centre until it fell to the invading Babylonians and Medes between 614-612 BC" [1]
• "probably by the survivors of the first destruction of Nimrud in 614 B.C." [2]

I'll have to dig a little more - thanks Agathoclea 23:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This german site explains the discrepancy - The city was taken in 614 and burned, but the final destruction was not until 612. Agathoclea 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic text and Watersmeet

First off, that last bit of text is a bit heavy, weighing in at several paragraphs of apparent direct quoting from scripture, with Nimrod barely mentioned as a footnote until the last paragraph or so. I plan to get back to the article later to trim it down to just a description of the Islamic view of Nimrod as regards Ibrahim. Secondly, the mention of Watersmeet to me seems significant based on the fact that I've seen them mentioned in several sports-related article including one which cites how a mention on one of the Nike commercials, "Without sports, who would cheer for the Nimrods?", spurred a small high-school team's merchandising to approximately $80,000 in two months. [3] -Fuzzy (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod is mentioned in Sura 2:260 and 21:68f. Any entry on him from a Muslim perspective should follow the OT ones (as these surely are a lot older!) and be based on the two short stories that are mentioned in these two places in the Quran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.242.49 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section needs to be trimmed and placed after the older attestations. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nirod, grandson of (varies)

In the chapter "Biblical accounts" Nimrod is the grandson of Ham, great-grandson of Noah. In the beginning of "The evil Nimrod vs. the righteous Abraham" it says that ' there is a gap of seven generations between them, Nimrod being Noah's great grandson while Abraham was ten generations removed from Noah (Genesis 10,11)

I'm honestly not interested enough in the subject to actually research it, but I thought I mention this discrepancy.

Xigan —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Hungarian traditions paragraph

I have twice reverted Djzoker, not to practice vandalism (which is a serious accusation here) but mainly to correct some idiosyncracies in his version that do not read as if they were written by a native speaker. Basically I have 4 main problems with his wording that he keeps reverting to: 1) It repeats nearly the same information, linking GHH twice; these two sentences saying the same thing should be combined, and it should be linked only once; 2) explanation of 'Ur' in Hungarian is in a very awkward and wordy construction; keeping it simple would be preferable for most English speakers 3) I have also removed the sentence that was in there for a long time: "A very few authors (including F. Hamori, T. R. Michels) have pointed out the similarity between the names Tana and Kush with the historical Etana king of Kish, and an additional possible parallel with the Kushan Scythian ancestor Kush-Tana." In fact, I may have been the one who added this bit taking the info from another article, but the more I think about it, I realize it is a synthesis since it gives us no information about the article subject, Nimrod; we should stick to the topic of Nimrod. 4) The sentence about Abraham not appearing is extraneous and unwarranted since many of the other legends also do not mention Abraham, and only the ones where he does appear are noted, not all those where he doesn't. Besides, I'm not sure 'hypothetical' is the best language to use; we should make the whole thing coherent and encyclopedic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Legend vs. Fiction

I have removed the following from the article, due to the fact that Nimrod's legends are not the same as fantasy or fiction which involve him.

In more modern myths, author Bryan Davis names him king of the tower of Babel in his book Eye of the Oracle. The story however does not follow Nimrod but his son. Nimrod is killed when the 'good' dragons launch an attack on the tower of Babel, destroying it.

Perhaps a section called "In popular culture" may be a better setting, although an exhaustive list of literature mentioning Nimrod is not what Wikipedia is all about (in my understanding).--SidP (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed in May 2008

A Biblical verse citation does not satisfy the required citation for the unsourced assertions below:

• Owing to an ambiguity in the original Hebrew text, it is unclear whether it is he or Asshur who additionally founded Nineveh, Resen, Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and both of these interpretations are reflected in the various English versions.(Genesis 10:8–10)

The citation must address the ambiguity in the Ancient Hebrew. That one translation into English is phrased in a certain way (i.e. the Biblical verse cited) does not address that an ambiguity exists, even if the translator in that case believes there is an ambiguity. That is, the citation is neither broad enough nor necessarily relevant to the claim of original ambiguity.

The removal of the citation needed tag was inappropriate and should not be made again without considerable consensus. 75.67.40.227 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Try clicking the link, and then reading some of the various translations "reflected in the various English versions", if you don't believe that the correct interpretation of this verse is contested. I suspect that you know perfectly well that the interpretation of this verse IS contested, and could verify this, with pages and pages of citations to the nature of the ambiguity of this verse, in about 0.25 seconds just as easily as I could, which is why I consider such 'citation needed' tags for verses that are already cited, frivolous and a waste of editors' valuable time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This might help.

The following is from Germany and the Holy Roman Empire:

"Aside from Nimrod, Genesis 10 also draws special attention to Asshur. “Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah” (verse 11). As the margin suggests, a better translation of this verse reveals that Asshur and Nimrod went out of the land of Shinar to build Nineveh and other cities. There is strong evidence to indicate that Asshur worked with Nimrod, probably in the military field, and helped to build Babel and Nineveh, as well as other cities."

There is at least one source that agrees with this:

Josephus recorded concerning Asshur: “Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons…. Ashur lived at the city of Nieve; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others” (Antiquities, i, vi, 4).

Also, bear in mind that some of the names of gods were actually Kings, who were "deified". Nimrod was never mentioned as King or a god of Assyria, but Ashur was. Some sources also say that Ashur was Ninus. (Note: There was more than one historical Ninus.)72.79.64.123 (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew lettering

Someone might want to do something about the Hebrew version of Nimrod's name in the introduction. In its current formatting, the Resh-Waw digraph looks like a large Heth. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

NIMROD

Many have speculated on the true identity of this king, trying to match him up with numerous Assyrian, Babylonian, and even Egyptian kings. To this date, however, his true identity remains a mystery.

I saw this sentence on the net. What this sentence is saying that Nimrod identity is not yet clear. Therefore I have something to say.

Maybe Nimrod is Kurdish. I will now explain why.

Etymologies of the name "Nimrod" is I believe is not sufficient.

Now I will explain a much better etymology of name Nimrod.

In Kurdish language Ni/Ne is a negative word. Nedi for example means "not seen".

Mir means death in Kurdish.

Nimir, nemir or Nemird means "Immortal" in Kurdish. This might mean that the King Nimrod is immortal.

Nemir,Nemird= Nimrod.

What do you think? I think it is very good explanation of his name.

And I also read that Nimrod lived at least 500 years which reinforces Kurdish word etymology.

Maybe He was Kurdish.

No original research. RossMM 17:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In order for Nimrod to be Kurdish it would have to predate him. Which means that Cush,Ham and Noah would have to be Kurdish. I strongly suggest that he was Cushite in both reality and appearance. Tom 06/18/07

Unbelievable! Kurdish? Why? Because that would make him more caucasian? His identity a "mystery"? Why is it a mystery? If you're going to accept that Nimrod existed, then accept his origins and quit trying to explain them or apologize for them because you know that he is the grandson of Ham, the father of the black race. An accepted truth for Bible believers. If he is the grandson of Ham, and Africa is the birthplace of man, and history attests the dominance of black races during this time by the accounts of classical writers and ancient records, why would it be a mystery? And why is it that whenever confronted with the possibility of black people in biblical (or ancient history period, for that matter) being or doing something of importance or renown, there is always a need for white analysts to disclaim or explain or shroud the matter in confusion and "must be other thans"? This is pure and simply racism and prejudice. And it is childish and outdated. Eve 10/14/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.189.114 (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nimrod as such did not exist, he is a Biblical creation NOT a proven historical figure.

With regards to him being "Kurdish", not possible, the time in which he is supposed to have lived predates the existence of Kurds by thousands of years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be bold

I want to modify the lede by minimizing some things that seem to overstep the facts. But since this subject is related to the Bible and is therefore especially sensitive I'll wait a reasonable time for input before making these changes. As the lede stands: Nimrod (Hebrew: נִמְרוֹד, Modern Nimrod Tiberian נִמְרֹד ; Nimrōḏ Aramaic: ܢܡܪܘܕ‎ Arabic: نمرود‎) is a Mesopotamian monarch mentioned in the Book of Genesis, who also figures in many legends and folktales outside the Bible. He is depicted in the Bible as a mighty ruler and nation builder who founded many cities, including the great Babel or Babylon. Despite his stance as a powerful leader, his reputation was tarnished by his traditional association with the construction of the Tower of Babel. Several ruins were given Nimrod's name by 8th century Arabs[1] (see Nimrud), and he is featured in the midrash.
The changes I want: Nimrod (Hebrew: נִמְרוֹד, Modern Nimrod Tiberian נִמְרֹד ; Nimrōḏ Aramaic: ܢܡܪܘܕ‎ Arabic: نمرود‎) is according to the Book of Genesis, a great-grandson of Noah and the king of Shinar. He also figures in many legends and folktales outside the Bible. He is depicted in the Bible as both a mighty ruler and mighty hunter. Extra-Biblical traditions associating him with the Tower of Babel led to a darkening of his reputation. Several ruins were given Nimrod's name by 8th century Arabs[1] (see Nimrud), and he is mentioned in the midrash.

The reasons for these changes-1- Relationship to Noah is important 2- the Bible does not say he built nations or cities 3- the leap from ruling Babel to building it should not be emphasized in the lede. The main part of the article is given over to (mostly undocumented) legends and the rationalizations for those traditions and that is fine, but they should be kept very clearly be separated in the lede from what the Bible actually says. Nitpyck (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

traditions legends and interpretations

These sections are disorganized and full of un-sourced and under-sourced items. I'm no expert on Targums, Talmud, and Midrash Raba but I'm guessing these stories can be identified as to where they are in those collected writings and hopefully dated. So that we can say - by 100CE tradition claimed Nimrod died from eating a bad clam but in 1400CE they wrote he died by being torn apart by lions. And it would be nice to say if these stories were meant to be taken literally or symbolically. In pseudo-Philo there is no mention of Nimrod at the Tower but Noah and 914,000 of his descendants including Abraham were there. Was this a prior story, a later story or was it contemporary with the Nimrod built it story? When did he become a giant? Was that a misunderstanding of "mighty on the earth"? I am not able to do the kind of research that would make this a good section.

We can try to find if previous researchers have ever tackled these very questions. If not, we are fairly limited to how much conclusion we can draw on our own, ya know! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We've been waiting since 2008 for citations so adding some "it is claimed" and cutting down on the info about a 13th century folksong hardly seems out of place. Changing "The story of Abraham's confrontation with Nimrod did not remain within the confines of learned writings and religious treatises, but also conspicuously influenced popular culture." To "The story of Abraham's confrontation with Nimrod influenced popular culture" really doesn't change the article. I just thought a little clean-up couldn't hurt but I'm not going to make a big deal over it since this section really needs more than that. On a side note, it would be nice if we could find out if any of these stories are BCE. Nitpyck (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel - GREAT JOB. That section is a lot cleaner and makes better sense. My only nitpick is that: one of the most well-known folksongs in Ladino seems like an oxymoron. Nitpyck (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a "Nimrod"

It is a common insult when someone calls you a nimrod, shouldn't it be in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.66.123 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

->That definition is in the disambiguation page, but it probably should be here, as American Heritage traces that meaning to the biblical hunter by way of Elmer Fudd. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nimrod. I suspect that might be controversial though, so I'll leave that edit to an account holder. 24.155.109.17 (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with adding it to the article, as it is not on the disambiguation page, and arguably does not belong on that page since it seems clearly a biblical reference, as originally used the the Bugs Bunny cartoons. Because of its application to Elmer Fudd, it has become a synonym for fool. See:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/nimrod

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nimrod

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nimrod?view=uk

I also concur that someone who is more vested in this page can add this information in the least disruptive fashion. Laguna CA (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow how its use by Bugs Bunny makes it 'biblical'. What am I missing? Sounds more like disambig material to me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nimrod is a biblical character. Unless you can suggest another Nimrod being referred to or want to suggest that the cartoonists picked "Nimrod" by chance for a reference to an obvious hunter (Elmer Fudd), the reference is to the biblical hunter, Nimrod. The problem with putting it on the disambig page is that you're then trying to separate the reference to Nimrod from Nimrod himself; at that point nimrod[sic] is just a word and outside the scope of Wikipedia. Laguna CA (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Your hypothesis cannot be proven correct by default. At any rate, the Bugs Bunny thing is a trivial pop culture reference that was once on this page long ago, then was removed to the disambig. Even if it's not there on the disambig (where it belongs) any more, it is still out of the scope of THIS page, and would add nothing of encyclopedic value to the topic here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fudd usage has become a common vernacular [cit. needed] and for people who want to understand why being addressed after a "mighty hunter" is an insult, this would be a useful piece of information. At the least, a link back to the disambig would be helpful, since this usage is derived from nimrod's association with hunting. 24.168.40.119 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Namangwari (talk) 28 March 2012.

The Historical Interpretations heading is invisible

Historical Interpretations heading is invisible (at least in Firefox). It appears to be hidden behind the table at the end of the prior section. Can someone fix that? 96.234.12.85 (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the issue. I am using Google Chrome so let me know if you still see the problem. -- Patchy1 00:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Where are those ruins?

The lede says- several ruins preserve Nimrod's name,[1]. But the names and places of those ruins is not to be found in the main body of the article. This seems pretty important to me. Does anyone have access to Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985 so this information can be added? Nitpyck (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your note but sites named by the Arabs in the 8th and 9th century CE belong in legends and traditions and not in the lede where the clear implication is that there are archeological sites proving the existence of Nimrod beyond his mention in the Bible. And while I'm whinging about the lede, surely the most important thing is that he is Noah's g-grandson. Nitpyck (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The city of Nimrud from what i know of is Calah, it is a suburb of ancient Nineveh built (according to Eusebius; Jack Finegan) 52 years before Abram was 9. Eusebius equates Ninus as the king, (but Ninus 1270bc/1268bc is the year 1200 of Shem, aka year 1000 of Nimrod). The 52 years of 360-day is Mars, and directly related to building Marduk Temple until paving Marduk Street, indicating that Genesis implies Nimrod only laid a foundation to the temple, and then went on to do for Nineveh. In other words he was a great construction worker never actually doing the building or work. Eusebius says Abram was born in year 43 of Nineveh, and is why he is 9 when the Marduk calendar is created. YOU can catch and paste any sky from an astronomy program but Wiki-Pedia does not consider that a source. So i guess you can also snap a pic of an asteroid headed this way, and they would also say who says so. VERY unstable exalted ground to stand on. I have a letter from publishing houses in the 1990s when i submitted NIMROD, and i received letters in return saying no one cares about Nimrod. Elijahovah (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The bible says Nimrod was rebellious towards God?

The introduction says that according to the bible Nimrod was rebellious toward God. It may just be my protestant version of the bible but I haven't found anything indicating that Nimrod was rebellious. I know it says that in other religious text, but I haven't found biblical support for it. I'm not saying it's not there, I just haven't seen it and I thought it was worth mentioning. A citation or a specific book reference may be needed. Jack of Arts (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I question this because MOST will say oppose God, like a planet goes opposite the sun. But few will say he was exalted and famed, etc. They shuffle the words like fought giants, or was a giant who fought. I think the best word to choose (much like TODAY) is to use the words that he challenged God... he took up challenges. Does not mean oppose, nor glorified, because it is like mass production of cars, the challenge does not really explain have all these cars destroyed us, or saved us. Like sky-divers, some die in defying, and others learn the physical laws to push to the very edge of. Elijahovah (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Too Much Focus on Abraham

Deleted extraneous, unattested, uncited material regarding legendary stories of Abraham being placed in a manger at birth. Not only is this not cited, nor could I readily find any mention of it in accessible sources, but hypotheses regarding Abraham's alleged neonatal incubator from "some accounts" (which?) have nothing whatsoever to do with Nimrod. The more general material regarding the legend of Abraham's mother preserving him from Nimrod's extermination order is somewhat (though really not very) pertinent to the article, and thus has not been edited. If the material from the Ladino folksong is the only source of this manger reference, that should be clarified. However, it is my opinion that this does not sufficiently pertain to the article's topic, anyway. Additional material on Abraham should probably be pared down as well, but I will leave that to be done only if other editors concur. ----24.211.161.230 (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.161.230 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A book of Jasher claims encounter between Nimrod and new born Abram, but then also kills Nimrod by encounter with 16-year old Esau the year after 175-year old Abram dies. All of this cannot be so, if years earlier before Shem died, it was Shem who killed him. None of it is true. The world of religion has mostly attempted to prove wicked do not live long so they buried his longevity of 500 years. BUT this is not true because we have had smokers like George Burns and Betty Davis who looked old and next to death for decades yet outlived most people (the exception exists due to many factors). It was here in Wiki-Pedia that i found the 69 years of Nimrod; for 30 years i have only known the 52 years versus 500 years, and then last year i found the Book of Jasher saying Nimrod dies as 215-year old AmraPal killed by Esau, (another falsehood). This is NOT trash data, they are mistaking dates of a planet setting as Nimrod dying or going to hell. Elijahovah (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Historical erInterpretations: Sargon of Akkad

It would be nice to see some sources in this section. Also, the section describes this as an "older" theory and presents clear evidence that it is a very obviously flawed theory. Why include it?

Older theories can be good, because by explaining how they are wrong, they do not come back by others posting or publishing new books. The name Sargon is derived from Sar which means a king, a Czar, a Tsar, a Caesar, and so as other swill claim Menes is Adam the first king, or Noah the first king of this new world, or Nimrod, they will also think Nimrod was first Pharaoh or first Sar. Confusion of people is also recorded with the words after Sargon saying So who is king, and who is not king? Thus confusion equated as Nimrod. However, Babel may be called The City, but the name Ur means The City, and as such this is why when the city is destroyed and its last king Ibbi-Sin (two kings after AmarPal) that then again someone says See this is Nimrod and his city was destroyed that Abram lived in. And this is true in writings that put Abram in Babel instead of Ur. So i feel listing the previous wrong conclusions are important because many of these wrong conclusions were made by writers 1200 years ago, 2000 years ago, 2500 years ago. In a court case one does not throw out the false witness of confused people who misunderstood because their perspective of what they saw can be corrected and thus add more truth to the story. Elijahovah (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(EC written in response to your original message) Currently that paragraph only says "an older theory" with no citations, but it ought to mention who wrote this for historiographic purposes. (The identification with Sargon is not current AFAIK, but some others have current support) I will see if I can figure out what older source connected Nimrod and Sargon, and add it in there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I found numerous sources that mention Nimrod and Sargon of Akkad on the same page from 1860 on, from the very time the existence of Sargon of Akkad could be talked about. Usually the sources mention the Biblical Nimrod, then go on to state that Sargon was the earliest known ruler of Akkad and Babylon -- but no source I could turn up goes so far as to suggest the idea that those two are the same, until 1936, in a book called "New light on Hebrew origins" by J. Garrow Duncan. There may be earlier books that considered such a connection, that I missed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I just found an earlier one: "The Temple Dictionary of the Bible" (1910) proposes identifying Nimrod and Sargon, and even claims "if we take the Gematria of minimum values then Sargon and Nimrod have the same numerical value." Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

After 30 years of study a hammer hit me in the head this year to realize the best answer. Moses says Just like Nimrod the mighty hunter. Has no one ever notice that this refers to other kings (JUST LIKE NIMROD). Other than Nimrod, yet claimed to be Nimrod. It means that Moses knew writing Genesis that everyone already says Nimrod is this king or that king. Elijahovah (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What is justification for deleting current scholarship?

I don't think that a reference to recent scholarship, published in a respected Ancient Near East journal, should be deleted because it is not yet "mainstream". How could it be mainstream when it is just recently published? That argument could be used against anything that someone hasn't read yet. I have read the article and find much of value in it. It follows in the tradition of Ewing, Rawlinson, and others who seek to find a historical figure behind the passage in Genesis. To delete a reference to a published article without having read the article seems entirely arbitrary. I have read the article, and would welcome comments by others who have also read it; those who haven't read it should do so before giving us their premature judgments. Chronic2 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this article by a PhD student should be included until it is actually discussed by mainstream academic sources. You've also left out the fact that the publishers of the journal are "devoted to the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures " - as is its editor and of course Petrovich. I think you probably know that The editor who added it is apparently here to promote Petrovich given his name which means "first alphabet", which Petrovich thinks was one used to write in Hebrew. Doug Weller (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Doug Petrovich has published in other peer-reviewed journals besides this article, including the Palestine Exploration Quarterly (PEQ) and the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections (JAEI). He has delivered several addresses at the annual meetings of the American Schools of Oriental Research (certainly ‘mainstream’ if anything is).

But there is a more serious issue represented by DougWeller deleting any scholarly work just because it was published in a conservative journal. Some of the greatest recent advances in understanding the Biblical literature have come from those who have a conservative view of the inspiration of Scripture. Examples are the work of Thiele and McFall on understanding the chronology of the kingdom period, the work of Gordon Wenham and others on the use of chiasms in the Bible and in other ancient literature, and the work of scholars such as Eugene Merrill, Walter Kaiser, and Andrew Steinmann on the historicity and accuracy of the chronological texts of both testaments. These are solid accomplishments that should never dismissed out of hand by someone who has an agenda of defining narrowly what ‘mainstream’ means. Where are the comparable, verifiable accomplishments of those who still hang on to the old JEDP theory?

There are 4,000 scholars who belong to the Evangelical Theological Society that published the article under discussion over two years ago. Most of these have advanced degrees and they publish widely in peer-reviewed journals and books. Is all this scholarship to be excluded from any consideration in Wikipedia? Why should a Wikipedia editor or moderator who does not himself or herself publish in peer-reviewed journals, but nevertheless holds to the old JEDP theories as the only normative interpretation, have the authority to perpetrate this POV as the only one allowable in Wikipedia? Chronic2 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I did not say it should be deleted just because it was published in a conservative journal, nor do I equate all conservative Christians with Creationism. What I actually said, and I shouldn't have to repeat myself, is that "I don't see why this article by a PhD student should be included until it is actually discussed by mainstream academic sources." My comment about the nature of the journal he published in was because you simply called it "a respected Ancient Near East Journal" - I'm sure that it is among Evangelists, not sure that it is among all ANE scholars. My edit summary said the same thing. He isn't a mainstream scholar and never will be unless he changes his beliefs radically. I'm referring to his adherence to a Creationist point of view here if I really need to be specific. If he were an eminent scholar in this field my view might be different, but he isn't. To take just one of your examples, Steinmann is Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Concordia University Chicago. Petrovich is a PhD student. Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I should add that you clearly do not understand or do not agree with the way we work. We don't pretend to be a peer reviewed journal or academic publication and we work very differently from them. We build our articles on such sources (relevant articles, that is). We don't ask editors to be experts in the field or to have published in the field, but we do ask them to follow our policies and guidelines. I see that you are trying to read my mind suggesting I hold to certain theories. I don't. We don't claim to be able to provide the truth, we try to show what reliable sources in relevant fields have said about a subject but we also try to keep what we call a neutral point of view. That means that the more a point of view is discussed in reliable sources the more it gets represented in an article. "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That's basic policy. Doug Weller (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Weller's method of a limited internet search for determining the credentials of scholars is insufficient, but had he done a better job at his own method, he would have turned up far more important evidence. First, Petrovich taught at a graduate school in Russia for 10 years, where he taught and served as academic dean and the assistant to the president. Second, until July of 2015 he was the VP of Academic Affairs at Shepherds Theological Seminary, also a graduate school. Third, he has three master's degrees and is a PhD Candidate (not student) and is ABD (all but dissertation) in his PhD program. Fourth, his PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology is at the University of Toronto, easily top 20 in the world in the field of ANE history. Fifth, his adviser is a University of Chicago graduate and the outgoing president of ASOR, the world's leading society for ANE scholarship. Sixth, he has presented multiple papers at ASOR national conventions. Seventh, he is over 50, and thus not at the level of 25-ish PhD students who are just cutting their teeth in the field. Eighth, he is an interdisciplinarian, having taught both in the fields of ANE history and biblical studies (including Hebrew and Greek languages). Given this pedigree, and the fact that his peer-reviewed published article represents--by far--the most thorough treatment of Nimrod ever undertaken, he easily qualifies as a reliable source. We need to do the right thing and allow the post that describes his updated association of Nimrod with Sargon. This has nothing to do with inerrancy views. There is no reason to wait until some scholar interacts with his discussion in an article of his/her own, especially when it may be another 10 or 20 years until an author formally takes up the identity of Nimrod again. 99.225.250.138 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit that I didn't get much past [4]. Did you realise that he was the "founder, primary faculty member, and academic dean at Novosibirsk Biblical-Theological Seminary"?[5] That's supposed to be an impressive endorsement? Yes, Shepherds is a graduate school, but not exactly an impressive one either, but a step up from founding your own seminary. Nice to see it's getting accredited by the ATS sometime. Why should Wikipedia care about your comments about his paper? Neither you nor I can be sources to claim something's the best ever. Peer-reviewed is sometimes misleading when the peers all hold the same views on biblical literalism. If the paper really is as good as you say it should have qualified for publication elsewhere, eg one of the ASOR publications. And if it had been I might agree it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Doug Weller. If the journal is devoted to the religious doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and Biblical inspiration then there is a serious case of bias in what they publish. This makes anything associated with them as questionable and erroneous as the famously unreliable Bible itself. Actual scholars learn to identify the possible biases and fabrications in their sources.

Chronic2, you speak of a "conservative journal". But conservatism is not synonymous with fundamentalism and magical thinking. Conservative sources can still be reliable, what you suggest is covered by Wikipedia:Fringe theories: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight".

In the field of Biblical criticism the mainstream view remains that the Biblical texts contain "contradictions and inconsistencies" (though this is clear to even casual readers) and "that the Bible had at last been fully explained as a human document." Biblical archaeology has managed to uncover some facts about the historicity of particular books in the biblical connection.:

• Archaeology has found no evidence of an Exodus from Ancient Egypt and the material remains of the Jewish culture instead point to an origin from Canaanites. "The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute."
• The historicity of the Book of Joshua is extremely doubtful and "almost all scholars agree that the book of Joshua holds little historical value for early Israel and most likely reflects a much later period." "The apparent setting of Joshua is the 13th century BCE; this was a time of widespread city-destruction, but with a few exceptions (Hazor, Lachish) the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time." The prosperous Jericho, for example, fell in the 16th century BC.
• The archeological record also casts doubt that a unified Kingdom of Israel existed. "there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the United Monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether), and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon". However the city of Gath, the supposed birth place of Goliath, did exist and the archaeological records points that it was more prosperous than Jerusalem. "Gath was as much as four times the size of contemporary Jerusalem, casting doubt that David's kingdom could have been as powerful as described in the Bible."

If the historicity of Moses, Joshua, David, and Solomon is questionable and support for it increasingly a fringe view, then why should the more obvious mythological figures from the Book of Genesis be any more historical?. The views on its historicity point that the book's "primeval history" "drew on Greek and Mesopotamian sources", and the author or authors were "editing and adding to them to create a unified work".

You cite the research of Edwin R. Thiele but the man did not believe in Biblical inerrancy. "Thiele was able to reconcile the Biblical chronological data from the books of Kings and Chronicles with the exception of synchronisms between Hoshea of Israel and Hezekiah of Judah towards the end of the kingdom of Israel and reluctantly concluded that at that point the ancient authors had made a mistake." Also his chronology contains some errors in reasoning. "In his desire to resolve the discrepancies between the data in the Book of Kings, Thiele was forced to make improbable suppositions ... There is no basis for Thiele's statement that his conjectures are correct because he succeeded in reconciling most of the data in the Book of Kings, since his assumptions ... are derived from the chronological data themselves..."

The only theory of Andrew Steinmann currently covered in his article has nothing to do with the Bible. It is his revisionist view on the historicity, reliability, and probable source of the Parian Chronicle. It sounds interesting, though I am unsure if it has gained acceptance.

The Evangelical Theological Society sounds as a good source on theology but not on history, nor archeology. Try using expert sources like Israel Finkelstein. He specializes in Middle Eastern archaeology of the ancient history of the Land of Israel. He has found enough evidence to question the Biblical record. For example his view on 10th-century BC Jesusalem was that it was only a "small hill town, with a modest palace and royal shrine." Dimadick (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the final sentence of the Jerome paragraph correct?

Aside from this having no attribution, it seems backwards: "However, this traditional identification of the cities built by Nimrod in Genesis is no longer accepted by modern scholars, who consider them to be located in Sumer, not Syria." If another editor thinks that this should be removed, I'd say remove it, or correct it. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplication

This article repeats twice the whole sentences about Uruk and 2000bc and Isan etc. The people who keep coming in to wipe out valuable in formation and put in their repeating redundant opinions is damaging to the whole view of WikiPedia. And that includes Doug Weller. I move and vote to register editing to public who have their bank card on file with WikiPedia and pay $1 for every change they make. People willing to lose money are people who care about truth. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

New Correlation

Using the dynasty of Ur. Here is the real versus the ancient error. Ur fell from 2030-2029bc. This was 177-year 1st dynasty of 180 years of 360-day. However, confusion caused the majority of ancient scholars to believe this was the fall of 108-year 3rd dynasty because Isan's first king was created by Ur's king Ibbi-Sin (2017bc) to rebuild Ur via trade with Isan. Thus they think 24-year Ibbi-Sin was 2054-2030bc, instead of 1st dynasty 36-year Balulu (2066-2030bc). The reason is biblical great longevity. Ibbi-Sin is not the king of Ur in 1st dynasty, but just one king, a king, of many appointed elders (kings) under Balulu. Thus he appoints Isan's Ishbi-Erra in 2017bc before he becomes king of 3rd dynasty Ur in 1925-1901bc. So now you have the current opinion source that 2029bc is thought to be fall of 3rd dynasty Ur. The import of this is because I have found another false 500-year Nimrod whose both ends are marked by a Marduk date of Mars (2127bc Dec 25, and 1625bc Nov 29 at the death of Amizaduga whom many ancients wrongly presume Nimrod). The 2127bc date is second king of 1st dynasty Meskiag or Meshkiag (Mes-Kiang) not quite yet the word messiah-king which would be Mes (Yah) kiang. But evidence indicates this king is Serug the son of Reu (Chinese YU) who becomes king in 2207bc honored 365 leap days in 747bc, but in Chinese is RAT year 2205bc. It makes his father Reu the first king, but not by name because Serug by name is Kiang (Mes-Kiang of Nanna). (As is also Mes-Kiang of Cush Shar at the city Uruk.) So Nimrod is being tagged by some as dying at 500 in 2127bc Dec 25, while by others he is claimed as born in 2127bc to die with the name Amizaduga in 1626bc, or using the Chinese date 2205-2125bc for Reu, then 2125-1625bc for Nimrod. It is very clear that Peleg and Reu and Serug are confused as Ham and Cush and Nimrod, the same way Ur-Nammu and Shulgi (Dungi) and Amar-Sin (Amar-Pal) are Ham and Cush and Nimrod (book Jasher says Nimrod is AmarPal). And don't forget Bilga-mesh (Gilga-Mesh) also carries the Mesh (to mash olives thru a mesh upon the head). Using Genesis 2127bc accounts for the 3077-3076bc Laptarshi Era as Noah's Flood. The problem in Jasher and Ussher is that 2127bc presumes that kingship of Serug is pending on grandson Terah born that year. This is the year responsible for altering an Assyrian Flood 2970bc to be Greek 2058bc and Babylonian 2947bc. (The whole structure is based on 780-day Mars calendar which Jasher is now the proof that 13-year Mars of Nimrod was divided into 780-day by Haran who got it from his grandpa Nahor. The proof is the way the real 2148bc Terah counts back 205-year Mars back to 2968bc Assyrian Arpaxad, the same way that Jasher's 2088bc Haran counts back 205-year Mars to Mayan Arpaxad 3113bc. My studies are not about hey look at me i have reconstructed. My motivation is knowing astronomy for an asteroid impact and what to do to be the listeners who survive. (not going to argue fire or flood, nor teach you the same 30 years i have done this. My promise to God was to prove that truth has always been here among liars, and reviving dead history in a future resurrection is not the only way to find truth now before resurrection begins.)75.86.172.174 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

(I've copied the following here from Talk:NPOV dispute. —E. Underwood 17:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC))

The article on Nimrod needs editing to conform to NPOV. A good portion of it is devoted to and linked to a book called 'The Two Babylons' which is a well known book among hard-line anti-Catholic Protestants. The book's thesis is basically that Catholic veneration of the Virgin Mary derives from ancient pagan religions. It's quite offensive to Catholics, Protestants, and most evangelicals, and of course is based on a fast and loose interpretation of ancient history. (by User:Kent.lee)

From the edit history I see that most of the material on Hislop's silly ideas was moved from Christmas, where it was even more out of place. Nimrod was the centerpiece of his theories, but it doesn't necessarily follow that his theories ought to be the centerpiece of an article on Nimrod. How about moving the whole ==Alexander Hislop's interpretation== section over to The Two Babylons and leaving just the little bit under the "Interpretations" header? I'll do that and see if anyone objects. —E. Underwood 17:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read the Two Babylons and own a copy and will say the BOOK totally presumes all gods are Nimrod, all holidays are Nimrod, everything catholic is Nimrod. The fact all things prove Nimrod lived 500 proves gods and holidays existed before his death and are not his creations. There are dates that match the Flood (many various flood years) which would prove connection to Noah and Shem and Shelah and Peleg, not Nimrod. It becomes clear that these holidays are of Peleg who divided from Nimrod. Imagine if we tag all bad things in America as being Hitler. HOw much worth would that be, or what would it accomplish? 75.86.172.174 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Shem killed Nimrod?

The article and various websites tell that one legend has it that Shem killed Nimrod? Where does this legend stem from? I think that the source of this legend should be found and mentioned in the article. Summer Song (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably Hislop as well (1853).

This article used to list the ancient scripts that said these things, and they are gone deleted. By who? Somewher i have copy-paste numeric info that was once here in this article, and i studied it and placed it in time as to how such tradition could evolve via genesis numeric timeline data. I wish i could come back here at times to get this without digging up my own mass writings, but as always now it's gone, thought i didn't post it, because i am not the only person edited out by rotten moderators.

Shem killing Nimrod is countered by the tradition that Esau at 16 killed him (the year after grandpa Abram died) he killed (Nimrod) Amar-Pal and came back for twin brother Jacob's stew. With no 130-year Cainan, with Nahor 29 (not 79) and Abram born when Terah is 130 (not 70) the death of Shem is 26 years before the twins are age 16. This 26 years is 13-year Mars known as Marduk, and every Marduk date world event is once again claimed as death of Nimrod. This is why i look for Marduk dates of other kings. Each claimed as Nimrod. The secret is the words of Genesis saying, JUST LIKE Nimrod the mighty. This phrase is ignored, when it refers to OTHERS who are just like him. It means Moses knows every king is claimed as Nimrod. And today's scholars are still doing that. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Book of Mormon references

I think it's pretty clear that the Book of Mormon references are out of place here. This article is about the role of the Nimrod myth/legend as viewed through ancient literature, not ALL literature. the goal of this article is to show 1) What literature existed from ancient times, not ALL literature from all times. 2) What may have been the historic basis for the Nimrod legend/myth.

Note that the book of Mormon fails in several ways here: 1) It has to be substantiated that the people from the time described in the book of Mormon (written in the 19th century) actually believed what is written in the Book (assuming they existed, of course, but that's a separate debate); 2) The Book of Mormon in the passage quoted and deleted does not even claim contemporary belief or knowledge about Nimrod by the people of that time. In other words, it's merely 'recording' events that happened. And since the book was written in the 19th century, there's no reason to believe that the people in the book believed the quoted statements or that the author (Joseph Smith) even intended this.

This article is NOT merely a listing of 'beliefs or literature about Nimrod'.

If that's desired, a separate article might be more appropriate.

86.149.178.196 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Emory, SONET/SDH guy

While I am not personally a believer in the Book of Mormon, it is a historical reference to the Nimrod in question. Yes, it's a recent cult of Christianity. Yes, its provenance is rather fishy. Still, unless we're passing judgement on their religion, I feel like this is valid unless we're specifically stating that this article is "traditional Judeo-Christian and Islamic beliefs about Nimrod". -Fuzzy (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Though Joseph Smith supposedly translates ancient American language from 33AD or 500AD (?), he himself in 1829 does not speak King James English from 1650, yet he translates it to read the way King James reads. As if God prefers to speak King James Shakespeare from heaven instead of ancient Mormon. So okay let's admit the book is fraud. HOWEVER, Joseph expresses Nimrod opinion that may not be solely his opinion in 1829 and so as with Jasher who is argued whether Jasher is original from 1500bc or a fraud of 1600AD. Let the reader decide, because no matter how new or how old lies are, they were descent of some truth. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ninurta > Nimrod!

Böri (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you deleting it? I said: "the name Nimrod came from Ninurta!" Böri (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you said that, but I deleted this section per WP:TALK because this page is not for making uncited conjecture or assertions, and it was just a talk header with no text. We should discuss improving the article, which could feasibly include cites attributed to externally published references saying what you want to say. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I am correct, Ninurta is female. The connections of Ninurta and Ninus are made via Nimrod rebuilt Nineveh (2058bc says Eusebius) and then 800 years later Ninus rebuilt Nineveh (1268bc). Interesting 790 years since Nahor is usually placed born 791 years after (Flood) Arpaxad. We also have the mistake of Greek Christian Eusebius thinking Nimrod is Ninus (1270-1268bc) who rebuilt Nineveh. However, (regarded as my opinion by you) Ninus honored Shem as father of Asyr who is father of Assyria and of Nineveh as 1200-year Shem-Ramis (Shem's 600 years 2468-1868bc, and 1868-1268bc). Venus of 8 year cycle flips zodiac 180-day in 600 years. Actually the rotating pentacle of Venus zodiac is 1200 egyptian years minus 60 days (1199 Julian and 5 days). But the year 1270bc of Ninus also honors Nimrod rebuilding Nineveh for Ashur (Asyr) as 1000-year Nimrod (2270-1770bc death, and 500 more to 1270bc. So in one holiday Ninus honors both Nimrod Melkizedek of Egypt, and Shem Melkizedek of Salem as the builder of Nineveh and founder of a Venus calendar. Also with Ninus as 52 years (source Eusebius 2058-2007bc), this is Marduk calendar and i formerly saw it as error for 2060-2009bc. But now i see 60-day cycle and three cities (Ur, Babel, Harran) produce three versions. Ur's Terah Marduk of a tau Mars (artificial cycling 780-day solar conjunction) is 2058-2007bc. But Babel Marduk brought from Ur to Babel by Haran is Marduk Temple's 52 years 2060-2009bc. Harran Syria thus has a 52-year cycle 2062-2011bc. Nineveh listed by Eusebius is thus not 2060bc Babel, but 2058bc matching Nineveh and Ur. (Mayan Marduk from Mari Syria uses Harran Syria Marduk in Izapa as Mars set date in 1275bc and rise date in 1274bc. Marduk becomes winter solstice January 1 because Mars' real solar conjunction is 47 days before this. So note that Mayan Izapa is contemporary with Assyria Ninus.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.172.174 (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nimrod "Assyrian"?

While there may be some sources stating Nimrod was "Assyrian", it is misleading for the intro to state this. This is a Biblical character, who is associated with building cities in the south Sumer region; translations of the Hebrew vary as to whether he or Ashur built the cities in Assyria, although in my opinion the Hebrew is clear enough that Ashur built them, scholars holding both views are found. Likewise, some scholars have identified Nimrod with Assyrian kings, or with the fabulous Ninus, and others have identified him with Sumerian kings, and there are even classical sources that describe him as "Persian". The Bible (even Micah) never says he is Assyrian, and only describes him as a son of Kush. I think it is up in the air if he even existed, let alone what his nationality was, so we can't take the side that says he was Assyrian - although we can certainly have a section explaining this pov and attributing what sources make that case. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As an open minded person I can see your point. The 7 seven sources I have included are academic sources from various university' around the world. I am aware of the arguement; This is a biblical figure, As you would know the Assyrians had a city dedicated to this biblical/semi-historical figure named Nimrud with a 'u.' The two biblical sources I have provided are from Micah 5: 5-7. These include

5 And he will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds,even eight leaders of men. 6 They will rule [e] the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. [f] He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders.

I think anyone with a decent education can see that this refers to the mighty Assyrian hunter or(Nahashtana Gabbara- Assyrian Aramaic) who went forth and created Nineveh and Calah as it states in Genesis. Let us then expand the section in which they argue Nimrod's Assyrian heritage. I am willing to work with you on that. It may say he is the son of Cush but that does indicate for example he is a cushite; it simply states he was the son of. Contact me for your expansion proposal. Ninevite (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

NOT ASSYRIAN. The point of the narrative is that Nimrod son of Cush from the city of Kish who built the Babel outpost tower where trade crosses from Tigris to Euphrates, that he went to assist Shem's son Ashur to fortify walls and canals for Nineveh. So Nimrod is a city father of Nineveh, not a genetic father. It is like the name Pope (Papa) going to the world's kings. He makes Shem look bad as if why can't Shem do for his sons what cousin Nimrod can. The shame is to honor both men equally when Shem taught that issues should be passive, and Nimrod taught act and resolve them, force them to be resolved. Challenge, oppose, build. He set up construction with masters and slave (employers and employees) and did not stick around. The bible definition of city changes by becoming political with elders and kings. This is proven by a 2060bc Marduk Temple at Babel and then he moved onto a 2058bc rebuilding of Nineveh less than 2 years later. In my opinion for 30 years i seem to be the only one whose calendars indicate that Narmer or Nar is Narmer-Rod and Nar-merod so his body of 500 is buried at Abydos since 1770bc Mekir 15 (April 22). 75.86.172.174 (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Identifications

My name is Elijah; I have given up contributing to WikiPedia factual sciences in the fields of calendar and astronomy because of being deleted month after month by others who dont qualify to have whatever scholastic degrees they have. But I will speak or TALK this one time to state that all the ancient mis-identifications of Nimrod reveal collectively a fixed chronology in which specific kings (such as Amraphel, Hamurabi, Amizaduga) are confused by specific dates. We live in a country where 5 stories are presented to a court jury, and then the jury does an A+B=C to claim how all the varied stories reveal one consistency; but HERE they call this A+B=C as drawing conclusions and they allow only certain people to do that. Thus i value what i read here from all the traditions of Nimrod; i see where they all come from, but no longer will submit my findings. Apparently some people qualify as authors to quote and others do not qualify. I do not favor the spaceship fantasies of Sitchin, but i will say you have no reason to delete those (like me) who quote him. (And by the way the biasness is clear, by the fact that only one of my three IPs constantly gets totally deleted here.)

Taken from WikiPedia, i have found a chain of dates where Reu's year 163 +69 fall into four chronologies from Masoretic to NeoBabylonian to Moslem. The original 163 is 360-day spanning only 161 years and the 69 after it is 70 years of 360-day. Thus 230 years spanning 233 of 360-day (2239-2009bc where 2009 bc is Marduk Street of Babel, and 2078bc is Osiris 3600 new moons meeting Venus). With Peleg's death moved from the last year of 177-year 1st dynasty, to 1st year, the years of Reu are moved 177 years back so the 163+69 (2239bc to 2078bc to 2009bc) fits NeoBabylon Epoch & Era as 2416bc to 2253bc to 2184bc. The 2009bc (360x365=365x360 after the Masoretic Flood 2370bc) becomes the 936 years of year 950 in NeoBabylonian (936x365=949x360) retaining 2009bc Marduk. But in Molsem Flood 3122bc the 936 years of year 950 will fall on this 2184bc that ends the NEW 163+69. The removal of Cainan results in Peleg shifted 130 years earlier so that he dies (at 339) in the 2253bc when the 69 years starts. So the correlation already exists in thsoe chronologies. I am not putting A+B together to create my own C. The original span 69 from 2078-2009bc presumes the 2078bc Osiris calendar (at Ur)to be his coronation, and the 2009bc Marduk calendar (at Babel) to be his death. Delete this if you wish, but i have a copy of all i write, and when it was contributed and then deleted, i go back and insert the fact it was contributed and deleted by Wiki.org - - simply put the 69 years are not Nimrod's because 2009bc is 360-day Marduk Mars (July 8) not 73 orbits of Thoth Marduk Mars (Jan 8). Masoretic Thoth Marduk is the year Judah was born (2256am), Hamurabi's 22nd year 1770bc which only has 21 days left of it after Nimrod died and Hamurabi proclaimed himself king of righteousness.

Many modern correlations defy ancient scholars. For example the equating of Gilgamesh with Nimrod can only be Masoretic. All extended forms of Genesis place Nimrod's birth (of a life 500 years) as 100 years after Noah's death. Year 450 or 451, some in egyptian years, some in 360-day (which span 493). A real Gilgamesh cannot talk to Noah unless Noah's alive. Or is he at a grave site? The same with the Arabic tradition of 163+69 where Year 232 (Marduk) is 7 years before Reu dies at 239. The answer is in Genesis when Moses writes ALL THESE KINGS that you speculate as being Nimrod are (merely) like Nimrod the mighty hunter. That's the answer. They are like him; they are not him. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Elijah, I usually delete stuff like this per our policies like WP:TALK WP:SOAP etc. because it doesn't belong here and there is no way we could use this in the article without at least someone to attribute this viewpoint to, who is a reliable source. We can't simply write "Wikipedian Elijah has calculated when Nimrod lived according to the Muslim calendar" or (forgive me for not fully understanding) whatever it is you are saying. However as a courtesy I will leave this message here since it does seem to come up rather often on this page. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Youre extremely offensive (and i dont mean i am offended; i mean you intend to diss what i contributed as if other authors are gods if deemed so by you), a factual example Fotheringham for Venus dates, or Egyptian star Sothis by Breasted. Where is the respect for Richard Parker of the oriental institute proving astronomic angle of the star at memphis as July 17 not July 20 because its rising azimuth changes. And who in this whole www even points out the star rises 24 hours difference for every degree of latitude in Egypt. Find it, and you'll find one of my IPs. Elijahovah (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

OK Elijah, tell you what, show your source making claims about Nimrod, and if it is reliable and due weight, we may be able to use it. I don't mean any prejudice to your calculations one way or the other, but as a rather new contributor you should read WP:NOR (No Original Research) and the two links I gave above that explain that talk pages must be used only to discuss improvements to the article, not general discussion about the article topic. So in other words, if you have made some amazing new discovery no one else is hip to about Nimrod's timespan, from calculating from the Muslim calendar (for example), this would not be the appropriate place to premiere it, perhaps you should consider a peer-reviewed journal on Ancient Near East studies, and then we could take it from there. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a source. Take Genesis (it as a source, not me) and add up 2 (Arpaxad), 35 (Shelah), 30 (Eber), 32 (Peleg), 30 (Reu), 32 (Serug) and you have 163 from Flood to Peleg the grandpa and Reu the father. Easily a source for the 163 applied in a wrong way by tradition. Also Ur's list says the first king ruled 80 years, so Masoretic says Peleg was 30 and fathered Reu, but long Genesis says he was 130. So if Peleg is 50 when Nimrod builds, it is 80 years before Reu is born. The traditions use figures that have merely been replaced, and that is the only thing i am commenting on to say we have the math to reconstruct. Doesn't have to be me doing it. An encyclopedia need not be the master teacher to give answers; the encyclopedia can be merely a source itself of collected sources and collected data to give to the reader. Why should i have to ponder how Nimrod builds at Peleg's age 50 so many years before Peleg's son Reu is 163 so as to question how one does all this building before becoming king. Maybe that poster's source is misquoted. But if i Google, then Wikipedia pops up as the first place to go, when it is Wikipedia who hasn't sufficiently answered its own data. It would be ideal if topic Wikipedia did answer in consistency the questions raised in other Wikipedia topics. If you read most books of notable scholars, when ever they can't find consistency, they blame the ancient writings, not their own wrong angle of perception and perspective. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The Ni-Marad and Ninurta theories can go together.

Ninurta was the patron god of Marad, it's main Ziggurat was to Ninurta. So Ninurta was literally the Lord of Marad.

I also wonder if the Zigurat of Marad being called Kalama could mean that the city called Calnah in Genesis 10 is Marad?

I want to know is if there is any evidence of the claim that Enmerkar was deified as Ninurta or connected to Ninurta in anyway, independent of people trying to make either one Nimrod?

I also think the later deity Marduk could come from Ninurta, both tend to be the only male child attributed to Enki and Ninhurshag--JaredMithrandir (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nimrod, not a real person, but a Biblical fictional character

Who born within the past 80 years becomes the one to go thru all books on the planet and decide which characters are fictional or real? 75.86.172.174 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that no Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian or Babylonian King List mentions a ruler called Nimrod.

Furthermore, there is no mention of anyone by that name anywhere in ancient Mesopotamian writings of the period.

Nimrod is a Biblical fiction, and it should be pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever for him having existed outside of Monotheistic theological literature.

I added a point concerning this, a very valid point, but it was deleted by someone.

I propose these facts are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed 'noteworthy' then you can show this by finding attributable sources about the article topic that make a point out of this. Also please brush up on Wikipedia policy, we aren't allowed to declare the Bible (or any other major world doctrine for that matter) "fiction" as we are a neutral project and there are many who do not share this POV of yours. Sumerians etc. always had their own names for everything in their own language so if Nimrod was referred to, of course we would expect his name to be different from "Nimrod" - as several published sources already quoted in the article have already proposed. Beyond reporting what these various published conjectures are, we just let the reader decide without lacing it with POV pushing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually i'm a Christian, though i understand much of the O.T to be symbolic. The evidence is there, feel free to check out the various King Lists of Sumeria, Akkad, Babylon and Assyria, there is no mention. If you study ancient history or Assyriology, again, Nimrod does not come up. It is more than likely that Nimrod was a substitute name for a Mesopotamian ruler (^ a b Levin 350–356; Poplicha 303–317.) such as Sargon of Akkad. Remember that the Sumerians Akkadians, Assyrians and Babylonians were using writing literally millenia before the O.T was written, and we have far more, and far older, source material from the Mesopotamians themselves....Nimrod, his perported achievements, character etc are part of a theological, not a historical work....these sources do not refer to Nimrod at all, even if he is a substitute name for a Mesopotamian king, it is impossible to say for certain which one. Actually, Hebrew versions of Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian-Babylonian names are almost always VERY similar to the older written Mesopotamian ones (eg Sumerian original Nu, Hebrew later version Noah, Assyrian original Sin Ahhe Eriba, later Hebrew version Sennacherib and so on)

I think, in order to create a balance, its useful to point out where Biblical accounts agree with contemporary or older native written accounts, BUT also when they are not supported by these accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Although i believe Nimrod to be a fictional, symbolic creation, i am not advocating writing that, as that is my personal POV, however it is a fact that Nimrod does not appear in any Mesopotamian king list, Sumerian or Semitic, and no Mesopotamian ruler is recorded as having done the things Nimrod is perported to have done in the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any fact or opinion you like, as long as you have attributed it to an attributable source that makes the same argument. That's how we work here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, i could put a comment regarding Nimrod not appearing on any mesopotamian king lists, and include links to those king lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You really ought to take some time to read up on how things work here first. When I say "attributable source", I don't mean a link to another wikipedia article, or to anything else that is open-source on the internet. I mean an outside published source. And that outside published source has to be making the exact same point you are trying to make (see WP:SYNTH for explanation of this policy.) This means you can't link to a kinglist as evidence of your research because it has an absence of information. What you need is a published source that is making the same point you are trying to make, that explicitly says "Nimrod probably never existed". And even then, we will need to attribute that opinion to the author by saying "According to so-and-so, Nimrod probably never existed because blah blah". The reason is that various other published sources have come to different conclusions, and are already cited in the article, making this topic an item of controversy, and meaning that it must be handled in strict accordance with neutrality policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a list of acceptable publishing houses approved by YOU. A million books have since been electronically published without being on paper unless the consumer prints it out; do you have a list of these books approved by YOU as a source. The net has become a publishing house of writing whether truth or false. And youre saying that you dont even approve of OTHER Wikipedia articles. So how do you as one person determine this and label it as how WE work here. Sincerely confused, but if you were on the Titanic speaking of WE, then I would easily induce five others to lift you over the railing. 75.86.172.174 (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The "It's fictional because it's not found anywhere else but the Bible" was once used regarding the Hittities, too. Why? Why can't what's in the Bible not be automatically assumed to be completely, inarguably false? 69.34.55.229 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The text that reads "Conflation" is inaccurate!

The paragraph that claims Nimrond is a "likely a conflation of several real and fictional figures" is wrong. Why such biased text is there? That go against the neutrality of the article! If Nimrod CANNOT been associated to Gilgamesh or Akkad, he ALSO CANNOT be assumed as "conflation'! You can give any argument in favor or against that in the historical section, but NOT in the opening. So, remove that biased text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valter.wolf (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• No. You make no sense. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Wrong. Who gave you the rights to say that Nimrod is a "likely a conflation"? None! Please remove that text or I will do it myself soon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valter.wolf (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Valter.wolf: I strongly suggest you do not. In fact, I really think you should try reading the article again, don't you think so User:Drmies? Doug Weller talk 10:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
    • *lesigh* Drmies (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)