I was reading on your website an article about Nimrod and any evidence for Nimrod. I would like to take it a step farther. What if Sargon of Akkad was actually Moses? What if the Enuma Elish which talks about Apsu the fresh pure water god and Tiamat who was the bitter salty water God that joined to create the young gods were the expanse over the firmament have influenced our Bible? This seems reasonable because our seas have salty bitter water (Tiamat). I could go on, but my question to you is, is it even a possibility that the early Roman Church made this all up? Perhaps they grabbed pieces from the ancient writings of Assyria, Babylon, etc etc to create a story to their liking. Everything seems to center around Rome. There are too many similarities and we do know, they forced Christantity upon the people using the Knight Templars to get their word out much later than Constantines day and age. For me this is a gut feeling. What do you think? Please note that I do believe in God the creator but I believe the Old and New Testaments have too many flaws. Lucifer for example, isn’t even mentioned in the Hebrew writings. The Old Testament that mentions Lucifer in today’s Bible is actually about a son named Helel of the Babylonian King. Totally different beings if you will, which leaves a wrong impressionit is about the Devil when in actuality its really about a person in Babylon. I hope that made sense. What is your take on all this? We have proof of Sargon of Akkad and a story of him as a baby in a basket (like Moses) etc…. Thank you for taking the time to read this and hope to hear from you.
First of all, it has been speculated that the great founder of the Akkadian Empire, Sargon, was the same as the biblical character Nimrod. I would say that this is rather speculative for a few reasons, but it is not impossible. Sargon was a near-legendary figure and the first to form a true empire in Mesopotamia in the second half of the 24th century BC. We know little about Nimrod, but there are parallels. As for Sargon, very little is known about this leader. All sources agree that he rose from humble origins, that he conquered much of Mesopotamia, and that he ruled for a long time (37 or 56 years, depending on the source).
The broad details of Sargon’s life do have parallels with what we know of Nimrod in Genesis 10. Nimrod is called “the first heroic warrior” (Genesis 10:9). The places Genesis has Nimrod ruling have some parallels to those ruled by Sargon. As far as I know, there is no linguistic connection between the name Sargon and Nimrod. I would say that we do not know enough about either Nimrod or Sargon to definitively accept or reject the Sargon/Nimrod identification.
Sargon later became a near-mythical figure in the first millennium BC. This, too, would be somewhat similar to Nimrod, as it is said of Nimrod in Genesis 10:9 that people said of great rulers at a later date that “This man is like Nimrod.” However, most of what was written about Sargon in the first millennium is unreliable, By this time, he had become more of a legend than a person who was a matter of history. Included in this unreliable material is a story of Sargon being left in a basket by his mother. This legend of Sargon comes from the 7th century BC, more than 1500 years after he lived. There is no record of this legend from ancient Akkadian or Babylonian sources. I believe that the time span of fifteen centuries makes this story quite unlikely to be true. By the 600s BC the story of Moses being saved from death by being put in a basket was already several hundred years old. It may sound odd at first, but it is more likely that the true story about Moses could have influenced the legend of the birth of Sargon than vice versa. This may seem odd because Moses lived eight hundred years AFTER Sargon, but the sources for the Sargon birth legend come 15 centuries after his life and 8 centuries after Moses.
Was Sargon Moses? I can say with absolute certainty that he was not. Moses came from Egypt. Everything we know of Moses show his culture and background was from the area of Egypt, not Mesopotamia. Sargon was already a legendary heroic figure many centuries before Moses was born. He was a king in Mesopotamia, not Egypt. Moses was not a king and he was not a general. As far as I know, the only parallels between the two is the birth narrative, but the story of Moses’ birth comes from his own people within a reasonable time of his life. The story of Sargon’s birth is almost certainly legendary, so the only parallel between these two is something which is probably not even true of Sargon. You can safely reject this theory as being completely unsupportable.
As for the Ancient Babylonian creation myth, the clearly mythical story of Tiamat and Apsu is part of a polytheistic creation story. The Jews were monotheists and it is not likely they would have used a pagan, polytheistic myth as the source of their creation story. Besides, the Jewish creation story is consistent with what we know from science. It has creation beginning as light (consistent with the Big Bang), followed by the formation of the earth covered by water, followed by the emergence of land, then life in the sea and then on the land. This story is consistent with scientific information. There is no way to fit the obviously polytheistic and obviously mythical Babylonian story with the Genesis account. It is true that both accounts mention water, but many creation myths involve water. Also, the firmament of Genesis 1 is the sky, as opposed to the water. The separation between the sky and the water is not related to the separation between sweet and salty water.
About the Roman church, I am not sure exactly what you are talking about here. Nothing we can call the Roman Catholic Church existed before about the fifth or sixth centuries. Perhaps you have heard the claim that Constantine or the church fathers of the fourth century changed the New Testament. First of all, we are talking here (Nimrod, Sargon, Moses, creation stories) about the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Even if the Church had a reason to change the Bible (they certainly would NOT do that, as they considered the entire Bible inspired), we are talking about the Hebrew Old Testament. This is the same Bible that is used by the Jews, even today. For the Church to change the Old Testament, they would have to get the Jews to change their own scripture. No sane person would believe this. Besides, we have manuscripts of Genesis from the first and second century BC, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. If the “Roman Church?” wanted to change the book of Genesis, they would also have to go back and change the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as the Greek Septuagint translation and the Samaritan translation of the Bible, both made hundreds of years before. This idea is to be completely rejected. No serious person would entertain this idea.
But let me deal with claims that the Roman Church may have changed the New Testament. First of all, in the fourth century there was nothing like the Roman Catholic Church. There were five patriarchal churches, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus and Rome. We have dozens of manuscripts of the New Testament from before Constantine, as well as thousands of quotes from the New Testament from before these supposed changes were made. This claim that Constantine or the Church fathers in the fourth century could have changed the New Testament, even if they had wanted to, is completely unbelievable. This would have had to have been a conspiracy of great complexity, as they would have had to burn all the existing manuscripts (which they obviously did not do, as we have many manuscripts from before Constantine). They would have also had to change the thousands of New Testament quotes from the early church fathers in order to make their new version of the New Testament believable. No one in the churches would have put up with this. Let us bury these completely irrational and unsupported claims that the Church changed the New Testament. This nonsense idea only will work for those who are extremely biased or who know nothing of the history of the Bible.
Then you suggest that the Knights Templar may have had some role in manipulating the Bible? I am not sure what you are getting at there. This was a group of militant monks who began in Jerusalem to defend the Holy Land which had been conquered by the crusaders against the Muslim/Turk armies. The Knights were influential in the 12th and 13th centuries. In general, they were not involved in spreading Christianity, but in defending it, so I am having trouble what role you are thinking they had. Of course, there are many conspiracy theories out there about the Knights Templar. You can safely ignore these conspiracy theories, and read a reputable history of the Knights Templar.
Then you mention the name Lucifer. Many Christians use the name Lucifer as a name for Satan. This tradition is not supported by the Bible. The only reference to Lucifer is in Isaiah 14:12-14. You are correct that Lucifer is not a name for Satan in the Bible. Isaiah 14 is about Babylon, the enemies of God’s people. Satan is not even in mind in Isaiah 14, so the use of Lucifer to refer to Satan is, technically an error. I do not see how this mistake produces a big difference in the biblical doctrine of Satan. Having an incorrect name for Satan does not change the many passages about him in the Bible, but you are correct that there is a confusion about the biblical use of the name Lucifer.
Did I answer all your concerns? Let me make a general comment. There are a lot of theories out there–especially on the internet. Some are based on evidence and good reasoning, but most are speuclation based on little to no evidence. You should set a goal of training yourself what questions to ask so that you can see through bogus conspiracy theories versus god reasoning based on real evidence. Of course, that is more easily said than done, but it is a good goal. If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to ask.