+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/18/2018 07:50 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.669 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/03/2009 09:25 PM ID: 77393 Permalink   

"Turkish Stonehenge" May be Garden of Eden


A set of stone monoliths known as Gobekli Tepe, dating back at least 12,000 years, that was discovered in 1994 by a Turkish shepherd, is considered one of the greatest archaeological discoveries and may be the original basis for the Garden of Eden.

Archaeologist Klaus Schmidt says the hunter-gatherer site contains carvings of a bevy of animals indicating the now-arid region was once rich with life, but believes overuse by humans was the basis for the "paradise lost" parable in Genesis.

Its location matches a number of biblical references to Eden - a word which itself is Sumerian for "plain" - the same type of land on which it lies. However, its complete burial and nearby hoard of bones suggest sacrifice on behalf of angry gods.

    WebReporter: caution2 Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  I read this  
A while ago this place looks awesome love too go there to take a few pics,good story Caution2.
  by: Jammy-Doger   03/03/2009 09:35 PM     
it was a plain land, eden means plain, must have been it!

lord please....
  by: mrmarler     03/03/2009 10:47 PM     
  I would have  
liked to hear how the site does not fit into the Garden of Eden as well. The source seems a little biased from this point of view. Interesting though.
  by: sleeky     03/03/2009 11:28 PM     
  That's pretty hot...  
Nice find. I like the way that the account of Eden in the Bible has been reduced to a "parable" here, lol. Sorry to be picky on the wording here. I do believe this is a remarkable discovery, but the explanation for what this is does not fit the Biblical account for the Garden of Eden... for one, according to Genesis, Eden was never overused by humans, they were cast out and a Cherubim was placed to guard it. I also figured that the since Mesopotamia is the land between the Tigris and Euphrates, it would be in present day Iraq. Upon reviewing a few maps, I now see that it is very possible that it could have very well been in Turkey. The delta for the Tigris and Euphrates is in Iraq and it seems that it would most likely be there, but I see I could be wrong here. I didn't know that such a large portion of Mesopotamia was in present day Turkey. Good find!
  by: C.O.G.   03/04/2009 02:12 PM     
Yeah, I had always read that the location of the biblical GoE was in Iraq, due to the 4 rivers flowing into it (Tigris, Euphrates, and ... the other two, lol). I thought it was ironic, hearing so many christians locally talking about wiping those "sand monkeys, etc" off the map - and wondering how many of those same people knew that Iraq was the possible location of the biblical Eden.

I know very little about the subject and have always been against the idea of organized religion as a whole, but it's my understanding that the Semitic peoples originated from a nomadic Sumerian fellow named Abraham (who is a main character in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions, as well as Moses , etc) The ancient Sumerians had their own versions of some of the Jewish/Christian biblical allegories, including Genesis.

Some of this can be found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls: Here is an online version of the scrolls which can be read in their entirety:

Unfortunately I don't remember which of these docs has that early version of Genesis in it, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. The Nag Hammadi scrolls are considered part of the "Apocrophia", texts that were purposefully left out of the bible by the Roamans because they were deemed "inappropriate" for one reason or another, probably being that they rose questions/contradictions about other biblical texts, didn't fit in the the Roman political scheme of inventing the Christian religion, gave women more importance/power than they should be viewed in such a patriarchal society, etc. Fascinating read though, and that's coming from a non-religious person.
  by: spiggy   03/04/2009 03:36 PM     
  @ Spiggy  
Good post. I feel you on that... I'm also one who against organized religion as a WHOLE!!! Religion is the main thing that separates people, period. I am against religion... yes even the "Christian" religion (since it is man-made). This might sound weird, but most Christians aren't even aware of what Christ came to do. Forming a religion isn't what He came to do... He came to re-establish the Kingdom of God and make people Holy in His Father's eyes and free His redeemed people from the oppression of organized religion.

I gave those websites a look. But what kept troubling me about the second one was the word "Gnostic". This (and many other things) is the type of stuff that comes from the religion of "Christianity". I guess I was just hung up on the word gnostic, and maybe I shouldn't be... I'm interested to look at that site as a whole.

Sad as it is that Abraham is the father of many religions (the stuff that separates people) it is also true. But he was still a righteous man who made a horrible set of mistakes.

It's interesting that you bring up the Romans leaving out parts of the Scripture because it didn't fit their idea of canon, because you're absolutely right. There are plenty of books in proper Scripture that have been ommitted for numerous reasons (Mary Magdalene's book, Book of Enoch, etc).

But yeah, a lot of Christians do fall into the trap of racism and genocidal hatred... which is wrong. And for us to want to wipe out a group of people based on ideals, race, or lifestyle is wrong.
  by: C.O.G.   03/04/2009 04:33 PM     
Why is this the first I've heard of this. I follow this sort of thing like a lost puppy and this is the first I've heard of it? Seriously cool stuff.

One thing though. I don't think it's a crayfish. It looks a lot more like a scorpion to me.
  by: VermiciousG     03/04/2009 04:37 PM     
  @ C.O.G.  
That second website was just the first one that came up that contained the scrolls in an e-version after having Googled it. I'm not condoning the site in general, and am not a gnostic.

I think the general jist of gnosticism, is that ideas of an esoteric nature must be experienced for yourself, and cannot be explained to you by someone else - and there's possibly some truth to that.

Again, I don't know much about this stuff and tend to get lots of details wrong or leave them out entirely, but I think the Gnostics were one of those fledgling groups like the Essenes (that Jesus supposedly hung out with some) who were Jewish offshoots... they were branching out of the orthodox Hebrew faith into what seemed like very radical groups at the time. The orthadox Hebrews considered them to be possibly dangerous heretics, and they lived in a sort of segregated communal lifestyle, possessing almost "new-age" type spiritual beliefs as opposed to the dogma of the day.

A Roman leader (forget his name at the moment, lol) organized all of these groups into what is known as Christianity as a sort of political maneuver. He himself, was not a Christian at all, and remained a devout follower of the sun god Mithras for the rest of his life - until on his death bed he supposedly accepted "Christ", again as a political ploy to help establish a better Roman hold on the middle east. I'm sure he had no idea how successful it would become, as Rome is still the seat of one of the major religious and political empires in the world. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a long winded fascinating read describing much of this as well as theoretical blood-lines of Christ. Who knows. I'm still more of the belief that the figure of Jesus the "Christ" was an amalgamation of solar/astrological symbolism, social commentary of the day, and was possibly super-imposed over an actual person living at the time - but possibly not.

The Book of Enoch that you mention is part of the Apocrophia as well. I always thought the story of Enoch was an interesting one as he was the ONLY figure in the bible to never die. Even Jesus died but was resurrected, but Enoch ascended to Heaven without need for death. Some attribute Enoch as being similar to the legends of Hermes and Thoth as well. Whether you can pull any literal factual data from any of the books of the bible or not, there's still a lot of fascinating meaty substance which when looked at in an allegorical manner still provides a lot of insight into issues common to all of us to this day.

And I agree that religion is perhaps the most divisive element in the world and has done far more harm than it has created "enlightenment" for its followers. It's been mainly used as a form of social engineering and has very little to do with true inquiries into the divine.
  by: spiggy   03/04/2009 05:42 PM     
  I just read the wikipedia on this site  
something very cool:

"Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that its DNA is closest in structure to wild wheat found in a mountain (Karacada?) 20 miles away from the site, leading one to believe that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated."

The toast that I made for breakfast may have originated there. Caution2 you're my hero. I'm gonna be studying this for weeks and don't be surprised if my next vacation is in Turkey.
  by: VermiciousG     03/04/2009 05:43 PM     
  @ Spiggy  
I'm diggin it.

But as you showed me in plain text (which I really had no clue about), the religion of Christianity has a lot of divisive issues, even within its own religion... and that's not a good thing. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a devout Christian, meaning that I have a relationship with God through His son Jesus. But I cannot get down with the stereotypical religion of "Christianity". I believe that even the religion of "Christianity" has even been detrimental to the human race. Relationship with God has been in no way shape or form detrimental.

In case you were interested in checking out the genealogy of Christ from a Biblical standpoint, check out Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 which describes His genealogy through each parents respectively. As far as that bloodline of Christ bit, I personally can't get down with that. A lot of people believe that Christ got married to Mary Magdelene, knocked her up and started His own bloodline. This is against Scripture as that would mean that His children would be half God, half men and trinkled downward from thereon. The Bible states that there is only one God-man that walked the face of the planet (sorry Hercules, lol). Also, this would meen that Christ could not have been the Christ (redeemer) since by having sex, both parties become one flesh, and He would have been one with sin before it was His time to become sin for us.

As far as the Enoch account, that is fascinating, ain't it? Ya boy walked with God all his life and was no more... because he was taken up. He wasn't the only one who never experienced death though, Elijah never died either. According to the Scripture, he was taken up in Rapture in a way that most people would consider an alien abduction... equipped with machinery and all. That itself is interesting and worth a look even if someone doesn't believe in it. Lots of people believe that these two are the ones who will come as witnesses sent by God in the last days and cause all kinds of havoc here on this earth... then they will be killed and resurrected.

But as far as Christ is concerned, there is actual evidence from His era that shows that one was going around performing supernatural feats and being labeled as a magician, which is also Biblical along with many other historical documents that show that He really walked this planet.

But I think we're in agreement that religion has a lot of bad stuff to this planet... leave it up to man to take something as pure as faith and use it in a system to control the masses.

Why does God love us so much?

  by: C.O.G.   03/04/2009 08:39 PM     
  "Why does God love us so much?"  
No kids COG?
  by: VermiciousG     03/04/2009 09:16 PM     
I got a daughter that I love very much... I see where you're going and you're absolutely right.

Agape love, Godly love. The kind of love that makes you still love someone despite them ruining EVERYTHING you set up for them. The kind of love that remains the same after one mocks, spits on, denies, beats, ridicules, falsely accuses, stabs, publically ridicule, demeans, not trusting in, is unapreciative, backstabs, etc. you.

But back to the article. Does this finding suggest to the non-believer that the account of Genesis may be correct, even if it's a little bit? I'm curious.
  by: C.O.G.   03/04/2009 09:28 PM     
I think you took me the wrong way there man. I was trying to help. For real.
  by: VermiciousG     03/04/2009 09:42 PM     
Nah, I didn't. I promise... I don't know if I came off other than I intended, but I promise no harm was intended. I was just displaying the unconditional love of God. Sorry if signals were confused...
  by: C.O.G.   03/04/2009 09:44 PM     
Ok then
  by: VermiciousG     03/04/2009 09:49 PM     
"Does this finding suggest to the non-believer that the account of Genesis may be correct"

It suggests that the story of the Garden of Eden in Genesis may be based in part on this site, just as many others have suggested that other aspects of the Bible drew on well-known mythologies of the time, such as Dionysus.
  by: caution2     03/04/2009 10:31 PM     
I see where I misread you. You had a bunch of negative stuff followed by the word "you" and then I thought you were razzing me about being a non-believer.

I read the Second Book of Adam and Eve and the Book of Enoch when I was younger. I read them because of an intense interest in pre-history. I believe that most of the bible's stories are based in fact I also believe that pre-written-language stories are going to change over the course of several thousand years. It's inevitable. But, sometimes if you read between the lines you can find things that can confirm historical facts.

My favorite was a line in the Rig Veda that described a holy river and its location. It turns out that the river did exist but hadn't flowed since the end of the ice age. Which meant that the oral history in India dated back to at least 7000BCE.

I just think that kind of stuff is cool.

  by: VermiciousG     03/04/2009 11:38 PM     
is who you are thinking of. he claimed to follow the "Sun" and used the term to confuse/conjoin christianity and paganism to create a more "together" form of society. he was more or less a heretic if christians actually knew anything about their own religion! he's also the idiot that changed the sabbath to sunday to match up with the Sun god's day. You see, logic would tell us all that saturday is the 7th day with sunday being the first, hence WEEK ENDS. like book ends. so saturday is the sabbath and if you're christian and you celebrate it on Sunday you're an official idiot who's never questioned your own maniacal beliefs.
  by: mrmarler     03/05/2009 01:06 AM     
Why the hell, when large monuments are found, compared to stonehenge, it's just a primitive stone circle a bit bigger than most, not complicated or advanced just needed plenty of muscle puttin up, and this particular new find predates stony by thousands of years!!!
  by: killer_cain   03/05/2009 02:39 AM     
  I wonder if  
they could do some major excavating there they would find Bigfoot bodies.
  by: John E Angel     03/05/2009 03:57 AM     
  @ Mrmarler  
Romans 14. We're not bound to worshipping on Saturday (Sabbath) anymore.
  by: C.O.G.   03/05/2009 08:37 AM     
  I wonder...  
...Is "Turkish Stonehenge" anything like "Turkish Star Wars"?

  by: captainchainsaw   03/05/2009 11:56 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: