Talk:Adapa

message: Can someone provide a source for Adapa and Alulim being the same person?--Heathcliff 01:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel sure I read somewhere that he's the same person (or equated with) Adam as well, but that might just be because they're both mythical primordial/archetypal humans. --Stevefarrell 18:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Adam and Eve#Mythological connections--Nintirtu 07:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought. I've seen 'Adapa' as an alternative name for Adam quite a few times, and it's well known that Hebrew/Jewish myth (particularly in Genesis) lifted heavily from Babylonian myth. --Stevefarrell 10:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adapa = Alulim?

message: I'd like to cast doubts on "Abgallu (Ab=water, Gal=Great, Lu=man)".  As I am aware, these are in the wrong order.  Lugal means "Man Great", as Sumerian has Subject-Case order, instead of in English Case-Subject (Great Man).  I suspect it would be something like Lu.ab.gal or Ab.lu.gal.  However, I'm not an expert, so someone may want to check into it...Carl.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.176.43 (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Order matters

message: These two articles are talking about the same person in several different languages I have merged them and added wikification. will follow up with proper translations/transliterations--Gurdjieff (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged with Oannes 

message: The article claims that "Adam and Eve" of the Torah ate from the tree of life. This appears to be incorrect with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Life  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.189.60 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam and Eve 

message: Merging the Adapa and Oannes section, they are the same person, what he actually refused is personal immortality to keep the name, but he actually ended up probably immortal, since he was a God King. You see the reason being that he was graced by Yaveh, and is the real name of God because Oannes is an ancient rendering of the name of John, which is rendered as Yaveh in Islam, and simply means graced by Yaveh, redeemed for having eaten from the tree. That's what happens to Herculees in his 11nth labor, by bringing back the Golden apple, ended up in the 12nth labor as immortal.
Also, Oannes is a version of Elijah, who also became a God, that's why Carl Jung in his Red Book speeak of the eternal couple Elijah and Salome, he calls him John the Babtist. The reason is that Elijah did become a divinity, simply by the fact that it's just a Judaistic version of the name John, which simply is God. That's why he was able to rase the deaths and visit heaven.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted this as original research. Sources must discuss Adapa - who as far as I know is not considered a god-king, but if you have good sources for that... Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oannes 

message: I've tagged Stephanie Dalley as a potentially unreliable source
*
Whilst this may seem unlikely the introduction to the chapter in the above book (p.182 -) reads in part like amateur work - for example she conflates Uanna and Adapa without any analsys or explanation, and then applies eveything that is know about Upkallu to Adapa as well - thus Adapa now becomes "likely that Adapa as a fisherman was represented as a fish of fish-man composite in ancient iconography" .. afaik there is zero evidence for this. There are also (afaik) zero examples of the Adapa myth being written with the name Uanna replacing Adapa - the conflation of the two is subjective opinion - that may or may not be correct.
In the book above however Apada, Uanna, and everything known about Apkallu are conflated.
This potential problem becomes much clearer when reading other sources, (eg Izre'el, Sanders) who do not present the subject as unambiguously factual, or "black and white" as Dalley does.5.198.10.236 (talk)
:I do not think we have reason to conclude that Stephanie Dalley is categorically unreliable; it just seems she has oversimplified matters on this one particular issue. She is a retired Research Fellow in Assyriology at the Oriental Institute, Oxford and, from everything I have read about her, she seems to be a well-respected scholar on ancient Mesopotamia. I think the only two ways we could categorize her as "unreliable" would be (1) if we were able to find multiple statements from other scholars stating that she does not know what she is talking about and cannot be trusted or (2) if we were able to conclusively demonstrate that her works are irredeemably filled with egregious errors. I do not think that either of those possibilities are very likely, but I am willing to say that we should probably avoid using her as a source on this particular subject. I have removed her from the bibliography anyway because she was not actually cited to any information in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephanie Dalley