A Claim of Guidance Must Bring Knowledge.

Scripture describes God as unlike creation, unseen in His essence and beyond the reach of human sight. Moses is told that no one can see God and live; John says that no one has seen God; Paul describes Him as dwelling in unapproachable light. These statements establish a boundary between the Absolute and every finite form.

A body occupies a place, has limits and passes through changing states. If the Absolute became contained in a body, He would acquire the boundaries of the thing containing Him. The difficulty is not that God lacks power, but that contradiction is not an act of power: the unlimited does not become unlimited and limited in the same respect.

Divine appearances can therefore be real without making God's absolute essence visible. Exodus first identifies the speaker in the bush as an angel and then records God speaking; Jacob says he saw God after wrestling with a man; authorized messengers speak in the name of the One who sends them. The visible sign is created, while the command, authority and guidance manifested through it belong to God.

• Exodus 3:2–6
• Exodus 33:20
• Genesis 32:24–30
• John 1:18
• 1 Timothy 6:16

1. Tawhid (Arabic), sections distinguishing the Reality, Divinity and Lordship of God.
2. The Thirteenth Disciple, Appendix One, “God's Manifestation in Creation,” pp. 83–88. Primary source

Jesus is presented as Messiah, Word, Son and image of God. Yet the same Gospels repeatedly distinguish him from the God who sent him. He prays to the Father, says he can do nothing by himself, submits his will, receives teaching and authority, and after the resurrection speaks of “my God and your God.” These are not marginal statements; they describe the relationship at the heart of his mission.

Mark 13:32 supplies a decisive test: the Son does not know the hour known by the Father. Absolute deity cannot be increased in knowledge or be unaware of a fact, whereas a created messenger can possess immense divinely given knowledge while remaining dependent. John 17:3 makes the distinction explicit by naming the Father “the only true God” and Jesus as the one He sent.

John 10:30—“I and the Father are one”—need not erase that distinction. In the same Gospel Jesus asks that the disciples may be one as he and the Father are one. The unity is unity of purpose, obedience and divine manifestation, not numerical identity of essence. Jesus can therefore reveal God with unmatched perfection without being the Absolute Himself.

• Mark 13:32
• John 5:19–30
• John 10:30–36
• John 17:3, 20–23
• John 20:17
• Matthew 26:39

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question Seven, pp. 39–42; Appendix Two, pp. 89–99.
2. Tawhid (Arabic), discussion of Jesus, deficiency and absolute divinity. Primary source

These titles express genuine divine nearness, but their biblical use does not require Jesus to be the uncreated essence of God. “Word” identifies one through whom God's command and knowledge are disclosed. Scripture itself distinguishes the speaker, the word spoken and the servant through whom that word reaches creation; the Word is from God and points completely toward Him.

“Son” is also used spiritually. Peacemakers are called sons of God, Adam is called God's son, and Israel is called God's firstborn. The title describes nearness, likeness in character, obedience and inheritance—not physical generation. Jesus' sonship is unique in rank and purity, but uniqueness of rank does not convert a relational title into identity with the Absolute.

“Emmanuel,” or “God with us,” follows the same representative language. God was “with” Moses, Joshua and the prophets through support, command and proof. In Jesus, that presence reached an extraordinary completeness: to encounter the perfectly obedient image was to encounter God's guidance. The sender was present through the sent one without becoming confined within him.

• John 1:1–18
• Isaiah 7:14
• Matthew 1:23
• Luke 3:38
• Matthew 5:9
• Exodus 3:12

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Appendix Two, “The Word,” “Emmanuel or God with Us,” and “The Son,” pp. 89–99.
2. Compare the wider biblical use of sonship in Exodus 4:22, Luke 3:38 and Matthew 5:9. Primary source

The phrase “manifested in the flesh” concerns how God becomes known within creation. Manifestation does not mean that the infinite essence has moved into a finite container. The burning bush discloses God without the bush becoming the Absolute; an angel carries God's name and speaks with His authority without becoming the One who cannot be contained.

Jesus is called the image of the invisible God because God's mercy, wisdom, command and authority are displayed through him. His statement “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” is immediately explained by indwelling words and works: the Father acts through him. The same discourse maintains distinction—Jesus is going to the Father and says the Father is greater than he.

This makes manifestation a matter of perfect representation rather than a fusion of essences. It also means the biblical language does not, by itself, establish three co-equal absolute persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit can describe God, His chosen manifestation and the divine means of guidance while worship remains directed to the one Absolute.

• 1 Timothy 3:16
• Colossians 1:15
• John 14:9–10, 28
• Exodus 3:2–6
• Exodus 23:20–21

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Appendix One, pp. 83–88; Appendix Two, “God Manifested in the Flesh,” pp. 93–95.
2. Tawhid (Arabic), sections on manifestation, the divine names and Jesus. Primary source

Coming and going ordinarily imply movement from one location to another. The Absolute, however, is not absent from one place and present in another, nor does He undergo spatial change. When scripture says God “came down,” “appeared” or “came with clouds,” the language must therefore be read according to the way divine command enters history.

The Bible regularly attributes the act of an authorized agent to God. The angel in the bush speaks as God; the angel bearing God's name is to be obeyed; judges appointed by God can exercise His judgment. Deuteronomy 33 similarly associates divine shining with Sinai, Seir and Paran—events connected with prophetic missions rather than bodily movements of the Absolute.

End-time “coming” can follow the same rule. Daniel sees a son-of-man figure receiving authority from the Ancient of Days; Revelation speaks in symbols of agents who carry judgment. The arrival of God's appointed representative is rightly called God's coming because His proof, rule and judgment become present through that servant.

• Deuteronomy 33:2
• Exodus 3:2–6
• Exodus 23:20–22
• Daniel 7:13–14
• Revelation 1:7

1. Tawhid (Arabic), discussion of divine coming, transcendence and manifestation.
2. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question Four, pp. 16–27. Primary source

John sees one seated on the throne, twenty-four elders upon surrounding thrones and a sealed scroll that no one can open. He is told that the Lion of Judah and Root of David has prevailed. But when he turns, he does not describe a lion: he sees a Lamb standing among the throne and elders, bearing the marks of slaughter.

The movement from what John hears to what he sees is evidence that the symbols should not be merged without examination. The Lamb also occupies a position distinguishable from the throne figure and the elders. The proposed identities are relational: Muhammad is represented by the throne figure, Ali by the Lion, the twelve Imams and twelve Mahdis by the twenty-four elders, and the First Mahdi by the slain-looking Lamb.

The Lamb's wounds connect him to a sacrifice; his place among the elders connects him to the line of successors; and his ability to take and open the scroll connects him to knowledge sealed from others. The interpretation stands or falls on whether this complete pattern explains the vision more coherently than assuming every exalted figure is Jesus.

• Revelation 4:1–11
• Revelation 5:1–10
• Revelation 22:16

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question One, pp. 3–6.
2. The Lamb's connection to the crucified substitute is developed in Question Nine and Appendices Five–Six. Primary source

Isaiah 11 describes a shoot from Jesse and a Branch from his roots. The Spirit of wisdom rests upon him; he judges the poor with justice, strikes the earth, ends oppression and becomes an ensign to whom the nations gather. The chapter culminates in an earth filled with knowledge of the Lord.

Jesus belongs to the Davidic prophetic promise, yet the chapter's public rule, worldwide gathering and transformed earthly order were not realized in his first mission. The prophecy therefore contains an end-time fulfilment beyond identifying Jesus' birth. “Root” can indicate both ancestry and the divinely guided line from which a later servant emerges.

The end-time Branch is identified with the messenger and right hand of Imam Al-Mahdi: one connected to David through the maternal lineage attributed to Al-Mahdi, and to Muhammad through the paternal line. His function matches the final verses—raising the signal, gathering supporters, judging by divine knowledge and preparing the state of justice.

• Isaiah 11:1–12
• Isaiah 5:26
• Revelation 5:5
• Revelation 22:16

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question Two, pp. 7–10.
2. The Successor and Messenger, biblical evidence from Isaiah, pp. 14–15. Primary source

The vision is explicitly symbolic: a Woman is clothed with the sun, stands over the moon and wears twelve stars. She gives birth to a male child destined to rule the nations, the child is caught up to God, and the dragon turns against the rest of her offspring. The imagery spans a divine lineage and a final conflict rather than an ordinary biography.

Genesis 37 supplies the biblical key for sun, moon and stars as persons within a chosen family. Revelation can therefore portray degrees of divine light and succession: the prophetic source, its inheritor and the appointed guides. The Woman represents the sacred vessel of the divine call and, in its end-time application, the mother connected with the promised successor.

A purely past identification with Mary leaves the final war, remaining offspring and the child's rule requiring further explanation; a purely institutional identification with “the Church” risks ignoring the genealogical imagery. The proposed reading keeps both dimensions: a heavenly symbol of the divine call embodied through a particular end-time lineage.

• Revelation 12:1–17
• Genesis 37:9–10
• Psalm 2:7–9

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question Three, pp. 11–15.
2. Genesis 37:9–10 supplies the precedent for reading celestial bodies as members of a chosen household. Primary source

Jesus assigns the promised Comforter a sequence of public actions: he comes after Jesus' departure, testifies, teaches, convicts the world concerning sin, righteousness and judgment, speaks what he hears, announces what is to come and guides into all truth. The description is richer than a private feeling of consolation.

“He will not speak from himself; whatever he hears he will speak” matches the biblical pattern of a prophet who receives and transmits revelation. Deuteronomy 18 describes the promised speaker similarly: God places words in his mouth and he speaks what is commanded. The Holy Spirit can support and communicate through such a servant without exhausting the human-messenger dimension of the promise.

The timing matters. Jesus connects the guide with truths the disciples could not yet bear and with judgment upon the world. Read beside Matthew's faithful servant who distributes knowledge before the Master returns, the promise points toward an instructed representative whose mission prepares people for the end-time event.

• John 14:16–17, 26
• John 15:26
• John 16:7–15
• Deuteronomy 18:18
• Matthew 24:45–47

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question Four, pp. 16–27.
2. The Successor and Messenger, Gospel evidence, pp. 19–21. Primary source

Revelation does not present 666 as an isolated arithmetic puzzle. The number belongs to a beast characterized by blasphemous authority, persecution, coerced allegiance and economic control. Any identification must correspond to the chapter's whole portrait before a numerical calculation has evidential weight.

Anti-Islamic calculations often change spelling, alphabet or numerical system until “Muhammad,” “Islam” or “Mecca” reaches a desired total. One example constructs a hostile phrase rather than calculating an actual name. A method flexible enough to manufacture results for many unrelated targets cannot uniquely identify one person.

The early manuscript variant 616 adds caution, but the central flaw is methodological: beginning with a target and engineering the arithmetic reverses responsible interpretation. Historical and contextual correspondence must come first; only then can a number meaningfully confirm an identification.

• Revelation 13:1–18
• Revelation 17:7–14
• 2 Thessalonians 2:3–12

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Questions Five–Six, pp. 28–38. The response rebuts a particular anti-Islamic calculation; it does not require one universally accepted alternative identity.
2. Critical editions of Revelation 13:18 record 616 as an early textual variant. Primary source

The surviving Coptic Gospel of Judas contains a figure separated from the Twelve and privately addressed by Jesus. He receives hidden knowledge, is called “the thirteenth,” and is told that he will exceed the others because he will sacrifice the human garment associated with Jesus. This portrait is more complex than the canonical image of Judas Iscariot as a betrayer motivated by money.

The English forms Judas, Judah and Jude derive from the same name, so identity cannot be settled by the translated name alone. The text's damaged condition also makes scholarly interpretation contested. Its importance is therefore cumulative: it preserves a memory of an additional, privately instructed disciple connected with a difficult sacrifice, while Mark independently records an otherwise unexplained young follower at the arrest.

These details allow a distinction between Judas Iscariot, who leaves to betray Jesus, and a righteous disciple who accepts a sacrificial role. That distinction supplies a narrative place for the substitute required by the statement that Jesus was not crucified but that another was made to appear so.

• Gospel of Judas, private discourses
• Mark 14:43–52
• John 13:21–30
• Quran 4:157–158

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question Eight, pp. 43–46; Appendix Three, pp. 101–104.
2. The Coptic text is used as corroborating evidence rather than a self-sufficient canonical authority. Primary source

The Quran states two things together: Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, and the event was made to appear so to his opponents. This requires more than a vague denial; it implies a real appearance capable of producing the historical conviction that Jesus had been executed.

The Gospel arrest accounts contain unresolved details compatible with another participant. Mark preserves the young man who follows Jesus wearing a linen cloth, escapes naked and disappears. The Gospel of Judas preserves a thirteenth figure associated with sacrificing Jesus' bodily “garment.” Revelation later presents a Lamb who stands as though slain, possesses sealed knowledge and belongs within the end-time company.

The synthesis is that a righteous, divinely appointed disciple freely accepted Jesus' likeness and crucifixion while Jesus was raised. He was neither Jesus nor Judas Iscariot. His sacrifice explains the appearance; his hidden identity explains the confusion; and his return as the First Mahdi explains why disclosure of the mystery functions as identifying knowledge.

• Matthew 26–28
• Mark 14:51–52
• Luke 24:13–35
• Revelation 5:6–10
• Quran 4:157–158

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Question Nine, pp. 47–81; Appendices Five–Six, pp. 117–128.
2. The argument accepts that a crucifixion occurred while disputing the identity of the crucified person. Primary source

Scripture praises voluntary self-offering, but moral guilt is not a transferable object that makes an innocent person blameworthy. Ezekiel insists that the sinner bears his own guilt, while Jesus repeatedly calls people to repentance. Sacrifice must therefore save without converting injustice into justice.

The saving power lies in obedience and guidance. A chosen servant accepts suffering, exposes the oppressors, preserves God's proof and opens a path by which others repent and enter the covenant. He bears consequences for the mission without becoming morally guilty of the sins of those he guides.

This pattern converges with the rejected stone. Psalm 118's rejected stone becomes the cornerstone; Jesus applies it to authorities who reject God's choice; Daniel's uncut stone overturns corrupt kingdoms and becomes a mountain filling the earth. The end-time servant is rejected by established powers yet becomes the beginning of the promised divine order.

• Ezekiel 18:20
• Psalm 118:22
• Daniel 2:31–45
• Matthew 21:42–44
• John 15:13

1. The Thirteenth Disciple, Appendix Four, pp. 105–116.
2. The Successor and Messenger, Daniel's stone and the end-time messenger, pp. 15–18. Primary source

Jesus' teaching about the return contains two distinct roles. The Son of Man or Master comes unexpectedly; meanwhile, a “faithful and wise servant” has already been placed over the household to give its people food at the proper time. The servant is blessed when the returning Master finds him actively performing that commission.

The food is more than material provision. Within prophetic language, feeding signifies knowledge, wisdom and guidance—the nourishment required for a household to remain faithful. The servant therefore represents an end-time teacher entrusted before the visible return, not merely a generic moral example detached from the prophetic sequence.

The principle that warning precedes judgment strengthens this reading. God does not punish without first establishing proof and giving people an opportunity to respond. If the return includes judgment, a messenger who warns, clarifies and gathers beforehand is consistent with the recurring divine pattern.

• Matthew 24:36–47
• Matthew 25:1–13
• Amos 3:7
• John 16:12–15
• Quran 17:15

1. The Successor and Messenger, Gospel evidence concerning the faithful and wise servant, pp. 19–20.
2. The warning-before-judgment principle is developed through the end-time messenger discussion, pp. 11–13 and 18–20. Primary source

Malachi promises Elijah before the day of the Lord. Yet Jesus identifies John the Baptist as the Elijah who was to come, while the Gospel simultaneously distinguishes John from the historical person Elijah. The fulfilment is therefore not bodily identity: John comes in Elijah's spirit, role and mission.

This supplies a biblical rule for representative fulfilment. A promised person's “coming” can occur through an appointed servant who carries the same divine task. Scripture can name the representative by the one whose mission he embodies, just as an ambassador's authorized action is attributed to the sender.

The rule matters for the return. If John could be called Elijah before Elijah's own end-time role, then a messenger sent by Jesus and the other divinely guided servants may be described through their coming before their visible appearance. The claim must still be tested, but it cannot be rejected merely because the prophecy names a greater figure than the servant who first appears.

• Malachi 4:5–6
• Matthew 11:10–15
• Matthew 17:10–13
• Luke 1:17
• John 1:19–23

1. The Successor and Messenger, comparison of John and Elijah and its end-time application, pp. 18–19.
2. Luke 1:17 explicitly describes John as going in the spirit and power of Elijah. Primary source

Isaiah speaks of an ensign raised for distant nations and of the Root of Jesse standing as a signal to whom peoples gather. Daniel sees a stone “not cut by human hands” strike the statue of successive empires, become a mountain and fill the earth. Both symbols move from an apparently small beginning to a universal divine order.

The ensign's function is to announce and gather; the stone's function is to challenge illegitimate kingdoms and establish what God gives rather than what human power manufactures. These roles converge in a messenger who calls people before the public establishment of the promised kingdom.

Daniel 7 adds the judicial setting: oppressive kingdoms are judged, authority is transferred and the saints receive the kingdom. The end-time call is therefore not only private spirituality. It announces God's sovereignty, exposes systems founded on human supremacy and gathers those willing to support justice before the decisive transition.

• Isaiah 5:26–30
• Isaiah 11:1–12
• Daniel 2:31–45
• Daniel 7:9–27
• Matthew 21:42–44

1. The Successor and Messenger, Isaiah's ensign and Daniel's stone and kingdoms, pp. 14–18.
2. The Thirteenth Disciple, Appendix Four, pp. 105–116, connects the stone with the rejected cornerstone. Primary source

Biological evolution is supported by several independent lines of evidence that converge on common descent. Natural selection acts on heritable variation; fossils place changing forms in chronological order; homologous structures and geographic distribution reveal branching history; and genetics supplies especially precise markers.

Human chromosome 2 contains the signatures expected if two ancestral ape chromosomes fused, while shared endogenous retroviral insertions occur at corresponding genomic locations in related species. These patterns are difficult to explain as unrelated, separately created forms. Observable selection and speciation show the mechanism operating, even though deep history is reconstructed from accumulated evidence.

None of this establishes atheism. Evolution describes how living bodies diversify; it does not answer why a law-governed universe exists, why its laws can generate life and mind, or whether revelation appoints a particular evolved human to prophecy. The apparent conflict arises when Genesis is forced into a modern scientific chronology or when a biological theory is made to carry metaphysical conclusions beyond its scope.

• Genesis 1–2
• Psalm 104
• Quran 29:20
• Quran 71:14–17

1. The Atheism Delusion, Chapters One–Three, especially pp. 42–88 and 103–162.
2. The evidence surveyed includes natural selection, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, biogeography, chromosome 2 fusion and endogenous retroviruses. Primary source

Science and revelation answer different parts of the Adam question. Genetics, fossils and archaeology trace the long biological development and population history of Homo sapiens. Revelation identifies Adam through divine teaching, covenant, moral testing and appointment as God's vicegerent. The religious distinction need not be the sudden appearance of the first anatomically human body.

Genesis 2:7 compresses origin into dust, formed life and divine breath. This can describe levels of one process: material elements, an evolved living body and then a spiritual or moral elevation. The Quran likewise speaks of creation through stages and then of breathing the spirit after the bodily form has been proportioned.

Placing the Adam of religion within an existing human population addresses otherwise difficult questions. Cain fears other people and builds a city; spouses appear without a complete genealogy; genetic diversity does not descend from one recent couple. Adam becomes the first divinely appointed human in the relevant covenantal history, not necessarily the first biological member of the species.

• Genesis 2:7
• Genesis 4:14–17
• Quran 2:30–37
• Quran 15:28–29
• Quran 71:14

1. The Atheism Delusion, Chapter Three, “The Time of the Adam of Religion,” “The Truth About the Creation of Adam,” and related sections, pp. 89–162.
2. The distinction is between biological humanity and Adam's prophetic appointment, not between science and revelation as competing laboratory accounts. Primary source

Matthew and Luke affirm conception without an ordinary human father. A biological discussion must therefore address two separate problems: initiating embryonic development without fertilization and producing a male child, which ordinarily requires Y-chromosome material not present in a typical XX ovum.

Parthenogenesis alone would not normally solve the second problem. One proposed pathway considers an exceptional chromosomal constitution in Mary—an XY individual with complete androgen insensitivity and additional reproductive conditions—together with an ovum retaining a complete chromosome set and externally initiated division. Such elements are discussed to show that “virgin birth” is not a formally meaningless biological statement.

This remains a speculative reconstruction, not a demonstrated diagnosis of Mary or a repeatable medical explanation of Jesus' conception. The religious claim rests on revelation. The scientific value is narrower: known biological categories allow exceptional pathways to be discussed without pretending that present evidence establishes exactly how the event occurred.

• Luke 1:26–38
• Matthew 1:18–25
• Quran 3:45–47
• Quran 19:16–22

1. The Atheism Delusion, Chapter Three, “Research on the Pregnancy of Mary with a Male (Jesus),” pp. 159–162.
2. The chromosomal scenario is explicitly presented here as speculative and should not be mistaken for established medical history. Primary source

A classical rule of inference begins from effects: order, capacity and intelligibility tell us something about the cause or system that produces them. Applied here, the relevant effect is not one isolated organ but a law-governed cosmos and genetic process able to produce perception, reasoning, language, self-awareness and moral agency.

Natural selection does not eliminate this question. It describes differential survival within a system already possessing stable laws, replicating chemistry and an environment fertile for increasing complexity. Convergent evolution—independent lineages arriving at similar functional solutions—shows the repeated productivity of the lawful process rather than explaining why such a process exists.

Consciousness and morality deepen the issue. Evolutionary accounts can explain many cooperative behaviours through kin selection, reciprocity or group advantage, yet the human recognition that one ought to choose truth or self-sacrifice even against advantage is not identical to describing how the tendency arose. Description of origin and justification of moral obligation remain different questions.

• Psalm 19:1–4
• Romans 1:20
• John 15:13
• Quran 52:35–36

1. The Atheism Delusion, Chapters Four–Five, pp. 163–349, especially the discussions of purpose, intelligence and altruism.
2. The inference is philosophical: scientific mechanisms are accepted, then considered as effects still requiring an ultimate explanation. Primary source

Absolute nothingness has no space, time, fields, energy, laws, probabilities or possibilities. It cannot fluctuate, decay or cause. Therefore, when popular cosmology says a universe can arise from “nothing,” the first task is to examine whether the word still means absolute non-being.

A quantum vacuum is not nothing: it is a physical state within a theoretical framework, described by equations and capable of measurable effects. A multiverse, boundary condition or zero-total-energy universe likewise presupposes structure. Such models may extend the physical history behind the observable Big Bang, but they do not make non-being productive.

Nor does a mathematical description cause the reality it describes. Equations express relationships among possible or actual quantities; their applicability requires a law-bearing reality. Moving the explanatory boundary from our universe to a quantum state or wider cosmos leaves the ultimate question intact: why is there any structured possibility rather than nothing at all?

• Genesis 1:1
• John 1:3
• Hebrews 11:3
• Quran 52:35–36

1. The Atheism Delusion, Chapter Six, “Nothingness Does Not Produce,” pp. 387–493.
2. The treatment compares Big Bang cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics, vacuum fluctuation, multiverse proposals and zero-energy claims. Primary source

Genesis uses universal language for Noah's flood, yet the meaning of “all the earth” must be determined from ancient usage and context. Elsewhere the same kind of language refers to the entire relevant land or known human horizon rather than every continent. The Quran focuses the warning and punishment on Noah's rejecting people.

A recent planet-wide flood would leave unmistakable simultaneous geological evidence, create severe problems for biogeography and require explanations for the survival and redistribution of every species. A catastrophic regional flood centred in ancient Mesopotamia fits the populated world of Noah's mission without requiring the submersion of the Himalayas or the entire globe.

Mesopotamian traditions—the Atrahasis epic and the flood account in Gilgamesh—share a warning, vessel, preserved life, overwhelming water, landing and sacrifice. These parallels can represent cultural memories of the same regional catastrophe preserved with different theological interpretations; similarity does not prove that revelation merely copied mythology.

• Genesis 6–9
• Quran 11:25–49
• Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI
• Atrahasis

1. The Atheism Delusion, Chapter Five, “Research in the Flood of Noah,” pp. 350–386.
2. The comparison includes Genesis, the Quran, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis and Mesopotamian geography. Primary source