responding to common objections to bible part 7

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.
That should be enough.
By the way, evolutionist (if you want to use this word) is not a faith, but a scientific hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.” I don’t intervene anymore in TR posts as they stop to make me laugh.
Now, as you spoke of me: I don’t “believe”. I came always with facts. Well, I do believe in few things (Justice, Freedom, and others concepts). But when some (as you did few time) come with absolutely no evidences at all, about subjects you have absolutely no clue (i.e. Forrisson being an historian in the WW2 and Holocaust), or me being a US citizen, I have to react, When you pick all revisionist theories you can find in Internet (none of them given a single little proof of what they implies (never came once with invoices testimonies, plans or witnesses), I challenged you. You are the one who went for insults and other smoke screen tactic in order to deflect the need of answers.

---

first of all as once i think Pannonian said you are Imperialists Lover and Support of hatred & Colonialism and you will even justify the most evil of their works! anyway....

Really Facts?! :laugh4: huh you know yourself as The Perfect Truth !!
facts...hmmmm....lol....bringing some vents of hate and Anger and Falsification of a Killer & Imperialist English Officer from Criminal East India Company about a great man like gandhi that millions and Even Billions people adore his Personality is FACT ?!

if thats Fact, i never even look at Facts!!

TR, you would be right, if only "and" and "or" were the same thingy.

Unfortunately it isn't, and that gives room for more than one shiver up ones spine when it comes to your reading comprehension of other more advanced texts.

Basically, I give you a 0/10 in reading comprehension.

You could have got one point, if you acknowledged you haven't got the faintest idea of what you just read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.
That should be enough.
By the way, evolutionist (if you want to use this word) is not a faith, but a scientific hypothesis.

---

sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under

16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=

that would be the perfect place to talk on it, may i suggest a little skepticism instead of unquestionable faith in what you hear may do you well. There you will find some facts and references to fully refute the claim. Just to let you know, there are actually hundreds of creation accounts that include a global flood, i am sure we will get to this in the creation vs evolution thread, we as creationist see this as positive to our side.




as i isated earlier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

TR, you would be right, if only "and" and "or" were the same thingy.

Unfortunately it isn't, and that gives room for more than one shiver up ones spine when it comes to your reading comprehension of other more advanced texts.

Basically, I give you a 0/10 in reading comprehension.

You could have got one point, if you acknowledged you haven't got the faintest idea of what you just read.

---

thanks for the kind words jerk....lol. well your stupid, so take that you big bully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

I did make a long post as a rebut to your last, but thought better of it. I realized that I debated something I don't really believe and that the onus is on the believer to make their arguments.

However, even though we "think" we know Roman history, there aren't much material that survived the ages. We don't have a surviving census for example, besides the two scraps found in Egypt that were rather late censuses (104 AD and 119 AD). We don't know much about the censuses that Augustus ordered - only that he mentioned it in his 35 feats in office. Censuses for tax purposes was a local thing and ordered and executed by local officials (the Qurinius one in 6 AD). Why would the Emperor call for an extra-ordinary census? And we don't really know why - other that he was doing a count and posted the result as a great feat in his career. Must it have been a tax census or simply a head count? We are only assuming it was a tax census.

True - that in Rome censuses was conducted by current residence. But in Judea people had to travel to their ancestral home. I don't think this is refutable. Question is - did the Romans allow it, respecting Jewish customs?
I read one scholar's opinion on this. He basically said that traveling to the city of David for the census was just the excuse. Mary tagged along because the future King had to be born in the city of David. Which begs the question - Why did Luke make all the fuss about the census mixing in the wrong references? He is supposed to be THE historian of the gospel writers and would have had access to better sources than we have today.

Damn... did it again.

---

True, so far as it goes, but as a historian who focuses on the Republic, I have to say that there are many things with can be inferred with confidence.

The censuses ordered by Augustus in the res gestae are not exceptional in and of themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RG. 8

In my fifth consulship [29 BC] I increased the number of patricians on the instructions of the people and the senate. 2 I revised the roll of the senate three times. In my sixth consulship with Marcus Agrippa as colleague [28 BC], I carried out a census of the people, and I performed a lustrum after a lapse of forty-two years; at that lustrum 4,063,000 Roman citizens were registered. 3 Then a second time I performed a lustrum with consular imperium and without a colleague, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius [8 BC]; at that lustrum 4,233,000 citizens were registered. 4 Thirdly I performed a lustrum with consular imperium, with Tiberius Caesar, my son, as colleague, in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [AD 14]; at that lustrum 4,957,000 citizens were registered.

---

The reference to the lustrum indicates that Augustus was, in essence, holding the Republican office of censor (though with added perks in the second and third instances). This indicates that these were censuses held in the city of Rome itself and Italy, and ought to have no relevance to the wider empire.

There is a the difficulty of a sudden increase in the number of citizens recorded (1000000 ~85 BCE; 4000000 ~28 BCE), but the inclusion of women, children and old men, could account for this. The point is that the people recorded were citizens. There is a plausible political motive for this revival, but it does not impact the NT cnensus.

This must be related to that of Quirinius in 6 AD, the 'local census': now this must be for taxation purposes, since there is no other reason for the state to make a record of the number and wealth of inhabitants of a newly acquired province. Also, as HT has mentioned, the is no reason why Joseph, as a Galilean under the rule of Herod Antiphas, would be effected. It would be reasonable, then, to assume that Luke has simply connected the birth to a well-known event, and sought to account for the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in the 'City of David'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

please provide one specific fact i avoid as you claimed. i will be keeping your quote above for later thread on creation vs evolution to compare and see who does avoid facts. I will ask for any one example from you that i ignore, than i will provide for you one you must ignore, than well keep score, as i said above creationist get to laugh most. Evolutionist so confident, never able to defend their faith, i say indoctrination is the reason.

---

With respect to the word 'fact': from 'factum' a thing done. Literally, the latin root means something that was done, but in English something that is verifiably true. The problem arises in the verification. TR would, I presume, argue that Biblical text in itself is verification enough for the status of fact, though he he would deal with different readings I do not know. Brenus, again I presume, would suggest that something which is generally accepted by experts in a given scientific or historical field would be a fact, hence the Gilgamesh reference.

My own view is that all facts, and 'truths' are subjective. If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements and be convinced that we were correct. CCTV footage might give you the answer, and you might argue that a record of something is a fact, but records can be faked/mistaken. A record of an event proves only that someone recorded that event in that way.

Hence, these irreconciable differences: each has his own truth, and if unwilling to accept that his truth could be false: deadlock.

"sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under"
Perfect example of what I said. Thanks. You duck answer again. So here, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the Bible copies and Pastes from others Religions, so the Bible is not the Word of God, but just a book of Jewish Legends, like we have the Legends from Scotland, France and others...
Answer is simple:
a) Yes, I do knowledge that the Bible is not the Word of God but a human fabrication as it is known (as one example) from 1870 first modern translation of the Sumerian Legends known under the title "the Book of Gilgamesh", and you can add a but (it doesn't matter because whatever reason you what)
b) No, against all evidences, I carry on to pretend/believe that the Bible is the Word of God, source of all knowledge even when facts are against it

"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements" But we would agree that it was a Robbery. TR would deny the robbery if it not in the Bible, or if the Robbery is mentioned in the Bible but was reported before the Bible will just ignore this fact (not the robbery, the fact that someone told the story before).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio

With respect to the word 'fact': from 'factum' a thing done. Literally, the latin root means something that was done, but in English something that is verifiably true. The problem arises in the verification. TR would, I presume, argue that Biblical text in itself is verification enough for the status of fact, though he he would deal with different readings I do not know. Brenus, again I presume, would suggest that something which is generally accepted by experts in a given scientific or historical field would be a fact, hence the Gilgamesh reference.

My own view is that all facts, and 'truths' are subjective. If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements and be convinced that we were correct. CCTV footage might give you the answer, and you might argue that a record of something is a fact, but records can be faked/mistaken. A record of an event proves only that someone recorded that event in that way.

Hence, these irreconciable differences: each has his own truth, and if unwilling to accept that his truth could be false: deadlock.

---

I actually agree with you very strongly. Worldviews are strong, i was simply saying his claim facts that must be ignored by christian because the epic has a global flood or that it is claimed the bible copied from it, are no such thing and do not refute the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under"
Perfect example of what I said. Thanks. You duck answer again. So here, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the Bible copies and Pastes from others Religions, so the Bible is not the Word of God, but just a book of Jewish Legends, like we have the Legends from Scotland, France and others...
Answer is simple:
a) Yes, I do knowledge that the Bible is not the Word of God but a human fabrication as it is known (as one example) from 1870 first modern translation of the Sumerian Legends known under the title "the Book of Gilgamesh", and you can add a but (it doesn't matter because whatever reason you what)
b) No, against all evidences, I carry on to pretend/believe that the Bible is the Word of God, source of all knowledge even when facts are against it

"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements" But we would agree that it was a Robbery. TR would deny the robbery if it not in the Bible, or if the Robbery is mentioned in the Bible but was reported before the Bible will just ignore this fact (not the robbery, the fact that someone told the story before).

---

perfect example, you duck my response again, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the bible has not copied and pasted from other religons, so does not ignore any facts you claim? answer is simple

1] yes you agree the bible does not copy from any legends as you orginally claimed because you read my link
was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=


2] no against all evidence you will still claim is so because you enjoy the conclusion.


"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements"

but Brenus would claim the robbery was copied from a later robbery and took the ideas on how the robber stole it from a earlier account. He would ignore all the differences and evidence refuting such a claim and talk about this other robbery that was off topic, than when its time to talk about the earlier robbery he does not want to.
16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=


notice his complete silence on his objection when it is topic, he does not want to confront his claim being faced with truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.

---

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.

---

Yeah.. If you want to prove the Judeo-Christian religion false -the worst thing to do is to dig up stuff predating the Bible that supports the events recorded there.
The Judeo-Christian religion claim to be the original religion taught the first men. The second men - Egypt,Sumeria etc.. fashioned their religion after the religion of the first. Christians aren't using this trump card at all. Was Adam a Christian?

“If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.” Oh, the flooding thing is very common indeed. Sumerian civilisation was dead when the Jewish one came in. So it contradicts his claim that that the Bible was written by the Jewish version of god as it didn’t exist at that time: Except of course if he agree that the Sumerians had the knowledge of the Biblical God (but more than one) and before the Bible.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.

---

Or that one culture has influenced another culture, or indeed has taken it over as their own. I don't think many people with historical knowledge would claim that Jesus was born on 25th December. The presence of festivals around that period in many other cultures isn't proof that they were celebrating the birth of the Son of God. Look into the timing of when Christmas began to be celebrated and other Christian festivities, and it's far more likely that organised Christianity took on the stories of other cultures and appropriated them for itself. Eg. the song "We wish you a merry Christmas".

“If you want to prove the Judeo-Christian religion false” I don’t want to prove a Religion false. I don’t care of Religions, or Legends or Myths. I just give one exemplar, as asked by TR, of him ignoring facts in order to keep his beliefs. So either he acknowledges that the Bible is not literally the Words from God, or he (as he will probably do) dodges the question.
If a book was written before a book I write, it is a copyright infringement. In fact, just to take for a book the main storyline is one. So a Jewish Script, at one point, decided to adapt the Sumerian account (or legend) to a Jewish version et voilà. Hollywood does it regularly. And most of the time, they pay the copyrights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Or that one culture has influenced another culture, or indeed has taken it over as their own. I don't think many people with historical knowledge would claim that Jesus was born on 25th December. The presence of festivals around that period in many other cultures isn't proof that they were celebrating the birth of the Son of God. Look into the timing of when Christmas began to be celebrated and other Christian festivities, and it's far more likely that organised Christianity took on the stories of other cultures and appropriated them for itself. Eg. the song "We wish you a merry Christmas".

---

I don't think your analogy works because you are talking about something entirely different. The global flood would have affected everybody on earth and thus you would expect all peoples on earth to have some recollection of it. On the other hand, the date of Jesus' birth is something highly specific and not something most people would have knowledge of without being told of it. Thus celebrating Christmas on December 25th is obviously an example of co-opting other beliefs - the knowledge of a past, global flood is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

either he acknowledges that the Bible is not literally the Words from God, or he (as he will probably do) dodges the question. If a book was written before a book I write, it is a copyright infringement. In fact, just to take for a book the main storyline is one. So a Jewish Script, at one point, decided to adapt the Sumerian account (or legend) to a Jewish version et voilà. Hollywood does it regularly. And most of the time, they pay the copyrights.

---

Well, that could be what happened. But how can you be sure? Maybe belief in an ancient flood was widespread throughout all the ancient peoples of the Fertile Crescent (which would not be surprising given its geography of major rivers and flood plains), and the Sumerians were simply the first to write it down?

Certainly, a competing Sumerian account in no way disproves the authenticity of the Jewish account.

"Certainly, a competing Sumerian account in no way disproves the authenticity of the Jewish account." Nope, but it proves the Bible is not written by the Jewish acceptation of God. Which is the aim of my comment. I do not deny the fact of flooding. It happened all the time (Nile flooding arriving at the hottest moment were for the Egyptians the PROOF that Gods were existing), nor I doubt that unusual (one per century as we say now) flooding were the end of the world for civilisations near big rivers, literally.
So, now, believers in the Bible as literal have to explain why, when the Jewish were not on Earth, the Sumerians had a knowledge of this flooding before the Bible was written, if given by God. The Bible doesn't mention God (under few several split identities) going to warn the Sumerians, who built an Arch, loaded animals, send 3 birds etc... The fact is the Jewish at one moment incorporate this story in their own (plus few others). Nothing wrong with that, but if, as TR, you believe the the Bible is the Word of Good, it can't match. So, as I said, he just ignores the fact. Denial of reality is frequent, not only in Religious faith, as a defense system to notion that could put our belief system, or our emotions and so on..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Or that one culture has influenced another culture, or indeed has taken it over as their own. I don't think many people with historical knowledge would claim that Jesus was born on 25th December. The presence of festivals around that period in many other cultures isn't proof that they were celebrating the birth of the Son of God. Look into the timing of when Christmas began to be celebrated and other Christian festivities, and it's far more likely that organised Christianity took on the stories of other cultures and appropriated them for itself. Eg. the song "We wish you a merry Christmas".

---

indeed its a false celebration

the roots of 25th December and celebrating the "Christmass" and making holiness of SUNDAY its all roots from Mehr Worship or as Greek MITHRAYISM! so it has Iranian & Mesopotamian Roots......

20The December Anahita Is Born. 25th December Mithra Is born!! even Iranians & Kurds & Indians celebrate 19th December to 30th specially major ones in 20th-25th December as the YALDA NIGHTS or The Winter nights. but actually its a Mithrayism Custom and tradition and has resisted Islam all these centuries too.

in Mithrayism & even Zoroastrian, FIRE has a great Holy place in the religion! so Mithra is The SUN GOD Shine God Light God Light God Love God Kindness God Warmness God & ...... so the holiness of Fire make people later put an special day for Respecting Sun & Fire & SUN GOD. well, they all accepted the Sunday for that...........havent you ever wondered, why its SUNDAY not SONDAY?! (The Son of God Day) its for respecting SUN as its SUN Day not SON Day! and Mithra is a SUN GOD(ess) ......... Interesting ha?
as we see even Mithrayism influenecd highly in Hinduism & Jainism and in Greek & Roman Religions and Mythology. nut they edited it by their own wish and renamed many of those gods and Godess in their Cultural style. even the great place that CEDAR & LARCH is in Mithrayism and influenced into Christianity by Roman Priests! see that why i said before whatever good and wealthy went to west it was corrupted and its not the original's fault! as Christianity too.
you see the falsification of Roman Priests that were EX-MITHRAISTS (Roman Version of it) and were fully influenced by it injected it into Chirstianity! i believe in Armenian Christianity not its Roman & European Version.

so yes i dont believe in the Jesus Birth date as its being celebrated for 1700 years....and also in the European Version of Christianity.......

so happy Celebrating Daily SUN day and Yearly SUN Birth......as its a good tradition inviting for the world for more closeness and sincerity and peace and love. there's nothing bad in it.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

Incohorent ramblings mixed with spiritualist nationalism

---

Mithra?

Why on earth did the Romans need to steal an event from the Persians, when the winter solstice has been celebrated by basically every civilization in history...?

The traditions of Mithra are about as original as christmas itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Mithra?

Why on earth did the Romans need to steal an event from the Persians, when the winter solstice has been celebrated by basically every civilization in history...?

The traditions of Mithra are about as original as christmas itself.

---

I've heard of some large-ish pebbles in southern England...

soery it was doubled

sorry for empty post again i had to update the post and be in the latest........

I updated the Helios origin and SOL INVICTUS with MITHRA and christianity In BLUE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Mithra?

Why on earth did the Romans need to steal an event from the Persians, when the winter solstice has been celebrated by basically every civilization in history...?

The traditions of Mithra are about as original as christmas itself.

---

Who said PERSIANS ??! its far far much older than an 3500 years old Aryan Tribe origin. but in Mesopotamian and Iranian Plateau Roots that most backs to older than 7000 years. that does not mean Persian!

i brought Facts that does not need sources even, you can see with some little research even among ordinary people. i did not mentioned any nation Persian or Kurd or Armenian, so you cant blame me Nationalistic favors! or if you would like, doesnt mattr i dont mention it.......what is the matter is the TRUTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

indeed its a false celebration

the roots of 25th December and celebrating the "Christmass" and making holiness of SUNDAY its all roots from Mehr Worship or as Greek MITHRAYISM! so it has Iranian & Mesopotamian Roots......

20The December Anahita Is Born. 25th December Mithra Is born!! even Iranians & Kurds & Indians celebrate 19th December to 30th specially major ones in 20th-25th December as the YALDA NIGHTS or The Winter nights. but actually its a Mithrayism Custom and tradition and has resisted Islam all these centuries too.

in Mithrayism & even Zoroastrian, FIRE has a great Holy place in the religion! so Mithra is The SUN GOD Shine God Light God Light God Love God Kindness God Warmness God & ...... so the holiness of Fire make people later put an special day for Respecting Sun & Fire & SUN GOD. well, they all accepted the Sunday for that...........havent you ever wondered, why its SUNDAY not SONDAY?! (The Son of God Day) its for respecting SUN as its SUN Day not SON Day! and Mithra is a SUN GOD(ess) ......... Interesting ha?
as we see even Mithrayism influenced highly in Hinduism & Jainism and in Greek & Roman Religions and Mythology (Such as the Origins of Sol Invictus AND "Hellenic" that came from HELIOS the SUN god that was Hellenic derivatived name of Mithra Sun God.) and they edited it by their own wish and renamed many of those gods and Godess in their Cultural style. even the great place that CEDAR & LARCH is in Mithrayism and influenced into Christianity by Roman Priests! see that why i said before whatever good and wealthy went to west it was corrupted and its not the original's fault! as Christianity too.
you see the falsification of Roman Priests that were EX-MITHRAISTS (Roman Version of it) and were fully influenced by it injected it into Chirstianity! i believe in Armenian Christianity not its Roman & European Version.

see this too:
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras...belief_systems

so yes i dont believe in the Jesus Birth date as its being celebrated for 1700 years....and also in the European Version of Christianity.......

so happy Celebrating Daily SUN day and Yearly SUN Birth......as its a good tradition inviting for the world for more closeness and sincerity and peace and love. there's nothing bad in it.........

---

i just forgot that YEZIDISM too has a special celebration exactly in 22th-25th december celebrating the MALAK TAWUS that its the newer version (Arabic?!) of Mithra's Name. they said themselves.

at all i will post a thread in MONASTRY about this soon................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

I updated the Helios origin and SOL INVICTUS with MITHRA and christianity In BLUE



Who said PERSIANS ??! its far far much older than an 3500 years old Aryan Tribe origin. but in Mesopotamian and Iranian Plateau Roots that most backs to older than 7000 years. that does not mean Persian!

i brought Facts that does not need sources even, you can see with some little research even among ordinary people. i did not mentioned any nation Persian or Kurd or Armenian, so you cant blame me Nationalistic favors! or if you would like, doesnt mattr i dont mention it.......what is the matter is the TRUTH



i just forgot that YEZIDISM too has a special celebration exactly in 22th-25th december celebrating the MALAK TAWUS that its the newer version (Arabic?!) of Mithra's Name. they said themselves.

at all i will post a thread in MONASTRY about this soon................

---

The origin of Sol Invictus and similar celebrations are definitely not "inspired" by Mithra.

It's inspired simply by the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I've heard of some large-ish pebbles in southern England...

---

Obviously erected by traveling Iranian nomads.

im not your enemy that you front me in a battle!!

for what i dont know despite i gave you sources & Facts & References, yet your job is to deny and you show yourself as a logical person ............oh my.............

OK anything you say its the Perfect & Unlimited Truth..why you dont create a cult or religion or an Ideaology yourself?! you could gather many people like you! your kind are so many!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

im not your enemy that you front me in a battle!!

for what i dont know despite i gave you sources & Facts & References, yet your job is to deny and you show yourself as a logical person ............oh my.............

OK anything you say its the Perfect & Unlimited Truth..why you dont create a cult or religion or an Ideaology yourself?! you could gather many people like you! your kind are so many!

---

Most(all?) ancient civilizations worshiped the sun. Every single civilization who worshiped the sun have had a celebration at winter solstice. It is after all the time when their deity and life-giver comes back after a period of decline.

To say that this celebration has its origin in one specific culture is just nonsense. Winter solstice definitely comes from the sun, and the celebrations are found in plenty of cultures who had no contact whatsoever with ancient iranian nomads, like the Brits mentioned above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Most(all?) ancient civilizations worshiped the sun. Every single civilization who worshiped the sun have had a celebration at winter solstice. It is after all the time when their deity and life-giver comes back after a period of decline.

To say that this celebration has its origin in one specific culture is just nonsense. Winter solstice definitely comes from the sun, and the celebrations are found in plenty of cultures who had no contact whatsoever with ancient iranian nomads, like the Brits mentioned above.

---

i dont see any Sun worship in China and far East. only in Americas.

and even The Worship of ATUN (SUN) in ancient Egypt is from mythraism as the orientalists say. like Girtschmann

BUT

OK Whatever you say GOD HoreTore !!~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

So, now, believers in the Bible as literal have to explain why, when the Jewish were not on Earth, the Sumerians had a knowledge of this flooding before the Bible was written, if given by God.

---

The obvious answer to that would be that the Sumerians had a knowledge of the flood because they had experienced it themselves. Their ancestors would have passed knowledge of it down through the generations by oral traditions etc.

The flood happened before Jacob/Israel even existed, so of course the Israelite people were not the first to record it in their own histories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

i dont see any Sun worship in China and far East. only in Americas.

and even The Worship of ATUN (SUN) in ancient Egypt is from mythraism as the orientalists say. like Girtschmann

BUT

OK Whatever you say GOD HoreTore !!~;)

---

No sun worshp in China, eh? You're wrong, what a shocker!

The origin of sun worship is uite simple: it was created by people who managed to tilt their necks and look up to the sky. As this is a relatively simple task, it is no wonder that you can find it all over the world. And once you start worshiping the sun, you're pretty much obligated to celebrate winter solstice.

Anyway, how did the ancient iranians manage to travel to the british isles to erect Stonehenge, if I may ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No sun worshp in China, eh? You're wrong, what a shocker!

The origin of sun worship is uite simple: it was created by people who managed to tilt their necks and look up to the sky. As this is a relatively simple task, it is no wonder that you can find it all over the world. And once you start worshiping the sun, you're pretty much obligated to celebrate winter solstice.

Anyway, how did the ancient iranians manage to travel to the british isles to erect Stonehenge, if I may ask?

---

ok....i dont call myself god as like you......i acknowledge i didnt know that about china.thank you for that. but that cult in there had not much influence in China's Believes and thoughts & customs.

but what we see close customs & believes in near east and hellenics were similar .... i dont mean with other civilizations! because the Word Helios has Mythrayism Roots as i linked you. the greeks did not worship anything before that (i mean worship one god, but after mithrayism, also many gods were added it was because of their past Pagan believes)
i mean Mithrayism as expanding Iranian & Mesopotamian Sun Worship to hellenics & Latin Rome & Near East, because there are similarity in customs and believes while it was much lesser than other civilizations.

please God HoreTore, before you show your hatred on me or any Iranian & Kurdish races, Think without Hatred and Fanaticism! because in some points you should THINK than Read!! not many things were written for you !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

before you show your hatred on me or any Iranian & Kurdish races

---

Yes, of course, doubting a single origin for Mediterranean sun worship is definitely racism directed at Kurds and Iranians.

This is a contender for the Backroom's weirdest comment of all time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, of course, doubting a single origin for Mediterranean sun worship is definitely racism directed at Kurds and Iranians.

This is a contender for the Backroom's weirdest comment of all time.

---

you show it hiddenly in your posts not only here. i think your Brenus friend?!

and we suppose that your not that (Suppose!!) you too do like that as you throw the word "Anti Semitic" & Ultranationalist & Ignorant!!

i know your answer says that me and like meare, so..........OK GOD your right!!! :laugh4: what should i say more??!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KurdishSpartakus

you show it hiddenly in your posts not only here. i think your Brenus friend?!

and we suppose that your not that (Suppose!!) you too do like that as you throw the word "Anti Semitic" & Ultranationalist & Ignorant!!

i know your answer says that me and like meare, so..........OK GOD your right!!! :laugh4: what should i say more??!!

---

Please explain how pointing out that some of your statements are antisemitic and describing you as an ignorant nationalist equals racism towards all Kurds and Iranians.

"the Israelite people were not the first to record it in their own histories.." Yes. That is my point. The discussion we have here is not about the flooding, the point I made was TR avoid reality (or will ignore, push aside) in order to keep his faith that the Bible is from God. Not a writing about what God wants, but by God him/herself, as you point out in "their own histories"..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Certainly, a competing Sumerian account in no way disproves the authenticity of the Jewish account." Nope, but it proves the Bible is not written by the Jewish acceptation of God. Which is the aim of my comment. I do not deny the fact of flooding. It happened all the time (Nile flooding arriving at the hottest moment were for the Egyptians the PROOF that Gods were existing), nor I doubt that unusual (one per century as we say now) flooding were the end of the world for civilisations near big rivers, literally.
So, now, believers in the Bible as literal have to explain why, when the Jewish were not on Earth, the Sumerians had a knowledge of this flooding before the Bible was written, if given by God. The Bible doesn't mention God (under few several split identities) going to warn the Sumerians, who built an Arch, loaded animals, send 3 birds etc... The fact is the Jewish at one moment incorporate this story in their own (plus few others). Nothing wrong with that, but if, as TR, you believe the the Bible is the Word of Good, it can't match. So, as I said, he just ignores the fact. Denial of reality is frequent, not only in Religious faith, as a defense system to notion that could put our belief system, or our emotions and so on..

---

as i mentioned b-4, there is a clear reason brenus avoids my other link on this very topic, it refutes his claims that isreal copied from any other local belief. so everytime he ignores it, so can can keep asuming his claim to be true, he likes the conclusion. For anyone after truth or just interested, look here


16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=


I just dont want people to assume his claim true without all the facts. Notice all he has done is claim, facts provided on my thread that he must ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

I just dont want people to assume his claim true without all the facts. Notice all he has done is claim, facts provided on my thread that he must ignore.

---

Every single one of the links you provided come from sources who believe in biblical literalism(except the wiki Horus article). This is, to put it mildly, questionable. Since you have not provided any reputable sources, your claim is as baseless as you claim Brenus' statement is.

It's like proving the Holocaust false by linking to a dozen neo-nazi sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"the Israelite people were not the first to record it in their own histories.." Yes. That is my point. The discussion we have here is not about the flooding, the point I made was TR avoid reality (or will ignore, push aside) in order to keep his faith that the Bible is from God. Not a writing about what God wants, but by God him/herself, as you point out in "their own histories"..

---

Please don't blatantly twist my words. In saying "their own history" I do not mean to say that they wrote it independently of God.

The bottom line is this - the fact that the Biblical account of the flood is preceded by a Sumerian one does not definitively prove that the Biblical account was not inspired by God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Please don't blatantly twist my words. In saying "their own history" I do not mean to say that they wrote it independently of God.

The bottom line is this - the fact that the Biblical account of the flood is preceded by a Sumerian one does not definitively prove that the Biblical account was not inspired by God.

---

All quite irrelevant, since a global flood is proven false by geology, as well as common sense.

"clear reason brenus avoids my other link on this very topic, it refutes his claims that isreal copied from any other local belief.” :laugh4: I don’t avoid other link, you just expose why I don’t take them seriously. You are telling that you refute bla bla bla. So you refute that the Bible copied from the Sumerian Legends, so you avoid reality/facts in order to keep your faith. You just confirm what I said from the start. See, even I was able to make a prediction: “he (as he will probably do) dodges the question.”

“The bottom line is this - the fact that the Biblical account of the flood is preceded by a Sumerian one does not definitively prove that the Biblical account was not inspired by God.” Yes it does. As the description in the Sumerians Myths preceding the Bible accounts provides different names to the Deities and humans involved in the story. If others spoke of it before, God can’t inspire the wording of a known story.

This of course without the knowledge of what HoreTore just highlight: The Deluge (global one) never happened. I was generous in conceding a local reality enlarged to a Mythic History (as we don’t know if the Sumerian did believe in it or if it was just a story for the long winter nights without TV, local version of Scary Movies).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

All quite irrelevant, since a global flood is proven false by geology, as well as common sense.

---

Meh, often minor changes in our understanding of the sciences can place entire scientific narratives in a whole different light. This is true for geology, biodiversity, migrations, population growth, the boat-making capacities of ancient peoples, and many other controversies associated with the flood. I'm not a geologist and I'm not going to make geological arguments, but I believe in time that the scientific understanding will come to be in line with the Biblical one.

A Biblical young earth theory still makes more sense to me than the scientific account. Why did agriculture begin at more or less the same time across the whole world regardless of climate, technology or social arrangements, at around 10,000 BC? Why were humans milling around for hundreds of thousands of years before this happened? Why does all civilization begin at around 10,000 BC? Why were humans just another endangered species until this point? At around 10,000 BC, out of supposedly hundreds of thousands of years wandering around as little better than apes, why do humans all over the world, with no contact with each other and living in hugely different circumstances, suddenly develop agriculture, civilization, and explode in population?

I am genuinely asking this because it is something I have been thinking about and it is not even an argument I have seen being made by fundamentalist Christians. But science does not seem to explain this coincidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Yes it does. As the description in the Sumerians Myths preceding the Bible accounts provides different names to the Deities and humans involved in the story. If others spoke of it before, God can’t inspire the wording of a known story.

---

Right, so the Sumerian story is in fact 100% historically accurate, and the Biblical account is therefore wrong because it doesn't match the Sumerian account?

Your reasoning here is bizarre. At the time the Bible was composed, the flood (real or not) was something that had happened in a far and distant past. It stands to reason that many civilizations would give their own account of it, and no doubt attribute their gods as having some role in it. In turn, the Hebrews gave their own account. Why must the Hebrews write of this first in order for their writings to be inspired by God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

But science does not seem to explain this coincidence.

---

Science doesn't explain it, or you simply do not know the science?

The rise of agriculture coincides with the end of the ice age. Perhaps these two events are related, and perhaps there are scientific theories explaining it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Science doesn't explain it, or you simply do not know the science?

The rise of agriculture coincides with the end of the ice age. Perhaps these two events are related, and perhaps there are scientific theories explaining it.

---

Yeah I know I looked into that, and knew that would be brought up. The thing is we are talking about completely disconnected peoples growing all sorts of different crops in completely different climates - much of the world was suitable for some sort of agriculture even during the last glacial period. Please explain why we record agriculture as beginning at around 7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America, when these areas were all still temperate or tropical even during the maximum extent of the ice sheet during the last glacial period (a full 22,000 years ago, supposedly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La...tation_map.png

EDIT

sorry i almost let myself be brought in to off topic talk [flood stories].

brenus, if you believe yourself to be true in what you claim, please go post on my thread were that is topic, i will gladly reply there. Also if willing, please provide your case/evidence for your beliefs [jews copied] as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yeah I know I looked into that, and knew that would be brought up. The thing is we are talking about completely disconnected peoples growing all sorts of different crops in completely different climates - much of the world was suitable for some sort of agriculture even during the last glacial period. Please explain why we record agriculture as beginning at around 7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America, when these areas were all still temperate or tropical even during the maximum extent of the ice sheet during the last glacial period (a full 22,000 years ago, supposedly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La...tation_map.png

---

A difference of 5000 years is more or less the same time...?

Anyway, it wasn't an instant thing either. As for why it happened in the first place, there are several hypothesis.

Anyhoo Rhy, can you think of a single instance where modern science has moved towards the bible instead of away from it?

Also, a rather long read about the flood. Long, but fun, so I recommend it.

What I want everyone to take away from this thread:

If your anti-scientific religious belief system is being challenged, your best strategy is to point at the assailant and say "but you're doing the same as I am...! Are too!". Best case scenario is that you win the jolly old "I know you are but what I am"-game so intellectually stimulating that it fuels thousands of de facto identical mudslinging contests.

Also I take pleasure in reading these, which I am quite sure makes me either malevolent or moronic. More importantly it means they are not irrelevant. Game on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarmam

What I want everyone to take away from this thread:

If your anti-scientific religious belief system is being challenged, your best strategy is to point at the assailant and say "but you're doing the same as I am...! Are too!". Best case scenario is that you win the jolly old "I know you are but what I am"-game so intellectually stimulating that it fuels thousands of de facto identical mudslinging contests.

Also I take pleasure in reading these, which I am quite sure makes me either malevolent or moronic. More importantly it means they are not irrelevant. Game on!

---

you said
"If your anti-scientific religious belief system is being challenged"


I hope your not referring to me, if so please show me were this happened, if your referring to epic of gilgamesh, I will ask you read my post that provide links to refute the claim, as i have done many times to the thread were that is on topic and already discussed.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=


if it is not to me or that, than i am a idiot and am sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A difference of 5000 years is more or less the same time...?

Anyway, it wasn't an instant thing either. As for why it happened in the first place, there are several hypothesis.

---

5,000 years (I noticed you went with the maximum figure, 2-3 is equally likely) is nothing out of a supposed history of hundreds of thousands of years. As for the link on Chinese ice age farming, I don't doubt people take time to settle into an agricultural lifestyle, my point was that, globally-speaking, the advent of agriculture is pretty instantaneous.

The second link reaffirms my point - it seems that climate change, demographics, habitat etc cannot explain such a sudden advent of farming throughout the world, since these things varied hugely from place to place.

I will check out your other link etc tomorrow running out of time here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"clear reason brenus avoids my other link on this very topic, it refutes his claims that isreal copied from any other local belief.” :laugh4: I don’t avoid other link, you just expose why I don’t take them seriously. You are telling that you refute bla bla bla. So you refute that the Bible copied from the Sumerian Legends, so you avoid reality/facts in order to keep your faith. You just confirm what I said from the start. See, even I was able to make a prediction: “he (as he will probably do) dodges the question.”

“The bottom line is this - the fact that the Biblical account of the flood is preceded by a Sumerian one does not definitively prove that the Biblical account was not inspired by God.” Yes it does. As the description in the Sumerians Myths preceding the Bible accounts provides different names to the Deities and humans involved in the story. If others spoke of it before, God can’t inspire the wording of a known story.

This of course without the knowledge of what HoreTore just highlight: The Deluge (global one) never happened. I was generous in conceding a local reality enlarged to a Mythic History (as we don’t know if the Sumerian did believe in it or if it was just a story for the long winter nights without TV, local version of Scary Movies).

---

According to the Biblical narrative Noah and his family were the only ones who survived the flood. Over time Noah's descendants broke away from Jehovah worship (yes I know Jehovah is not the correct form) and founded their own religions and nations. So as Rhyfelwyr says it makes perfect sense that the Sumerians would have their own flood account alongside the Jewish one.

Also according to the Bible the Israelite religion was codified by Moses during the Exodus, but the Hebrews had already been worshiping Jehovah as Jehovah was the God of Abraham and Jacob, the founders of the Israelite nation. The book of Genesis, which contains the flood account, was purportedly written by Moses. When Moses was writing the flood account he would have been writing a story that had been passed down for generations. The flood story was not revealed by God the moment it was written down, it already existed.

In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yeah I know I looked into that, and knew that would be brought up. The thing is we are talking about completely disconnected peoples growing all sorts of different crops in completely different climates - much of the world was suitable for some sort of agriculture even during the last glacial period. Please explain why we record agriculture as beginning at around 7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America, when these areas were all still temperate or tropical even during the maximum extent of the ice sheet during the last glacial period (a full 22,000 years ago, supposedly).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La...tation_map.png

---

Agriculture began in the Americas much later than it did in Eurasia. Plant cultivation was only invented in 7 different places, if I remember right, and then it slowly spread to the rest of the world. Even today there are societies which do not practice agriculture and subsist on hunting and gathering.

Farming was actually a pretty miserable lifestyle compared to gathering. Farmers had to work longer and harder to obtain food and because they relied on only a few food sources they had worse nutrition and health than gatherers (I'm willing to bet that modern gatherers have better nutrition than Americans do). I believe the current hypothesis is that at first crop cultivation was only practiced on a small scale to supplement gathering. As time went on the population grew and people began to rely on farming more and more until hunting and gathering was no longer enough to sustain the population.

Agriculture did not lead to civilization overnight either. The first farmers lived in small communities that show no sign of divisions in wealth or status. Over time (hundreds or thousands of years) societies became more and more complex until they were what we would call "Civilization".

Advantage.

Once farming showed it was at an advantage it spread.

Having said that nomadic lifestyles still exist for instance there is about half a million nomadic pastoralists in Tibet alone.

Advantages where they exist spread quickly. So where farming gave an advantage is generally when there is consistent seasons and a semi-harsh environment meaning that farming is a safer option then nomadic lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

5,000 years (I noticed you went with the maximum figure, 2-3 is equally likely) is nothing out of a supposed history of hundreds of thousands of years. As for the link on Chinese ice age farming, I don't doubt people take time to settle into an agricultural lifestyle, my point was that, globally-speaking, the advent of agriculture is pretty instantaneous.

The second link reaffirms my point - it seems that climate change, demographics, habitat etc cannot explain such a sudden advent of farming throughout the world, since these things varied hugely from place to place.

I will check out your other link etc tomorrow running out of time here...

---

Looks like we both posted at the same time. A few thousand years might not seem too long in the grand scheme of things, but remember the average human lifespan is only 60-70 years. 5,000 years is a long time.

Also as I mentioned before the invention of agriculture only happened in a few places. Farming was not invented by everyone. To give an example, the main crops of North American agriculture were maize, beans, and squash, all of which were domesticated in Southern Mexico. This is one small region, inhabited by only a few different cultures, in a vast continent with hundreds of different peoples. In most places agriculture wasn't invented, it was adopted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

Looks like we both posted at the same time. A few thousand years might not seem too long in the grand scheme of things, but remember the average human lifespan is only 60-70 years

---

Today. With relatively good preventive health care, at least for childhood diseases; you know the type of thing that in Biblical times did take out 4/5 of the population as a matter of course.

That aside, I think it's more instructive to think of this in terms of generations. As a rule of thumb, a generation is ~20 - 25 years. So 5000 years equates to 200 - 250 generations...

“Right, so the Sumerian story is in fact 100% historically accurate, and the Biblical account is therefore wrong because it doesn't match the Sumerian account?” No. Sumerian story is a legend like the one in the Bible. At this point, I don’t know if the Sumerian believed in their story or if it was the equivalent of a Doom Days Books or movies. What we know (and I understand you agree with it) is the Biblecists believe that the Flood was real and that the Bible comes from God herself.

“In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.” So your point is the inspired by God text has mistaken the names of the protagonists and number of Gods involved in it. So God made mistakes as forgetting under which names and number he/she did it and to whom… Interesting theories! She/he could have a sense of humour as well, doubtfully, but possible.

“7,000 BC in Papua New Guinea, 10,000 BC in Mexico, 5-8,000 BC in South America” And this what we call “at the same time”? 3000 years… Waoh…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

5,000 years (I noticed you went with the maximum figure, 2-3 is equally likely) is nothing out of a supposed history of hundreds of thousands of years. As for the link on Chinese ice age farming, I don't doubt people take time to settle into an agricultural lifestyle, my point was that, globally-speaking, the advent of agriculture is pretty instantaneous.

---

It's not hundreds of thousands of years.

It's about 50.000-45.000 years. The creative explosion is quite important and shows a significant leap. One of the better theories for that one is that grandparents started to become common. Better experience accumulation, generational knowledge transfer and more time to do something else than food gathering and taking care of the children.

And really, it's not uncommon with great leaps happening relativly suddenly. It happens often in evolutionary history. It's just hard to track down why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.” So your point is the inspired by God text has mistaken the names of the protagonists and number of Gods involved in it. So God made mistakes as forgetting under which names and number he/she did it and to whom… Interesting theories! She/he could have a sense of humour as well, doubtfully, but possible.

---

Ofcourse he has humour. He did intentionally lose most of his followers after having 100% of them in more or less direct contact with him. I mean the Bible is full of draconic counter meassurements God implemented as soon as He got questioned. And that was a mere fickle of His glorious powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

you said
"If your anti-scientific religious belief system is being challenged"


I hope your not referring to me, if so please show me were this happened

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

coming next thread. You just show your indoctrination here. I hope you bring this link up and say you agree with it and its true and you have studied to find out. Otherwise your just showing your accepting of your religion without questioning it and total faith in there theology and inability to question and think for yourself....we shall see.

---

I know you are but what am I

Totalrelism and kurdishspartakus in the same thread... I need a frigging drink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Totalrelism and kurdishspartakus in the same thread... I need a frigging drink.

---

cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

thanks for the kind words jerk....lol. well your stupid, so take that you big bully.

---

I guess that won you the debate then.

I point out that you can't even, as evidenced, differentiate between "and" and "or" when reading texts, and you in turn point out that I am stupid and a big bully.

Seems legit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I guess that won you the debate then.

I point out that you can't even, as evidenced, differentiate between "and" and "or" when reading texts, and you in turn point out that I am stupid and a big bully.

Seems legit.

---

it was a joke, sorry thought it was clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

it was a joke, sorry thought it was clear.

---

With your shown comprehension of... Well... Pretty much anything. How is one to tell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

Agriculture began in the Americas much later than it did in Eurasia. Plant cultivation was only invented in 7 different places, if I remember right, and then it slowly spread to the rest of the world. Even today there are societies which do not practice agriculture and subsist on hunting and gathering.

---

Of course, people will only practice agriculture where it is efficient or necessary to do so. My point was that agriculture is something that came about quite suddenly on a global scale. Those different places where agriculture spread from must themselves have been spread across the world, because the many peoples had no contact with each other since agriculture began. Why, out of hundreds of thousands of years of human history, do people across the world all develop agriculture within just the last 10-13,000 years? I'm not overly concerned with the particulars of where and when, I'm talking generally with this massive timescale in mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

Farming was actually a pretty miserable lifestyle compared to gathering. Farmers had to work longer and harder to obtain food and because they relied on only a few food sources they had worse nutrition and health than gatherers (I'm willing to bet that modern gatherers have better nutrition than Americans do). I believe the current hypothesis is that at first crop cultivation was only practiced on a small scale to supplement gathering. As time went on the population grew and people began to rely on farming more and more until hunting and gathering was no longer enough to sustain the population.

---

Of course, but why is does this need for an agricultural supplement come about so suddenly? We are talking about all sorts of people living in hugely different conditions, with different climates, crops, forms of social organization, evolutionary pressures, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

Agriculture did not lead to civilization overnight either. The first farmers lived in small communities that show no sign of divisions in wealth or status. Over time (hundreds or thousands of years) societies became more and more complex until they were what we would call "Civilization".

---

Indeed, but I think this is a bit tangential to the main point here. 99.999999% of all our historical finds concern just the last 10,000 years of human history where farming and civilization mutually developed. Now, a handful of fossils (almost entirely from Africa, earliest human remains from much of the world date to within the last 10,000 years) seem to indicate by dating methods that humans have been around longer than this. However, these datings do not seem to make sense to me with the historical narrative - because as I said why would they be milling around like apes for hundreds of thousands of years and then all suddenly, independent develop agriculture and civilization at pretty much the same time, despite living in completely different environments, in completely different conditions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Advantage.

Once farming showed it was at an advantage it spread.

---

So why did that advantage only become apparent around 10,000 years ago, and become apparent right then in so many different environments?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It's not hundreds of thousands of years.

It's about 50.000-45.000 years. The creative explosion is quite important and shows a significant leap. One of the better theories for that one is that grandparents started to become common. Better experience accumulation, generational knowledge transfer and more time to do something else than food gathering and taking care of the children.

And really, it's not uncommon with great leaps happening relativly suddenly. It happens often in evolutionary history. It's just hard to track down why.

---

It is hundreds of thousands of years according to Wikipedia and my google-fu.

Well, as with the advent of agriculture, why did this phenomena suddenly occur across all peoples in all situations, even with they were completely cut off from each other and living in completely different environments? And anyway I don't think this "creative explosion" is directly relevant since why does it take another 40,000 years across all peoples and all situations before farming and civilization suddenly become apparent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Why, out of hundreds of thousands of years of human history, do people across the world all develop agriculture within just the last 10-13,000 years? I'm not overly concerned with the particulars of where and when, I'm talking generally with this massive timescale in mind.

---

If everything happened in this inter glacial period then that might be the key. The dry conditions and lower Co2 levels of the glacial age might not been good enough, even for big river cultures to start up.

The last ice age ended about 11k years ago.

Aborigines have been in Australia for about 40-50k years ago... And funnily enough that is when the mega fauna died out too.

But Australia does not have a stable seasonal trend that is good for agriculture without modern infrastructure. So without modern plants, dams, transportation and other technology it would be rather hard to kick start an agriculture based civilisation compared with a nomadic one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Of course, people will only practice agriculture where it is efficient or necessary to do so. My point was that agriculture is something that came about quite suddenly on a global scale. Those different places where agriculture spread from must themselves have been spread across the world, because the many peoples had no contact with each other since agriculture began. Why, out of hundreds of thousands of years of human history, do people across the world all develop agriculture within just the last 10-13,000 years? I'm not overly concerned with the particulars of where and when, I'm talking generally with this massive timescale in mind.

---

https://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y2...1.jpg~original

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Of course, people will only practice agriculture where it is efficient or necessary to do so. My point was that agriculture is something that came about quite suddenly on a global scale. Those different places where agriculture spread from must themselves have been spread across the world, because the many peoples had no contact with each other since agriculture began. Why, out of hundreds of thousands of years of human history, do people across the world all develop agriculture within just the last 10-13,000 years? I'm not overly concerned with the particulars of where and when, I'm talking generally with this massive timescale in mind.

---

What problem does agriculture (and animal husbandry) solve?
It improves the amount of food you can get from a region.
What issues does it have?
It costs a lot of spare time.
Think of it this way. Would you work twice as much if you got 3 times the money, but you can only spend as much as you do now? Of course not, that would be pointless.
So it only solves food shortages if the population density is high.

It does seem to take several thousands of years to go from hunter gathering to agriculture. So basically the problem is only solvable if you have a few thousand years when overpopulation is a consistant problem. You'll need population boom, crash, boom, crash. Not boom, crash, wait 400 years, boom, crash. Who remebers an oral source that haven't been relevant for 400 years?
So if a global event, like the end of an ice age, gives higher consistant, but unsustainable growth rates, then the problem would occur at about the same point globally. Add then that you'll need specific plants (and animals) fit for domestication and you'll get a pattern like this.

It's similar to cocurrent independent inventions. They have the added factor of shared starting information, but they still have the same principle that when the problem occurs and its solution is possible, it won't take long for similar, yet different solutions to appear around the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Well, as with the advent of agriculture, why did this phenomena suddenly occur across all peoples in all situations, even with they were completely cut off from each other and living in completely different environments? And anyway I don't think this "creative explosion" is directly relevant since why does it take another 40,000 years across all peoples and all situations before farming and civilization suddenly become apparent?

---

It didn't. That one seems to have spread. And progressed. It's kind of a starting leap (it's the start of the Upper Paleolithic).

Its relevance is that to solve this kind of multigenerational problem you'll need to have a culture that allows for its invention. The average human are poor on advanced inventing, but good at understanding it after its been invented. Time jump a bunch of Romans and it'll probably take them fairly little effort to make new cellphone models with proper education and training. But that fact doesn't change that the Romans didn't invent the cellphone.
So the timeframe is how long you had a culture that allowed for the invention of agriculture, not how long you had a people capable of doing agriculture after it has been invented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Totalrelism and kurdishspartakus in the same thread... I need a frigging drink.

---

ah i now mentioned no one can think about what others post in here, its not me only its Rhyfelwyr too! and Tiago too! and many too!
and why you people always think your the Right one huh ?

ok i said.....say whatever you want GODS your the perfect right there is nothing wrong about your ideas & believes ..........

cheers now....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Anyhoo Rhy, can you think of a single instance where modern science has moved towards the bible instead of away from it?

---

Moving from "Steady State" to "Big Bang"

Cookie please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“In short, the fact that there is a Sumerian flood story does not falsify the belief that the Bible is an inspired text.” So your point is the inspired by God text has mistaken the names of the protagonists and number of Gods involved in it. So God made mistakes as forgetting under which names and number he/she did it and to whom… Interesting theories! She/he could have a sense of humour as well, doubtfully, but possible.

---

Huh? No. Who says the Sumerian account had the details right or didn't deviate from what actually happened over time?

And it looks like you didn't read my paragraph about how the flood account wasn't directly inspired by God, as in God wasn't the one telling the story, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

However, these datings do not seem to make sense to me with the historical narrative - because as I said why would they be milling around like apes for hundreds of thousands of years and then all suddenly, independent develop agriculture and civilization at pretty much the same time, despite living in completely different environments, in completely different conditions?

---

I don't know enough to answer your questions but I want to point out that living as a hunter gatherer does not equate to milling around like apes for hundreds of thousands of years.

Hunter Gatherers have culture and raise families just like "Civilized Man" does. They are/were Homo Sapiens after all.

Before the advent of agriculture, humanity spread across the globe, adapted to new climates and invented new technologies. It's not like nothing was going on before people started farming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Moving from "Steady State" to "Big Bang"

---

*coughBOLLOCKScough* :sneaky:

“And it looks like you didn't read my paragraph about how the flood account wasn't directly inspired by God, as in God wasn't the one telling the story, either.” So if a part of the Bible is not inspired by God, the Bible as such is not inspired by God. It is like a woman being pregnant: she is or not (she can’t be half). For the bilblecists, the Book is from God and no question asked. So, in order to believe so, they have to reject all notions or informations dismissing this belief. That is my point from start.
“Who says the Sumerian account had the details right or didn't deviate from what actually happened over time?” Well, the fact is they don’t pretend (well, as they were a dead civilisation even before the Hebrews show-up). The Biblecists insist on God writting the Bible. The fact that the Sumerian story (legend) is reported (based upon as they say in Hollywood) in the Bible prove them wrong. Note: As said before, the deluge NEVER happened….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“And it looks like you didn't read my paragraph about how the flood account wasn't directly inspired by God, as in God wasn't the one telling the story, either.” So if a part of the Bible is not inspired by God, the Bible as such is not inspired by God. It is like a woman being pregnant: she is or not (she can’t be half). For the bilblecists, the Book is from God and no question asked. So, in order to believe so, they have to reject all notions or informations dismissing this belief. That is my point from start.
“Who says the Sumerian account had the details right or didn't deviate from what actually happened over time?” Well, the fact is they don’t pretend (well, as they were a dead civilisation even before the Hebrews show-up). The Biblecists insist on God writting the Bible. The fact that the Sumerian story (legend) is reported (based upon as they say in Hollywood) in the Bible prove them wrong. Note: As said before, the deluge NEVER happened….

---

yes facts, such as your claim you made that is opposed the facts [other thread you wont go on].

You will never understand: I don't think that religious writings/manipulation/opinions/fairies tales are facts. None of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“And it looks like you didn't read my paragraph about how the flood account wasn't directly inspired by God, as in God wasn't the one telling the story, either.” So if a part of the Bible is not inspired by God, the Bible as such is not inspired by God. It is like a woman being pregnant: she is or not (she can’t be half). For the bilblecists, the Book is from God and no question asked. So, in order to believe so, they have to reject all notions or informations dismissing this belief. That is my point from start.
“Who says the Sumerian account had the details right or didn't deviate from what actually happened over time?” Well, the fact is they don’t pretend (well, as they were a dead civilisation even before the Hebrews show-up). The Biblecists insist on God writting the Bible. The fact that the Sumerian story (legend) is reported (based upon as they say in Hollywood) in the Bible prove them wrong. Note: As said before, the deluge NEVER happened….

---

I said "not directly inspired", not "not inspired". What I meant was, Genesis was written by a man thousands of years after the flood took place (hypothetically speaking, I'm not trying to argue that the deluge was a real event). God did not write the Bible. That is an absurd belief even from a Christian/Jewish perspective.

If the flood really happened, and if both the Sumerians and the Hebrews were descendants of the survivors, then it is possible that the Hebrew flood account was not based on the Sumerian one, and that both accounts are alternate depictions of the same event.

Ah. So I misunderstood you. It happens. Yeah, in theory, it could be that, except for the fact that the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages. So, the most likely is the Hebrew scripts just paste and copy a nice story from a ancient book and adapted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Ah. So I misunderstood you. It happens. Yeah, in theory, it could be that, except for the fact that the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages. So, the most likely is the Hebrew scripts just paste and copy a nice story from a ancient book and adapted it.

---

I highly doubt the Hebrews copied from another book.

I'd say it's a lot more likely that they adopted the oral traditions of other cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

You will never understand: I don't think that religious writings/manipulation/opinions/fairies tales are facts. None of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

Ah. So I misunderstood you. It happens. Yeah, in theory, it could be that, except for the fact that the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages. So, the most likely is the Hebrew scripts just paste and copy a nice story from a ancient book and adapted it.

---

I fully understand, you start with a anti god worldview, so than of course you done believe in "fairy tales". But this clouds how you view evidence and interpret it, that is why you claim as you do, because in your mind there is no god or divine book, so it must be copied from other "fairy tales". Than you have to claim facts [jews copied] that you cant support.


brenus- please i know your full in your worldview, but please at least read the two accounts and show me were you can support this


"the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages"


this shows as i suspected,you have never even read the accounts, instead have accepted and assumed what you have been told is true, because you liked the conclusion of it. This is terrible way to find truth [i think you want nothing of truth] to reject a position because your religious worldview and biases.



“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge
The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15



brenus claim
that jews copied creation/flood account- this is a completely undemostrated assumption.



facts to ignore


simply read them both much different than what brenus claims [he has never read them]

segments of Samaritan

Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme


now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV


The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, [B]thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.


-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.

-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66


- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.
- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator


-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:

“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.


Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.

Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.


-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.

-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.

-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.



assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.

I just wanted to post this for people who take brenus claim as truth without looking into it.


brenus claim
that jews copied creation/flood account- this is a completely undemostrated assumption.



facts to ignore


simply read them both much different than what brenus claims [he has never read them]

segments of Samaritan

Apsu, the freshwater ocean male deity, mates with Ti’amat, the saltwater ocean goddess, yielding offspring which are a host of lesser deities representing various aspects of nature. However, Apsu becomes irritated with their noise and resolves to destroy them, but he fails, and is killed by Ea the god of wisdom (l.68–69). Ea in turn fathers the god Marduk (figure 4). Ti’amat becomes enraged, and gives birth to a host of dragons to fight Marduk; but Marduk, not intimidated by Ti’amat’s threats, gathers the other gods together in a great banquet, and they resolve on war with Ti’amat, with Marduk as their representative. So a great war erupts, from which Marduk emerges victorious by killing Ti’amat. He first splits Ti’amat’s skull open with his mace, and then splits her whole body. The upper half he makes into the sky; the lower half into the earth. From this chaos comes order: the sun, moon, and stars appear, and the calendar is formed. Finally, there is Qingu, Ti’amat’s general. Marduk speaks to Ea of his desire to make man, who will wait on the gods so that the latter can rest. Marduk addresses both the Igigi (sky gods) and the Anunnaki (underworld gods), and the Igigi reply that since Qingu started the war, he should therefore pay the penalty. Marduk slays Qingu, takes his blood and some earth, and makes man. Then the Anunnaki toil to create Babylon, and the Esagila, one of the prime temples in Babylon. Finally, Tablet VII relates the fifty names of Marduk in order to exalt the patron deity of Babylon:With fifty epithets the great godsCalled his fifty names, making his way supreme


now read Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV



The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, [B]thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.


-why would jews adopt views of their enemy, when there own history/culture says it wrong? multiple gods etc
-it starts with the assumption, there is no biblical god that could revel his truth of creation to moses and earlier jews [adam,noah abraham etc] so then who even cares, if we start with assumption of no god, than if the jews copied or not does not matter as genesis would not be divinely inspired, the very question at hand.

-the further back to creation you go the more the similarities in creation accounts.Writings from 2600 b c 1,000 years before moses
biblical creation account must have been derived before older and different sources than Sumerians
halloww 1970 antediluvian cities journal of cuneiform studies 23,65,66


- Samaritan copy of jewish Pentateuch is written in ancient form of Hebrew that proceeds exile in 6th century.
-most ancient copy contains over 2,000 corruptions from original jewish manuscript, very unlikely to make copy soon after return.
-unlikely Samaritans would make a copy of Jewish writings at all, hostile between the two.

- Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator


-The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.He then concludes:

“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.


Battle elements. Genesis does not envision creation as a war of the gods.
Pantheistic elements. Genesis does not talk about natural elements as gods.
Creative activity as sexual activity. Genesis does not describe God’s creation in this way.
Poetic language. Genesis does not have “synonymous parallelism” (restating the same idea in two ways) in every description.
Reference to time. Genesis speaks of creation “in the beginning” and “days,” contrary to myths, which speak more about seasons.

Leroy Waterman, “Cosmogonic Affinities in Genesis 1:2,” The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 43, no. 3 (April 1, 1927): 181. Waterman argues that Genesis is unique in that it depersonalizes all the forces of nature. An easy-to-read reference is John Oswalt’s The Bible among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).
Jakob H. Gronbaek, “Baal’s Battle with Yam-A Canaanite Creation Fight,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27–44.


-The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.

-Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter). In this respect (among many others) Genesis 1 stands alone and unique in the ancient world.

-Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought. Thus the major part of Tablets I–V relate the generation of gods and their fierce battles, with a small section at the end of Tablet IV (figure 2) about the creation of the cosmos. The main part of “creation” story occurs in Tablet VI, relating the origin of man and the establishment of the various temples. In fact, Stephanie Dalley of Oxford University argues that the original story was not a creation story at all—that element was incorporated later.
Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, Oxford, pp.233–77, 1988.



assuming genesis was written after [ i dont believe so].
Maybe it was done so to correct the false teachings of other nations, to show the correct account.

“he has never read them”. :laugh4:
The Jews just adapt the tale for their own purpose. Deal with it. So, all the discrepancies are due to the fact that the Jewish script(s) had to adapt a tale from a polytheist society to a monotheist society. And all “studies” from the bilbegateway are de facto non-sense. The key-word is “adapt”, based upon, like when you watch Troy on TV and read the Iliad: Same story, adaptation.

Both Stories have the same pattern: Motive, Warning, Construction of the Arch, Flooding/deluge, Birds, leaving the Arch, Sacrifice to God(s), God(s) blessing and God(s) promise/alliance. All the rest, as use of vocabulary is smoke screen,

For for information, I read the book in French. So, by definition I will have different interpretations. And it is the same for the Jewish Script, from whatever languages he translated the story from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“he has never read them”. :laugh4:
The Jews just adapt the tale for their own purpose. Deal with it. So, all the discrepancies are due to the fact that the Jewish script(s) had to adapt a tale from a polytheist society to a monotheist society. And all “studies” from the bilbegateway are de facto non-sense. The key-word is “adapt”, based upon, like when you watch Troy on TV and read the Iliad: Same story, adaptation.

Both Stories have the same pattern: Motive, Warning, Construction of the Arch, Flooding/deluge, Birds, leaving the Arch, Sacrifice to God(s), God(s) blessing and God(s) promise/alliance. All the rest, as use of vocabulary is smoke screen,

For for information, I read the book in French. So, by definition I will have different interpretations. And it is the same for the Jewish Script, from whatever languages he translated the story from.

---

notice what he did there, he avoided all presented,made more baseless claims [jews copied] avoided the clear fact he had never read the two by his earlier statment made
""the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages""

makes more baseless claims, than points to a argument for a global flood often used by creationist [coming soon].


“Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge



it is clear evidence does not matter to those like brenus, all that matters is that the bible is incorrect and he will twist anything to fit his worldview.


The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
romans 1

I just started reading the bible. I got as far as Genesis 1.29. Cool. I'm off to plant some ganga and opium.

“notice what he did there, he avoided all presented,made more baseless claims [jews copied] avoided the clear fact he had never read the two by his earlier statment made”.
Ahhh, now we are in the “smear” campaign… Hmm: I will make it clear (as I did but apparently TR English is becoming deficient): I read in FRENCH the Book of Gilgamesh.
Now, TR is so corned (and up-set) than he resorts to claim that I am lying, and he KNOWS my intention.
I present all evidences that the Book of Gilgamesh and the Bible are very similar and explain why some details had changed (language and adaptation from Poly to Monotheism).
All what your so-called studies just do the same than you, thinking that repetition make truth. I read them (not all, I confess, too boring and all this non-sense…, in English and in French).

TR, for info, the Flood never happened. It is a tale, a Myth.
I do not give more value to the account of Gilgamesh or the one from the Bible.

You prefer to avoid reality and run away from contradiction in your own books in order to keep for faith. It is what I said from the start, and you prove my “predictions” true more than I was expecting, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“notice what he did there, he avoided all presented,made more baseless claims [jews copied] avoided the clear fact he had never read the two by his earlier statment made”.
Ahhh, now we are in the “smear” campaign… Hmm: I will make it clear (as I did but apparently TR English is becoming deficient): I read in FRENCH the Book of Gilgamesh.
Now, TR is so corned (and up-set) than he resorts to claim that I am lying, and he KNOWS my intention.
I present all evidences that the Book of Gilgamesh and the Bible are very similar and explain why some details had changed (language and adaptation from Poly to Monotheism).
All what your so-called studies just do the same than you, thinking that repetition make truth. I read them (not all, I confess, too boring and all this non-sense…, in English and in French).

TR, for info, the Flood never happened. It is a tale, a Myth.
I do not give more value to the account of Gilgamesh or the one from the Bible.

You prefer to avoid reality and run away from contradiction in your own books in order to keep for faith. It is what I said from the start, and you prove my “predictions” true more than I was expecting, thanks.

---

You can't blame total relism for being unfamiliar with reality, as he can't even spell the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I just started reading the bible. I got as far as Genesis 1.29. Cool. I'm off to plant some ganga and opium.

---

but more important, do it seem similar to the account of Gilgamesh ?. Coming from someone who enjoyed the fruits of god creation alittel to much....... i swear by it, but does pot cause slight Hallucinations for yourself? i say yes, but many say not true, it did for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“notice what he did there, he avoided all presented,made more baseless claims [jews copied] avoided the clear fact he had never read the two by his earlier statment made”.
Ahhh, now we are in the “smear” campaign… Hmm: I will make it clear (as I did but apparently TR English is becoming deficient): I read in FRENCH the Book of Gilgamesh.
Now, TR is so corned (and up-set) than he resorts to claim that I am lying, and he KNOWS my intention.
I present all evidences that the Book of Gilgamesh and the Bible are very similar and explain why some details had changed (language and adaptation from Poly to Monotheism).
All what your so-called studies just do the same than you, thinking that repetition make truth. I read them (not all, I confess, too boring and all this non-sense…, in English and in French).

TR, for info, the Flood never happened. It is a tale, a Myth.
I do not give more value to the account of Gilgamesh or the one from the Bible.

You prefer to avoid reality and run away from contradiction in your own books in order to keep for faith. It is what I said from the start, and you prove my “predictions” true more than I was expecting, thanks.

---

I am sorry i never meant to [never did imo] attack you in any way. I cannot believe you did read the epic in any language [maybe if you dont know french lol] given your claims made, that is all i have to go buy. I have learned those who deny god, often lie whenever they feel it helps [after all no reason not to, 10 commandments are not from god there is no absolute morale law saying dont lie] so when you say

"""the Bible one takes all the details from the Sumerian one, thousand years after, translated in several languages""

i can only take you at your word, given this and other claims to me its clear you have never read either [up to know likely].

you said
"I present all evidences that the Book of Gilgamesh and the Bible are very similar and explain why some details had changed (language and adaptation from Poly to Monotheism"


i presented them both,showing extreme dissimilarities,showing hebrew was first,showing that the claim you make is baseless, you posted neither of them, just claimed they were the same for all to trust you. Many [and i] showed that even if hebrew was later, it still does nothing to prove your claim. As that can be exspalined in other ways. Difrences happen as i sited article, because both come from earlier historic monotheistic thought, that was changed by Babylonians later..

you said
TR, for info, the Flood never happened. It is a tale, a Myth


Begging the question
another baseless claim with no support, you are very good with these. You will have your chance to support this in upcoming thread. But as will be true there as well, your worldview [not evidence] drives your conclusions.



you said
You prefer to avoid reality and run away from contradiction in your own books in order to keep for faith. It is what I said from the start, and you prove my “predictions” true more than I was expecting, thanks.


clear "red herring
no idea what your referring to,but let me guess, a atheist website or phd told you there was contradictions, they gave what seem to be, you enjoyed the conclusion and accepted by faith without looking into it [just as with these accounts and comparisons you clearly did not read] . You run away from clear truth to keep your faith as you have shown.