responding to common objections to bible part 7

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[total relism]

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

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.

[total relism]

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.

[Brenus]

“he has never read them”.
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.

[total relism]

“he has never read them”.
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

[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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

“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.

[total relism]

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.

“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.

[total relism]

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

ad hominem

this thread is becoming disappointing, facts out the window and resulting in logical fallacies.

please let me in on this amazing reality,that can change creation accounts that differ greatly and change time and wording of them and go back in time and make one copy the other [yet change the whole thing,point,topic etc] i call it a fantasy,faith,not sure what,false maybe?.

[Pannonian]

ad hominem

this thread is becoming disappointing, facts out the window and resulting in logical fallacies.

please let me in on this amazing reality,that can change creation accounts that differ greatly and change time and wording of them and go back in time and make one copy the other [yet change the whole thing,point,topic etc] i call it a fantasy,faith,not sure what,false maybe?.

It would be hard to charge you with logical fallacy. One would have to sort through your numerous grammatical fallacies first before one can make out what kind of logical argument you're trying to put forward.

[Kadagar_AV]

OK, who gave TR the link to the logical fallacies??

[Brenus]

"showing hebrew was first": Non-sense
Basic archaeology: Stones tools were invented and used before the Iron one because it is more simple to make tools from stone than from iron as iron needs the development of several technology and knowledge.
It is the same for the material where we can write. Caves wall are perfect but can't be moved. So humans founded new media, and the Clay tablets being one of the media. Clay tablets were used before papyrus or Animals Skins as it is easy to write on it, and to shape. And when baked, it stay as new for a long time (if not broken by pillaging barbarians)So, when you find a library full of Clay Tablets that means it is older than a library full of papyrus.
We don't have any Clay Tablets with texts from the Bible. We have Clay Tablets for the book of Gilgamesh. So, Book of Gilgamesh is older than Bible, like a Bronze axe is older than Iron axe but newer that a Stone axe.
Before you ask, the older Jewish Clay Tablet is dated from the 14 Century BC, which is after the fall of the Sumerian Civilisation (oldest Sumerian Clay Tablet is 6000 BC). The book of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, you are aware that you are the one making a claim that "the flood" existed.

Thus, it comes to YOU to prove it.

Be my guest.

The idea is quite honestly laughable.

[Beskar]

There is an old argument about a flood existing, originating from Babylonian mythology and there was some evidence. However, it was a large localised flooding, nothing global spanning.

[Kadagar_AV]

There is an old argument about a flood existing, originating from Babylonian mythology and there was some evidence. However, it was a large localised flooding, nothing global spanning.

Yepp, don't get me wrong. I am sure that somewhere in history a local area was flooded. We see it every day.

Now, as to a world wide flood... And an Ark... <- It is, to put it very mildly, rubbish.

[total relism]

TR, you are aware that you are the one making a claim that "the flood" existed.

Thus, it comes to YOU to prove it.

Be my guest.

The idea is quite honestly laughable.

while i indeed say yes to a global flood [with large amounts of evidence] i never said it on my op, that is for next thread. So stay tuned.

"showing hebrew was first": Non-sense
Basic archaeology: Stones tools were invented and used before the Iron one because it is more simple to make tools from stone than from iron as iron needs the development of several technology and knowledge.
It is the same for the material where we can write. Caves wall are perfect but can't be moved. So humans founded new media, and the Clay tablets being one of the media. Clay tablets were used before papyrus or Animals Skins as it is easy to write on it, and to shape. And when baked, it stay as new for a long time (if not broken by pillaging barbarians)So, when you find a library full of Clay Tablets that means it is older than a library full of papyrus.
We don't have any Clay Tablets with texts from the Bible. We have Clay Tablets for the book of Gilgamesh. So, Book of Gilgamesh is older than Bible, like a Bronze axe is older than Iron axe but newer that a Stone axe.
Before you ask, the older Jewish Clay Tablet is dated from the 14 Century BC, which is after the fall of the Sumerian Civilisation (oldest Sumerian Clay Tablet is 6000 BC). The book of Gilgamesh is, perhaps, the oldest written story on Earth. It was originally written on 12 clay tablets in cunieform script (somewhere between 2750 and 2500 BCE).

do you not see your assumption even assuming all you say is true? There are civilizations around today that dont have technology of USA or europe, yet are older. There are cases of people losing technology and going "backwards", so your dating is based 100% on assumptions [even if generally true] are not absolute. No to mention going off what we do have in archaeology does not equal what we dont have. There is famous saying in archaeology [forget who dont ask] said absence of evidence is not evidence against.


but i am glad to see you have moved the goalpost, you no longer defend isreal copying in 6th century bc it seems. That is the date that is important, did jews creation acount predate this time period that it is claimed they copied, the answer is yes, for the many reasons i gave earlier you ignored [or at least did not respond to]. Not to mention the whole idea of coping either jews were worse in world, or they never did [something your worldview cant accept]. To anyone who reads the text in full, i cant help but think they are not so willing to believe your claims as yourself.

[Brenus]

“you no longer defend isreal copying in 6th century bc it seems” Err, I never gave a date as it is, first, irrelevant, and, second, I have no indication of when the Jewish Script(s) decided to incorporate the Sumerian Myth in the Bible.

“There are civilizations around today that dont have technology of USA or europe, yet are older.” True, but irrelevant. If theses civilisations want to reach the level of Europe or USA, they will have to learn and developed the same skills. So, they will still have to learn the several technologies to make possible the development of a new technology.

“absence of evidence is not evidence against.” Nice try. Do try this in a Court of Justice. I have no evidence you kill your neighbour, doesn’t prove you didn’t kill him/her. In our case, even if the neighbour is still alive.

[HoreTore]

There is an old argument about a flood existing, originating from Babylonian mythology and there was some evidence. However, it was a large localised flooding, nothing global spanning.

All early civilizations arose around a river. They were based on the annual flooding, but a larger-than-normal flooding would spell doom.

It's no surprise that you'll find myths concerning a giant flood in each of these civilizations. It was the ultimate fear of these civilizations.

ad hominem

this thread is becoming disappointing, facts out the window and resulting in logical fallacies.

Nonsense. Again, don't play with fallacies until you're older, son. Ad hominem is concerned with an argument. More specifically, it is when someone tries to disquise an attack upon a person as an argument against their case.

Pannonian made a remark on your person which he did not try to disguise as an argument against your case. Thus, this is not an example of an ad hominem argument.

Anyway, you wrote in your OP:

Just as the whole bible was, it is confirmed by archeology over and over,confirming people,places,events at various times throughout biblical history.

I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:

The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.

In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am a Catholic. The largest Christian denomination on the planet earth accepts the theory of evolution. Most other denominations that I know of do as well. Likewise, the big bang theory is accepted. Science explains the how, my faith explains the why.

If anyone here has theological questions, your best bet is to sit through a Mass or service and listen to the homily. I recomend that you do this with a single question per week for the rest of your life at a church that provides you with peace. You should also speak to scholars from other religions for a deeper understanding.

The answers from people who don't despise the Bible will be very different from the answers provided on a Total War forum.

[Whacker]

So.... anyone else like basket weaving? I'm really thinking about getting into that.

[total relism]

“you no longer defend isreal copying in 6th century bc it seems” Err, I never gave a date as it is, first, irrelevant, and, second, I have no indication of when the Jewish Script(s) decided to incorporate the Sumerian Myth in the Bible.

“There are civilizations around today that dont have technology of USA or europe, yet are older.” True, but irrelevant. If theses civilisations want to reach the level of Europe or USA, they will have to learn and developed the same skills. So, they will still have to learn the several technologies to make possible the development of a new technology.

“absence of evidence is not evidence against.” Nice try. Do try this in a Court of Justice. I have no evidence you kill your neighbour, doesn’t prove you didn’t kill him/her. In our case, even if the neighbour is still alive.

well since you seem unaware of your own claim [not a surprise given you never read accounts] i shall enlighten you.

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, thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous..


so if not than when did they copy from them? jews copied a story from enemies at a time they were separate because?


civilizations
missed whole point, when is what is important,age, you own statement proves what i said to be true. That technology does not equal perfect age.


“absence of evidence is not evidence against
that is why i said in archaeology.

All early civilizations arose around a river. They were based on the annual flooding, but a larger-than-normal flooding would spell doom.

It's no surprise that you'll find myths concerning a giant flood in each of these civilizations. It was the ultimate fear of these civilizations.



Nonsense. Again, don't play with fallacies until you're older, son. Ad hominem is concerned with an argument. More specifically, it is when someone tries to disquise an attack upon a person as an argument against their case.

Pannonian made a remark on your person which he did not try to disguise as an argument against your case. Thus, this is not an example of an ad hominem argument.

Anyway, you wrote in your OP:



I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:

The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.

In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.

coming from someone who has committed many logical fallacies [53] than claim i committed a strawman [64] warned me to wait till i was older to use logical fallacies. Only to than admit you were wrong and i did not commit it [80] claimed another logical fallacies goalpost [74,refuted 80, showed you dont read post b-4 commenting] than commited one more on 114 that i did not even feel needed responding to.



ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack [spelling grammar] as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.



I have attempted to debate this point, but you refused to comment on the contradictory statements of Matthew and Luke concerning the date of Jesus' birth. So, I'll try another:


This is a contradiction claim,not archaeological claim.


The exodus is a made up story.The exodus is a made up story. The Jewish people were never held in captivity in Egypt. The story is not found anywhere else than in the bible, and the Egyptians were very keen on recording their history. There is no mention of hardships for Egypt in the time the plagues supposedly took place, nor is there a reference to an army being lost. There is no archeological evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, and there's a wealth of evidence saying the Jews were in palestine the entire time. The places the jews supposedly stayed at during their 40 years in the desert did not exist until centuries later than when it supposedly took place. The bible, usually extremely anal about naming people, does not name the chief antagonist of the story, the Pharaoh.In conclusion, the story was made up at a later date to justify jewish dominance over palestine. It is a political, not a historical, story.




I agree 100% with you actually. That is because you follow the traditional timeline current held by most, if true i agree than that would make your whole point good and valid. If the traditional timeline [that is unknown by created and built on assumptions and has horrible problems etc] than the time of the exodus is wrong. I am busy now to get into details i will leave you some references to look over at moment. I believe once the current chronology is changed by 150 or maybe 350 years [it has been awhile] the evidence for the exodus goes from zero to amazing. More and more secular archaeologist and universities are teaching the reduced chronologies such as Cambridge and others.



Egyptian dating

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Egyptian dating

the Egyptian dating is always being lowered to a earlier date.
It cannot match up with other countries writing with its current extended date

-the Egyptians did not record history they get it from temple walls
-there are 5 kings list which contradict each other and all have gaps as well
-manethos king list is not chronological, there are many at same time overlapping, it was several kings reining at the same time In different regions. He assumed the pharoes reigns were consecutive coming to a extended chronology. But some of these kings were ruling at the same time but different kingdoms. The upper,middle and lower kingdom, sometimes fathers and sons reigned together for long periods of time.
-A few recent books have been written challenging current accepted date to shorten Egyptian dates.
-Cambridge is now teaching reduced age and other scholars are as well
-link below shows many problems with Egyptian chronology and why it needs to be shortened
-many countries match up, but than differ with Egypt current extended age
unmasking the pharoahs david down 2006



Also there kings list is not very accurate it has problems with matching other country's writings, also the bibles kings list names kings places and dates through there whole list so which should we listen to?

England's top archaeologist professor Colin renfew of Cambridge supports the reduced chronology of Egypt and in his book centuries of darkness said “That a chronological revolution is on its way”
http://www.amazon.com/Centuries-Dark...y/dp/HYPERLINK
josh mcdowell kings list ot reliability video free online video on reliability of bibles kings list
http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.HYPERLINK "http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.4172663/k.624E/Can_I_Trust_the_Bible.htm"4172663HYPERLINK



LOWERING THE DATESThe very earliest Egyptian date would be the one assigned to the beginning of its first dynasty. Menes was the first king. Cerem, in his Gods, Graves, and Scholars, tells us that the date assigned to that earliest Egyptian event, as estimated by several scholars, has gradually lowered with the passing of time: Champollian - 5867 B.C. / Lesueur -5770 B.C. / Bokh - 5702 B.C. / Unger - 5613 B.C. / Mariette - 5004 B.C. / Brugsch - 4455 B.C. / Lauth - 4157 B.C. / Chabas - 4000 B.C. / Lapsius - 3890 B.C. / Bunsen - 3623 B.C. / Breasted - 3400 B.C. / George Steindorff - 3200 B.C. / Eduard Meyer - 3180 B.C. / Wilkinson -2320 B.C. / Palmer - 2224 B.C.


At the present time that earliest of Egyptian dates is considered to be c. 3100 B.C., with some considering 2900 B.C. still better.

"In the course of a single century's research, the earliest date in Egyptian historythat of Egypt's unification under King Meneshas plummeted from 5876 to 2900 B.C. and not even the latter year has been established beyond doubt. Do we, in fact, have any firm dates at all?" Johannes Lehmann, The Hittites (1977), p. 204.

Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...nology-genesis

#The analyses suggest the rise to statehood occurred between 200 and 300 years faster than previously thought, beginning between 3800 B.C. and 3700 B.C., rather than the past estimate of 4000 B.C.#
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/who-r...yet-8C11071362

http://creation.com/timing-is-everything good article on Egyptian dating

this would be good for exodus

Dr. Bryant Wood presents evidence that refutes five criticisms of the Bible. Criticism #1: There is no evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt. #2: There was no capital at Rameses for the Israelites to depart from. #3: There is no evidence for the route, date and nature of the Exodus. #4: Jericho was not occupied when the Israelites entered Canaan. #5: The city of Ai recorded in Joshua 7-8 shows no evidence for destruction as the Bible records it
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/book...ct.aspx?id=129


Unwrapping the Pharaohs
http://www.amazon.com/Unwrapping-Pha.../dp/0890514682

[Kadagar_AV]

while i indeed say yes to a global flood [with large amounts of evidence] i never said it on my op, that is for next thread. So stay tuned.

No way, that's not how things are run here.

You cant make idiotic claims, completely unsupported, and expect people to move on with a vague statement of "future thread".

Your threads SO FAR have been laughed out because of their absurdity, and your lack of understanding when questioned upon them. Is the future thread you talk about of the same quality?

Your style of argumentation is completely idiotic, rinse and repeat and MAYBE I start taking your seriously.

[total relism]

I am a Catholic. The largest Christian denomination on the planet earth accepts the theory of evolution. Most other denominations that I know of do as well. Likewise, the big bang theory is accepted. Science explains the how, my faith explains the why.

If anyone here has theological questions, your best bet is to sit through a Mass or service and listen to the homily. I recomend that you do this with a single question per week for the rest of your life at a church that provides you with peace. You should also speak to scholars from other religions for a deeper understanding.

The answers from people who don't despise the Bible will be very different from the answers provided on a Total War forum.

here is from a catholic creation site, would be good for you.

The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation
http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-tradi...e-of-creation/

Evolution and Revisionist Catholicism
http://www.kolbecenter.org/evolution...t-catholicism/

WHY FAITHFUL CATHOLICS SHOULD OPPOSE EVOLUTION
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt28.html#II


your denomination makes no claim and says either creation/evolution could be true.



you said
Science explains the how

I agree fully, this is better for another thread though. It is science that caused me to become a creationist and reject evolution.


You should also speak to scholars from other religions for a deeper understanding.
I do,but what understanding do you believe they have? is it not a false understanding?


The answers from people who don't despise the Bible will be very different from the answers provided on a Total War forum.
I agree with that, but i go places people hate god [twc,here other places] on purpose.

[total relism]

No way, that's not how things are run here.

You cant make idiotic claims, completely unsupported, and expect people to move on with a vague statement of "future thread".

Your threads SO FAR have been laughed out because of their absurdity, and your lack of understanding when questioned upon them. Is the future thread you talk about of the same quality?

Your style of argumentation is completely idiotic, rinse and repeat and MAYBE I start taking your seriously.

sorry you feel that way, but when people say things [no evidence for flood etc] i simply tell them of a future thread coming if they are interested that disagrees with them and can come and talk etc. I think it is a good idea to stay on topic of thread it may be crazy, but that i think is the general idea of having a topic and op of a thread. If things are indeed run different here [please link rules for forum] let me know and i will change.

[Kadagar_AV]

sorry you feel that way, but when people say things [no evidence for flood etc] i simply tell them of a future thread coming if they are interested that disagrees with them and can come and talk etc. I think it is a good idea to stay on topic of thread it may be crazy, but that i think is the general idea of having a topic and op of a thread.

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.

AGAIN, your last threads have been shot down, argumentatively speaking. So it's not like you have some stellar history that leaves some room for doubt.

On the contrary, people expect to read lunatic ramblings from a madman when opening up your threads. So show the cards you have, or shut up and leave the game.

[Hax]

How does this thread have nine pages?

[total relism]

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.

AGAIN, your last threads have been shot down, argumentatively speaking. So it's not like you have some stellar history that leaves some room for doubt.

On the contrary, people expect to read lunatic ramblings from a madman when opening up your threads. So show the cards you have, or shut up and leave the game.

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.


apply to yourself, someone claims no evidence for noahs flood,no global flood, yet does not provide anything for claim. I say there is, that leads us off topic for a future great thread.

The general idea is to not sprout things out of your behind and expect people buy it.
you claim my past threads have been shot down. Please apply here, please show me on any thread [on the thread you claim] were it has been shot down as you baseless claim.

you wont be able to support any of your claims without not responding and ignoring refutations. That is why any claim you make of my threads being shot down, i can just show counter post you ignored or did not read.

The rest is just clear case of you wanting me to shut up, given your history on my threads i dont blame you one bit.

[HoreTore]

coming from someone who has committed many logical fallacies [53] than claim i committed a strawman [64] warned me to wait till i was older to use logical fallacies. Only to than admit you were wrong and i did not commit it [80] claimed another logical fallacies goalpost [74,refuted 80, showed you dont read post b-4 commenting] than commited one more on 114 that i did not even feel needed responding to.

ad hominem
while i agree with what you said, if you read post 159 [this seems common you always miss what starts discussion and come to wrong conclusion]. he was using the personal attack [spelling grammar] as a response to what i had sed in argument against brenus i believe that he quoted.

lol, this is just too funny. As I have said several times already, don't play around with fallacies until you're older. It would be preferable for you to get some knowledge of mathematics and/or logic before you do.

You could say that Brenus' comment of your struggles with reality was an ad hominem attack. Pannonian's comment, however, was simply an expansion of Brenus' attack on you, while not dealing with any of Brenus arguments at all. It is thus a pure personal attack, and so fails the definition of an ad hominem. It was nothing more than an assertion of your complete lack of education.

If I were you, I would also focus on actually reading the posts made by others, instead of trying to figure out whether or not someone else is reading them.

I agree 100% with you actually. That is because you follow the traditional timeline current held by most, if true i agree than that would make your whole point good and valid. If the traditional timeline [that is unknown by created and built on assumptions and has horrible problems etc] than the time of the exodus is wrong. I am busy now to get into details i will leave you some references to look over at moment. I believe once the current chronology is changed by 150 or maybe 350 years [it has been awhile] the evidence for the exodus goes from zero to amazing. More and more secular archaeologist and universities are teaching the reduced chronologies such as Cambridge and others.

Moving the timeline by 150-350 years moves the exodus from the category of "impossible" to "impossible and absurd". Congratulations.

The main facts are:
1. There is no evidence whatsoever of any hebrew presence in Egypt
2. There is no evidence of over half a million people milling about the Sinai for 40 years, nor is there any evidence of the major incidents mentioned, like the demise of Pharaos(who is "curiously" not named) army
3. There is plenty of evidence of a continued Hebrew presence in Palestine.

The exodus is a clear political document, made up to justify all the raping, pillaging and slaughtering committed by the israelites when they asserted their dominance in Palestine. In that regard, it is similar to other claims, like Rome's claim of a Trojan beginning.

I would strongly suggest you get some education before you try to deal with tricky subjects like archeology, history and biology.