An interesting article that I came across, I couldn't NOT post it. I'm not sure I agree but it's an interesting idea. Moses was high!
From what I've been reading, I'm pretty darn sure that the Hebrews were not the originators of the bible mythos (something most religious scholars agree with, these are people who study the history of religion, it's not bible study), they simply took what they needed from the Sumerians. Since the Sumerians have a 7 day creation myth complete with the fruit and everything (including serpent), why not just use that. That's usually how these things go, a small idea evolves into a large one! That's how we did the comics back in the day. Just to clarify the first Bible was written around 1000bc, the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh was written 2300 bc (remember your counting backwords at this point... I don't really know why they do this....)
Best,
Brett
16 comments:
Remember that history shows that the Sumerians first written recording of the flood predates the earliest written Hebrew recorded text of the flood. It doesn't say the story originated with the Sumerians, in fact quite the opposite. The story was orally passed along for generations by the Sumerians before being written about. So the facts allow for the same flood to be written about by both the Jews and the Sumerians. One just wrote about it sooner than the other. It is sort of like a news event happening on the weekend. One newspaper writes about it on Sunday and another covers it on Monday- neither paper created the story, and one should not be said to be borrowing facts from the other if they write about it at a slighly later date. All such accusations toward the Bible show a tendency to "wish to disprove it" rather than an actual open minded reading of the facts. For some reason Brett you always tend to credit any source, no matter how unfounded, with having more reliability when it contradict scriptures. There is no reason for this. Moses high? So all of Egypt was stoned on the same drug when they let the Jewish people leave and stop being their slaves? They also halucinated the death of their firstborn children and in a stoned state went ahead and killed the kids to match their hallucination? You'll tend to see a pattern with all these "experts" who contradict Bible stories, their "answers" cause more problems than the facts they are trying to disprove.
-Steve
Steve, I'm beginning to see that you seem to lack any critical thinking when it comes to this stuff. The Sumerian story was written before the Hebrew creation story, there is no record of theHebrews story before that. In fact the Sumerians lived in the area that many people believe was the garden of eden. If it was just a simple flood story then yes they could both be writting about the same event and not borrowing from each other. BUT the 7 day creation story, the fruit, the snake, the garden, the tree.... These are all from the Sumerian, in addition to the flood story.... Come off it. Your just refuse to accept the simple facts than anyone with some common sense would be able to connect. You refuse ANY information that places doubt on your bible. These are all well documented similarites. Stop kidding yourself. The Bible is not fact, if anything is a guide for living in the middle east 1000 years ago. I'm sorry if my using facts and research upsets you but I don't trust the' story's passed down' line, there is NO evidence for it. You can't claim that's how it is when we have facts telling us otherwise. The more I read the bible the more I became an unbeliever, how anyone can read this and say it converted them is well beyond me. AND if you can't recognize the brain washing/subliminal text then I can see how it got you. That;s why I asked if it was set to music, to get it in your head so you'd keep repetting it. Name one miracle that's been proven by science... you can't.
And you didn't read the first line I wrote. I don't agree with the drugs. I'm sure they used them, but since the bible was based on older texts they really don't matter one way or the other. I just thought it was a strange article. Much like the crap they are now spewing about Homo flournces, the human Hobbit. The hobbit paper is just bad science, and has been blasted by the professionals. The other is just a funny story.
Well Steve, I don't seem to remember reading the Egypt's first born's died in History class. The ONLY proof for that is the bible and I'm sorry that's not proof. There is also no evidence for the exodus. It only takes 10 days to walk that entire 'desert'. You cling to these texts as if they are proven wrong or false or just stories that the entire world is going to end...it's not. Open your mind to free thinking, I'd rather know the truth and accept it then live believing a lie.
I'm all for making people think and question but I don't blindly agree with everything, even when it's something I might agree with. I prefer to work off of the facts.
Best,
Brett
What is the test for a historical document to be true? The thing is we can't go back in time and rewitness the events, so historical writings are tested to see if they contradict other historical writings and if they line up with what we know from archeology. As you point out there are similarities between Summarian writings and the Bible. This adds credence to the Bible, it does not discredit it, if you are looking at purely academic standards. Old Testament books are traced back to the times and places they said they came from, they acurately reflect the culture, list the appropriate rulers, and are supported by several non-religious texts. Sorry, that is being brain washed, that is looking at the facts. I don't want to overstate the facts, there are still some things we have no archeological evidence for, but the list is shrinking. And things like there being no record of being King David which used to be used as strong evidence against the Bible have as recently as 1993 been over turned, but those same critics who thought this was strong evidence against the Bible are not intellectually honest enough to change their tune and admit it is now strong evidence for the Bible.
-Steve
Do you not see that everything you are telling me is colored with the rose colored glasses of Christianity? We need multiple sources to truly verify, independent sources. Your logic is flawed. With no evidence for the bible before the Sumerian texts, and the fact that Sumeria is older than the Hebrew nation you have to logically come to the conclusion that the Sumerian version came first and that the Hebrews who came after based their beliefs on the older version. It does not verify or give credit to anything. The facts are clear and most Religious Historians agree, the bible was based on older mythology. Nothing wrong with that, that, how these things work.
And once again your getting information from tainted sources, just because Spiderman takes place in New York does not disprove the existence of New York or prove the existence of Spiderman. Most modern archeologists don't take the bible as fact. In fact we know that the bible gives us some information but it must be verified though other means. Your picking and choosing what you believe, that's not how science works. And your King David information fall apart since the archeological information says someone named King David existed, just at the wrong time for the bible to be true, since the countries he's supposed to have conquered were already gone. It's a book Steve, written by men to explain our existence and history, it has no more validity than Frankenstein or Dracula, which also have historical information in them. there are actual book written on this subject, by actual scientist, not these creation scientists. We'd be happy to have some actual proof of SOMETHING but we keep getting.... well nothing.
Your grasping at straws. Why are there no modern miracles? Why has god not smotten the wicked? Why is there no real evidence for a global flood? Why, if the Jews are god's favored people did he let so many die in concentration camps? Why are there mutations or people with disabillites if we are all supposedly born perfect? Why is evolution 'false' if we can track our DNA to Africa when the Garden of Eden was in Mesopaotamia? Why does god not show himself to the modern world to prove he exists?
Because he does not.
Brett
Damn Brett, you seem more annoyed then I’ve every heard you. I am in your court on this but I’ll remind you, that you said that no one has the right to say to someone else that what they believe is wrong. You’re not going to make Steve see your point of view and he isn’t going to make you see his. But as any scientist would say, it is not that god doesn’t exist, its only he hasn’t been proven to exist. I don’t believe in god either, but I do believe in the Fates, and there is just as little proof their existence as god, but it is what I believe deep down inside. Belief isn’t about proof, it is about faith.
Of course the bible isn’t right about even 3 quarters of what it is talking about, then again, neither is the legend of King Arthur or the Trojan War, but archaeology has proven them to be true, just not in the way we had been told for centuries. A lot of people use Homer’s old stories for history as well as ligature, as his books are a great view of what life was like back then, and how people lived…with a bit of fiction thrown in. So on that regard, the bible can be used for history, you just have to take it with a grain of salt. The same is true for comic books. I and just about ever kid knows that Spider-man doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t use the lesions and examples of courage and bravery in his books for our own life. I would be there are tons of firemen, police officers and soldiers with tattoos or beliefs that help guide them from our own modern American mythologies, all of which we no to not be true, yet still hold them close to our hearts.
Miracles of the old testaments or in ancient history are little more then this pattern: A miracles is an act of a superior being. When a man can do a miracle it is then seen as magic…Magic is then seen science…Science is then seen technology. Perceptions of it just change with time. Hence in modern times, the average man has become a god upon his self in many ways, as the average person today knows and understands things more then any one person in history has every known. But I don’t know how a computer works, just that it does…so to me, someone that can build them from the ground up could be the same as someone that did miracles in ancient times.
As for a world flood, we do know that there was one at the end of the last great ice age. Mankind was mature enough to understand that something big was happening, but not to the level to understand why it was happening. But from those pyramids off the cost of Japan to a recently discovered English village 25 miles off the cost of the UK, do prove that a world flood did happen, just not that it was created by Zeus of god. I would like to know what is on top of Mt. Ararat though. It is funny how though that the churches don’t let anyone up there or to conduct independent tests on many religious artifacts.
Christopher
Why does religion have the ability to turn otherwise intelligent people into blithering subservient morons.
Why do people feel the need to believe that there is some almighty higher power that is in control of everything,instead of taking responsibility for their own lives.
I was raised a devout baptist until I was old enough to develop a brain
of my own and realize that it was all B.S
Religion is used for 3 things
1. To try to explain things that people can't wrap their heads around and understand,so as to give humanity hope that some thing bigger than them is "Taking care of things"
2. To assert control over the general populous.
3. To amass wealth and power.
Everyone in this informative day and age should realize that the "Bible" Is nothing more than a collection of stories taken from other cultures mythology.
And every major culture on earth has had their own deities and mythology.How pompous and egotistical are Christians to believe that they are the only ones that got it right.
I'm mean if I'm supposed to believe in the Christian mythos,then by rights I should also believe that their is a pantheon of gods and goddesses roaming around on the top of Mt.Olympus,or that when I die I'll go to Valhalla to go kick it with Thor and Odin.
And their are so many inconsistencies in the bible it's ridiculous.If go strictly by what the old and new testament have to say,then God is extremely bipolar .
First he's all vengeful and full of wrath waiting to smite anyone who so much as put a toe off the path he has chosen.Then in the new testament I guess he had a change of heart and "Oh sorry about that whole smiting and vengeance of the almighty thing,Here's my son who is really me just a smaller less potent version,Go ahead and kill him and I guess that will even the score.
The whole point of what I'm getting at is If you need to have some kind of personal faith to validate your existence,If that's what gets you going and lets you sleep soundly at night, more power to you.But leave every one else out of it.
Chris,
I'm more annoyed with the quote mining and out right lies that Steve manages to get. I'm not saying he's lying more like he's being lied too. That's what tickes me off;) I've given up trying to convince Steve, most of this is for others to see and they can research on there own. There's this book on how far off the bible and Archeology actually are but I can't remember the name for the life of me. But I am passionate about the truth:)
Sorry there is still no evidence for the global flood. Those things in Japan are a natural rock formation, not submerged pyramids. there were lots of floods over different parts of the earth at different times, that doesn't mean there was a global flood:)
Fatboy73 LOL! I agree with you. I just thought this article was pretty interesting, wrong but interesting. Of course it might explain why it took 40 years to get across that desert to find the promised land;) But then you'd think they have moved a bit faster once the buzz wore off and they were getting the munchies;)
Best,
Brett
Hello Everyone!
It seems religion has spilled another bowl of unholy wafers. I've read all the comments above and they all have some valid points.
I liked Steve's point saying the bible is like the newspaper; the facts are merely being told from a person's point of view. These stories could be right or wrong and could've happened sooner or later.
Brett said that we can't prove God exists. He's right. We never will. I'm sorry. If a god does exist, he or she or whatever is counting on us to have faith. If a god DOESN'T exist, than we're obviously wasting our time. Even IF WE DID PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS, we'd still have disbelievers anyway! Thus, believing that God EXISTS is totally up to you.
Belief has different meanings. You can believe that something EXISTS, OR believe IN something.
Personally, I believe 'in' God. I can't prove that God exists, therefore I can't believe God exists. However, God represents good-intentions, therefore I believe IN God. Sometimes, good-intentions are evil; it all lies in the eyes of the beholder.
I liked Christopher's remark about miracles. They're only subject to the eyes of the beholder. In the olympics, an athlete breaking a record may seem like a miracle, but even a typical bird was born to fly.
Fatboy73 said religion is used for 3 things:
"1. To try to explain things that people can't wrap their heads around and understand,so as to give humanity hope that some thing bigger than them is "Taking care of things"
2. To assert control over the general populous.
3. To amass wealth and power. "
---You know what? IT'S ALL TRUE! If I wanted to right now, I could startup my own religion and go door-to-door and demand donations from people. That's why, Fatboy73 wants people to leave him out of their religions.
The point is; religion is HUMAN-MADE. It's conducted by HUMANKIND and worshipped ONLY by HUMANKIND. Therefore, when you go to court and 'swear on the bible,' what you're REALLY doing is swearing on mankind's good intentions. You're swearing on God. You're swearing on a creation by HUMANKIND. Disagreeing with all of mankind's good intentions is very dishonest indeed.
I believe IN the Ten-Commandments. I can't believe they were written by God or Jesus. I certainly demand people to believe IN the Ten-Commanments too! Why? Because otherwise they'd think killing, coveting another person's belongings and stealing them is allowable. That's wrong. Therefore, I'd swear on the Holy Bible.
[I'm the guy who carries one in his jacket pocket afterall].
I personally believe the BEST form of government is a BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP. Essentially, people should be literally forced and disciplined for the sake of good. God is a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR. People are expected to be disciplined and do the right things.
-Raid
"But then you'd think they have moved a bit faster once the buzz wore off and they were getting the munchies;)"
I don't think the buzz did wear off.Where do you think that giant pillar of smoke came from that they kept following and as far as the munchies go, Whoooaaa! mana from heaven duuuuude
Is it just me or does anyone else think this could be the next big stoner comedy:D
'I personally believe the BEST form of government is a BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP. Essentially, people should be literally forced and disciplined for the sake of good. God is a BENEVOLENT DICTATOR. People are expected to be disciplined and do the right things.'
I'll have to disagree Raid. God is anything but benevolent, didn't he command the Hebrews to kill and conquer others lands? Didn't he 'flood' the world and kill everyone instead of just saying hey cut it out or I'll swat you with my mighty hand. I will not swear on the bible, I will swear on the Constitution.;) Democracy is the the way to go, the individual needs to have a say in matters of state.
Fatboy73, I'll have to see if I can find Mel Brooks' number;)
Best,
Brett
lol, you ever notice in these comments those of us that don't believe in god always spell his name with a lower case, and those that do with a capital G. I bet it is just natural too. Perhaps that in its self is proof of our belief.
And Brett..."I will not swear on the bible, I will swear on the Constitution.;) Democracy is the the way to go" I never pegged you for a patriot. It is how I feel too. I often wonder if I could do that if I had to...put my hand on the flag or a copy of the Constitution over the bible.
According to the Bible, God DID order some horrible events such as floods, wars and sacrifices. The Bible is designed to TEACH BY EXAMPLE.
1)England took-up arms and tanks against the Nazi's in WWII. Why didn't they just ASK them to surrender?
2)The US dropped TWO Atomic Bombs on Japan in WWII. Why not just one?
Based on these facts, I could say England and America are anything less than Benevolent myself! However, we cannot force anyone to make a decision. Good-intentions are based on the eyes of the beholder.
It's NOT within God's power to force people to make a decision. People are free to make any decision they want and not even God can do anything about that.
The lesson is people must TAKE RESPONSIBLITY for their decisions and actions. A BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP is the strongest mode of government in that protocal. The Bible teaches that if people desire to be evil, they'll be met with God's resistance. Two atomic bombs later...
Either way, GOD messed up. If people are going to be allowed to choose whatever they want, then we're certainly going to have people choosing some evil ideas. God at first believed the best way to deal with this was to KILL THEM ALL OFF. It didn't work.
I personally believe GOD (good-intentions) had created a load that cannot be carried.
-RAID
As a history nut let me enlighten you mate...
1)England took-up arms and tanks against the Nazi's in WWII. Why didn't they just ASK them to surrender?
The German's started the second world war with the invasion of Poland in 1939. According to the peace accord after he WW1, German wasn't suppose to have a offensive military, or act aggressive against their neighboring countries. The League of Nations was suppose to stop this from happening, but had no military power to prevent the Germans from invading Poland and other countries. As the leading members of the League, England and France had to declare war because German declared war on all of Europe. So there was no point in asking the German's to surrender, as the Germans and Italians were already crossing the Maginot Line and passing through Belgium.
2)The US dropped TWO Atomic Bombs on Japan in WWII. Why not just one?
The choice to drop the bomb was actually to save more American lives and to prevent Russia from invading Japan as they had declared war on Japan shortly after the German's were defeated. If Russia had invaded Japan, they would have been broken much like Korea and Vietnam, only worse as Japan is more of a economic power. Also, if we had invaded Japan, the war would have continued on for about another two years, meaning it would have ended in 1947 instead of 1945. But even by 1945 the American people were tired of war and the government was starting to run out of money to pay for it.
It was feared that if the US invaded Japan too, that nearly 500 thousand American lives would be lost, as well as some 3 million Japanese, as they were bent on fighting to the very end. The first bomb was dropped to force the Japanese to surrender. The first bomb did nearly end the war as the Emperor was ready, but there was a attempted take over of the government by the military, which failed. The second bomb was dropped (we only had two at the time but could have a dozen more within a month), that bomb ended the war as the Emperor for the first time in Japanese history, spoke to his people saying the war was over. As he is seen as a living God, they surrendered.
The two bombs killed a lot of people sure, but millions more would have died on both sides if we had not used them. Also, if we had invaded Japan, we would have used every nuke we had, include some stupid ideas of using them within a couple miles of our own troops which would have killed tens of thousands of people months or years later.
You have to remember that if you think the US and UK aren't Benevolent for the reasons you put down (and who every said that we were), we weren't the one's that started the war...Japan had been fighting China since the late 1920's, and Germany invaded Poland in 1939. The US didn't get into the war until 1941.
Ok mate, as an amateur history nut, let me enlighten you a bit on your two comments.
1) England took-up arms and tanks against the Nazi's in WWII. Why didn't they just ASK them to surrender?
A first off, England didn’t take up arms against Germany in WWII. The Germans invaded Poland in 1939 after a decade of building up their military, which under the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans weren’t allowed to build an offensive army, which they did. They were also forbidding from acting aggressively against their neighboring, which they ignored, first by annexing Austria then with the invasion of Poland.
The League of Nations, which came before the United Nations, was suppose to prevent Germany from building its army back up, but with no oversight or authority, the Germans simply just lied about what they were doing. When it was reviled that Germany was a major threat, it was too late to do anything. So in 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, Italians invasion of Greece and Africa, German had declared war on the whole of Europe. England and France were the only nations capable of standing against them, but they too were swept aside as the Maginot Line failed to protect France, which surrendered in 1940, leaving only England left to stand against the Germans. So, it was impossible for them to even demand Germany to surrender, because frankly, why the hell would Germany every do that?
2) The US dropped TWO Atomic Bombs on Japan in WWII. Why not just one?
This is often one aspect of WWII that most people don’t know the whole truth or facts about. We didn’t just drop the bombs blindly without even thinking about it. For one, President Truman, who had only been in office a couple months after Roosevelt’s death, didn’t even know that the Manhattan Project existed. He was only told after he told office.
The choice to drop the Atomic Bombs wasn’t an easy one, but Truman was faced with sending nearly a million US soldiers to Japan, as we were ready to invade the Japanese homeland. But the war in Europe had already ended. By this time, as the bigger threat was already beat, most Americans were sick of the war, and the government was finding it more difficult to even pay for it. Now we were about to launch a major invasion of Japan, which would have more then likely extended the war for another 2 years or more. Also, Russia had declared war on Japan, and was already fighting their forces in China. By this time, we were more the aware that the USSR and us weren’t going to be friends after the war. If Russia had invaded Japan, they would have divided the entire country.
Last, if the US had invaded Japan, it was estimated that some 500 thousand Americans would like die or be wounded. About 3 to 5 more Japanese would have died as they were ready to fight to the bitter end. So Truman decided to drop the Atomic Bomb to end the war quickly and with fewer lives lost.
The first one did nearly end the war, but several Japanese military officers attempted to overthrow the Emperor…which failed. By this time Japan was going to surrender, but they wouldn’t accept an unconditional surrender…we demanded that they did. When they refused an unconditional surrender, we dropped the second bomb (we only had two at the time but could build more in a matter of weeks) After the second bomb, the Emperor took it upon him self and spoke to his people for the first time in 2 thousand years. As he is seen as a living god, he announced Japan’s unconditional surrender, which no one in the government could debate any longer.
So frankly neither the United States or the Great Britain started the war. Japan had been at war with China since the late 1920’s and German broke the Treaty of Versailles and then invaded Poland. The US didn’t get involved in WWII until 1941, when we were attacked by Japan.
And who the hell ever said that we were Benevolent? So before you make these comments mate, check your facts.
Thanks for the history lesson:) I'm personally not a big modern history guy. After the dark ages I sort of loose interest.
Raid, i really think Democracy is the way to go. Too much could go wrong in a Dictatorship. It might work fine for the first leader or two but power currupts. And if that person has all the power....
Best,
Brett
-QUOTE-Brett Said-
Raid, i really think Democracy is the way to go. Too much could go wrong in a Dictatorship. It might work fine for the first leader or two but power currupts. And if that person has all the power....
--That's precisely what happened to God. The road to hell is paved with 'good-intentions.' God's BENEVOLENT DICTATORSHIP was too controlling over people who willed for freedom. Therefore, Jesus arised as a solution. He believed the best form of government was communism, which involved everyone giving everything they had towards the 'kingdom of heaven.' This is why humankind centered its timeline according to Jesus' arrival. On paper, communism is the best form of government, but corruption can spoil that as well, which is why Jesus believed he had to sacrifice himself to end the corruption.
I knew all that stuff about 2nd World War. America using bombs to save lives and such. The Nazi's weren't going to simply surrender if anybody asked! The same goes with the people of God. I'll say it again: GOD CANNOT INSTANTLY CHANGE ANOTHER PERSON'S MIND! We couldn't simply convince the Nazi's to surrender an attack! It's the EXACT same thing. My point is...God planned retaliations that seemed horrible. Like the American WWII atomic bombs incident? Remember! God has NO control over human decision. The ONLY way to stop someone from conducting an unwanted decision is to neutralize them. Even God cannot use 'magic' to instantly change someone's mind. You'll never find a scene throughout ALL THE BIBLE where someone has their decisions changed by God directly. It never happens. I've done my research.
(This reminds me of that one gun in Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy." You know that one gun that causes people to instantly change their mind if they're shot by it?)
Either way, I'm going to come-off the subject. I'd actually rather talk about Brett/Jess's art...
...BENEVOLENT DICATORSHIPs are still the best! HA ha ha...
-Raid
Post a Comment