airportcop
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,085
- Reaction score
- 0
Kids Turned Away From Church....
- Thread starter rockin'robin
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm. There are certain parallels between the story of Gilgamesh with the opening chapters of Genesis and the fall in the Garden of Eden:
A) Anu, the sky god, creates Endiku, the wild man of the forest
A) The Lord creates Adam and places him into a garden
B) Enkidu is naked in the forest
B) Adam and Eve are both naked in the garden
C) Enkidu is tempted by Shamhat, the temple prostitute
C) Adam is given the forbidden fruit by the woman
D) Enkidu falls to Shamhat's charms, loses his strength but gains knowledge
D) Adam eats the fruit given to him by Eve, his eyes are open with the knowledge that they are naked and he is removed from the garden
Hmmm, interesting.
I'm going to guess you know which one is older.
Gilgamesh. This is an indisputable fact.
I do. I seldom partipicate in religious thread on alldeaf because if academic claims about any religion show up, people use this to attack either people who believe or people who don't believe depending on the claim. And mods tend close those threads. Rebas claim that scholary statements are equal to hearing people thinking they know anything about deafness is a wild claim I unfortunately can't discuss without threads getting closed, from experience.
If so how is it that the Garden goes back more that 5000BC and Gilgoamesh goes back less that 2000BC.?
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Please re-read what I posted. I did NOT make that claim.
In a way, I agree with you. I would ask you to look at the Declaration of Independent of America. It is less that 300 years old and we have done everything possible to preserve it with the modern methods we have. Sometimes visitors to Washington, D.C. can view and read the original.
On the other hand the original writing of the Bible and Quran are long gone. We have no way at all to compare what we are reading today with the originals. Eventhough there are those who say the copies of the Quran of today are perfect copies of the original, that is an unproveable statement. My point would be that scholary statements, while educational, are not reliable proof not are they meant to be where there is no actual proof.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
It's because the Gilgamesh story is a distortion of the true history of what happened.
According to historians, the Bible is copied from earlier literature.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 7
According to historians Oswald shot JFK......by himself
According to who? Stop reading the Sunday comics for to get your factual information.
Ah, relying on your trusty old excuse to conveniently dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your ridiculous fantasy of angels and talking snakes.
Red herring and has absolutely no correlation to this. But you know that.
So is the Quran and the Book of Mormon because they have as a foundation the O.T. And the N.T.
The Book of Mormon has a foundation in full scale hokery and ridiculous crackpot archaeology.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 19,035
- Reaction score
- 7
Meh, fact is historians disagree and make mistakes all the time. People are free to believe what they wish
We has the historical events of Egypt's timeline that is known, so we know the date of Moses. By following the genealogy of Adam to Moses backwards we can calculate
near 5000BC. On the otherhand, the history of Babylon is also known. This only takes us back to approx. 2000BC. From what is known, the Gilamesh take is from Babylon, which in turn make it much younger that the Garden story.
Totally agree.
Guess we both are non believers, but I have to disagree with you a bit here. It's different views on what the bible is. To me it looks like you argue against the view that the bible today is what God want it to look like. Not all Christians share that view. The bible is also a collection of texts to help understand god and jesus better, according to other Christians. And, we have some pretty old and reliable sources of the earliest texts, so it's not that totally screwed through translations as you make it look like here, according to most scholars. You also must remember that the bible is a collection of different texts from differ t times, requiring different kind of analysis. Dont know if this made sense?
It partly makes sense but not all. IMO the O.T.was never meant to be put on paper since there was none in those days. Oral transition took place down through the years and because of that there is no original text. As for the N.T., we also do not have the original text but bit-and-pieces of copies. Also IMO the Bible was meant to be world-owned after Jesus, before it was for the Chosen People. Therefore it has to be translated into the local language, otherwise only few would access.
On the same principle, the originals of other works do not exist and therefore fairness comes into play when humans argue one against the other. If anyone were to say one work is fables/myths then that person must say they all are.
On the same principle, the originals of other works do not exist and therefore fairness comes into play when humans argue one against the other. If anyone were to say one work is fables/myths then that person must say they all are.
- Status