quote:
So Babylonian, Akkadian, Sumerian etc. myths are out but OT myths are factual?
Yes. But why ask this? Please show us any historically identifiable surrounding stats for a Babylonian king who reigned 28,000 years? If we look at the earliest stats in genesis, disregarding the adam/eve story [because this is textually inclined in a non-physical realm], we find the mention of the first 'king' [Nimrod] in all recorded history, Noah - which contains a thread of names, locations and datings culminating in the african/egyptian nations, Judaism [Abraham], and numerous bedoine races. We have here identifiable historical items such as Hebron, Beth El, cross reference inter-nation evidences such as the Egyptian stelle mentioning Israel and a host of other nations and kings, the Hamurabi documents, mount arafat, etc. Here, the report does not have to be historically vindicated - than that it is historically posited, and vested in a historically identifiable space-time. It is not surrounded by a vaccuum.
To accept a sumerian king who would have riegned 40,000 years ago [because the author declaring this report is a belated factor], or even if we say 30,000 years ago - it also means there were surrounding historical occurences - nothing has been located here - we have only a blank pre-6000; no history per se. I don't see my rejection of the eridu report as hypocritical or unwarranted. How can there be a king when there is no history of this space-time?
Conclusion: Genesis' 6000 point makes the world sweat in 2008. Not a small feat.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.