Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not Influenced by Surrounding Nations
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 61 of 83 (502765)
03-13-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
03-13-2009 8:25 AM


Peg writes:
i agreed. They both originated in the same region, but thats to be expected seeing all ancient writings originated in the mesopotamia
I disagree based upon recent archeology, due to Mohenjo Daro and China, which are at least contemporary, if not predating (see China). Also one must consider Mayan hieroglyphics, which were developed independently.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:25 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2009 12:12 PM anglagard has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 62 of 83 (502766)
03-13-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
03-13-2009 8:25 AM


because in Msg 51 I was replying to bluescat48 who said
'If one looks at where both of these stories originated, Mesopotamia, then it can be said that they have similar origins.'
i agreed. They both originated in the same region, but thats to be expected seeing all ancient writings originated in the mesopotamia
You quoted more than than though. Included in what you quoted was "One would assume that Abraham brought the story with him when he left Ur for Haran & later Canaan. The Gilgamesh story stayed in Mesopotamia. It would be over 1000 years before these stories were written down in their current fashion, and thus would be changed due to the evolution of each by the peoples who told them, each adding his own parts to the story." after which you said
quote:
yes i agree with you there.
And i guess if we cant prove one way or another which story is the original, we can be sure of at least one thing...that the flood left a strong impression on many people for a very very long time
no one forgot it, even if they perhaps got their facts mixed up a little.
Which seems to indicate that you agree that both Noah and Utnapishtim's tale could be both describing the same event. And now you are saying the only thing they share is the geographical proximity?
i agreed with you that there are similiarities though very minimal
both accounts speak of gods, both speak of a flood, both speak of demigods
And what about the more specific similarities I brought up?
this does not mean that Moses copied or was influenced by the gilgamesh account though. Moses may never have even read the gilgamesh account.
I haven't suggested that the author of Noah's tale copied it having read a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:25 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:52 AM Modulous has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 63 of 83 (502768)
03-13-2009 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
03-13-2009 8:36 AM


Modulous writes:
Which seems to indicate that you agree that both Noah and Utnapishtim's tale could be both describing the same event. And now you are saying the only thing they share is the geographical proximity?
ok let me clear this up
i do think they are describing the same event.
i dont think moses stole the story from the gilgamesh account.
Modulous writes:
And what about the more specific similarities I brought up?
what more specific similarities are they?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 8:36 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 2:26 PM Peg has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 64 of 83 (502803)
03-13-2009 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by anglagard
03-13-2009 8:34 AM


Re Developed
Hi anglagard,
anglagard writes:
Also one must consider Mayan hieroglyphics, which were developed independently.
Why?
Since everybody descended from Noah and his 4 sons and the land mass was all in one place and they spoke one language until God scattered them over the face of the earth and then divided it to where it is today.
They would all have the same stories to work from some just embellished them more than others.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 8:34 AM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 8:40 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 65 of 83 (502824)
03-13-2009 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peg
03-13-2009 8:52 AM


ok let me clear this up
i do think they are describing the same event.
i dont think moses stole the story from the gilgamesh account.
OK, nobody is suggesting the author of Noah's story stole it from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Do you see that the possibilities are
1) That Utnapishtim's story is the accurate one
2) That Noah's story is the accurate one
3) That Zisundara's story is the accurate one
4) That no surviving recorded story is accurate, but some event did happen
5) That no surviving recorded story is accurate and no event happened.
Only if we accept 2) do we even have the possibility of claiming that the authors of the OT were not influenced by other nations. For all other cases, the other four possibilities (maybe there are more) would indicate that it is entirely possible that the author of Genesis 6-8 took a prevalent story from within his (probably was a him) culture - that was derived from similar tales that were prevalent throughout the near east. The author may have been the person who made the story different, or he may have just been a recorder of an existing story that had already gone through significant changes.
what more specific similarities are they?
I've repeated them several times, I don't want to do so again. Why not go back to Message 7 and try to figure out what the similarities I am talking about may be.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 8:55 PM Modulous has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 66 of 83 (502857)
03-13-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peg
03-13-2009 6:12 AM


c ... on ... ne ... ct ... th ... e ... d ... ot ... s
Peg writes:
weary writes:
In Genesis 10:8-11 we note Nimrod established a kingdom. Therefore, we might expect to find a well-known tale, common in Sumerian literature, of a man who fits the description. Just as Mod is patiently presenting, we do - as there likely was. In addition to the Sumerians, the Babylonians wrote about this person; the Assyrians likewise; and the Hittites. Even in Palestine, tablets have been found with this man’s name on them.
this is just an interesting side point...
The rabbinic writings derived the name 'Nimrod' from the Hebrew verb maradh′, meaning 'rebel' So it wasnt the mans actual name
Granted, this may appear presumptous ...
Yet, perhaps the above is less a side point and rather a clue. The name is a likely indicater of how this man's behavior was percieved by, at least One, Sumerian culture in opposition to his own. We are encouraged that you have chosen to present this. Considering the name nimrod was more or less a ... shall we say - ‘title’, which subsequently evolved into a modern day epithet, one may further explore the logical conclusions that maradh′ (m.r.d) may lead to - namely marduk (m.r.d.).
Have you made the marduk connection Peg?
wiki writes:
Marduk
(Sumerian spelling in Akkadian: AMAR.UTU "solar calf"; perhaps from MERI.DUG; Biblical Hebrew מְרֹדַךְ Merodach; Greek Μαρδοχαῖος, Mardochaios) was the Babylonian name of a late-generation god from ancient Mesopotamia and patron deity of the city of Babylon, who, when Babylon permanently became the political center of the Euphrates valley in the time of Hammurabi (18th century BC), started to slowly rise to the position of the head of the Babylonian pantheon, a position he fully acquired by the second half of the second millennium BC.
Nibiru, to the Babylonians, was the celestial body or region sometimes associated with the god Marduk.
Peg writes:
they dont know the name of the one who founded the city of Babel. We know him as a rebel or 'nimrod', and that is all we know him as.
Yes. If one is not willing to search hiStory, that is all they may know of him.
he certainly was no hero.
Many would disagree, although we are inclined not to.
He is presented in a negative way in the Jewish Targums, the writings of the historian Josephus, and also the context of Genesis chapter 10 suggest that Nimrod was a mighty hunter in opposition to God.
Thatta girl. Read from many sources trust the One you love.
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 6:12 AM Peg has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 67 of 83 (502876)
03-13-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
03-13-2009 12:12 PM


Re: Re Developed
ICANT writes:
Since everybody descended from Noah and his 4 sons and the land mass was all in one place and they spoke one language until God scattered them over the face of the earth and then divided it to where it is today.
They would all have the same stories to work from some just embellished them more than others.
The one story that is not embellished or a product of fantasy is that told by the genetic code. The genetic code of all humans clearly shows there was no bottleneck in 2350 BCE.
Mayan writing is unrelated to any old world script, which is clear to anyone not blinded by dogma.
Unless of course you are arguing for Last Thursdayism.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 03-13-2009 12:12 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:15 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 68 of 83 (502878)
03-13-2009 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Modulous
03-13-2009 2:26 PM


Yes any of the above could be right
but which account is more realistic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Modulous, posted 03-13-2009 2:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2009 12:14 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 69 of 83 (502882)
03-13-2009 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by anglagard
03-13-2009 8:40 PM


Re: Re Developed
anglagard writes:
Mayan writing is unrelated to any old world script, which is clear to anyone not blinded by dogma.
But there is also plenty of indication that the people there were similar to those in Mesopotamia.
There are indications of trade connections with Mesopotamia and the Middle East, the Indus providing a route to the Arabian Sea from hundreds of miles inland
Religious symbols such as the swastikas and the cross have been found in the Indus Valley, the same resemblance as the ones found in Babylonian religions.
They may have developed their own form of writing, but it seems that many of their beliefs stem from the Mesopotamia. I dont think any of this information is 100% conclusive, but it certainly adds weight to the possibility that the people are somehow related.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 03-13-2009 8:40 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:27 PM Peg has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 70 of 83 (502887)
03-13-2009 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Peg
03-13-2009 9:15 PM


Re: Re Developed
Er... Peg... The Mayans came from Central America ya know. I think you may have some other ancient civilisation in mind. The Mayans were nowhere near the Indus Valley.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 9:15 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 10:29 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2009 12:09 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 71 of 83 (502896)
03-13-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Granny Magda
03-13-2009 9:27 PM


Re: Re Developed
Ahhh yes sorry,
im saying Mayan but meaning Indian... Mohenjo-Daro was mentioned and this is what i was referring to
But the Mayans were still similar to the people of the mesopotamia region...they built pyramids and performed the same burial practices that the pharoahs practiced
similarities abound no matter how far people lived and how isolated they may have been.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:27 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 03-14-2009 11:36 AM Peg has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 72 of 83 (502906)
03-14-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Granny Magda
03-13-2009 9:27 PM


Re Developed
Er...Granny...The land mass was all in one place according to the Bible.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
All the water in one place required all the land be in one place.
So what difference does it make where they are found later.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 03-13-2009 9:27 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2009 4:34 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 75 by Granny Magda, posted 03-14-2009 11:41 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 73 of 83 (502916)
03-14-2009 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by ICANT
03-14-2009 12:09 AM


ICANT writes:
quote:
So what difference does it make where they are found later.
Because the time at which the land was all one supercontinent was long before the existence of any humans. By the time humans came on the scene, Pangea was long ago.
Pangea was about 250 million years ago.
Humans are only about 2 million years old.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2009 12:09 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 74 of 83 (502938)
03-14-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Peg
03-13-2009 10:29 PM


Re: Re Developed
quote:
But the Mayans were still similar to the people of the mesopotamia region...they built pyramids and performed the same burial practices that the pharoahs practiced
They built pyramids yes, but they were radically different to the Egyptian ones. I do not believe that the Mayans used the same embalming practices as the Egyptians or even anything particularly similar.
You have found one slight similarity. That is consistent with coincidence. The similarities pointed out by Mod in Message 7 go way beyond that, with a large number of very specific comparisons. This is much harder to put down to coincidence. There must be some link, as you appear to have acknowledged in the case of the flood.
As for Mohenjo Daro, why do you assume that the influence (which you have merely alleged, not demonstrated by the way) was all one way? If both cultures shared symbols, what possible reason could you have for assuming that the Indus Valley absorbed Near Eastern culture without giving anything in return? To me, that sounds a little patronising and highly unlikely.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Peg, posted 03-13-2009 10:29 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 03-16-2009 6:08 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 75 of 83 (502939)
03-14-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by ICANT
03-14-2009 12:09 AM


Quit It Already
ICANT, you're doing it again.
This thread's topic is "Not Influenced by Surrounding Nations" not "ICANT's Bullshit Days of Pelag Theory". Quit trying to divert yet another thread onto your personal obsession.
Besides, you're wrong. As Rrhain has pointed out above, you're ridiculous theory is contradicted by multiple lines of evidence. By the time humanity came upon the scene, the continents were in pretty much their current form. If you think that the Bible says different, that means the Bible is wrong. Again.
If you want to talk about your silly little theory, go post a thread. You know how it works, or at least should do by now.
Mutate and Survive.

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ICANT, posted 03-14-2009 12:09 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024