The definition of sin

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Interesting.... the only one that had to bring in "religion" was James. His church was riddled with religious legalists. Many were even returning to the temple to offer animal sacrifices in spite of the Cross of Christ having dealt with our sins! That is why Hebrews 6:4-6 was needed to be written!

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace."

The religious Jewish believers were re-crucifying Jesus by submitting to the religious experience of offering animal sacrifices for their sins. Its was a public disgrace to the atoning work of Christ!

The Jewish believers in Jerusalem had become a religious mess! Its why the temple in Jerusalem was finally destroyed in 70AD by God in using Rome to burn down and destroy the Temple where the sacrifices had been mocking the Cross of Christ!

Yes... James had to deal with terribly religious Jews, and some accounts say he was martyred by them because of it! What a mess religion makes of Christianity.

"Religion is self righteousness getting its way. "



Religion is death to God. Even though God is mentioned by religion.

Life with the Father through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit is the life Jesus came to give.
This doesn't really answer my question at all, in fact all it does is further that the New Testament is in disagreement with itself.


Religion is death to God. Even though God is mentioned by religion.
Here you have contradicted yourself, either religion is death to God or God is mentioned by religion, religion thus includes Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They are jumbled? Please show how, instead of making a vague and broad sweeping statement.

There’s rather a lot to address - you seem to assuming similarity in expression is a marker of something definite rather than suggestive. What sources are you relying on? What do you think of David Rosenberg’s work? Or Harriet Crawford’s?
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
As I stated numerous times before, there is a difference between linguistic similarities and linguistic dependence where you have made the sweeping assumption that they are the same --- unfortunately for you, they are not. You brought up literature of cultures that predate the Pentateuch, something I assume you fancy yourself as an expert on. A good example between differences between similarities and dependency would be the biblical story of the Flood having no assertion of literary dependency from The Epic of Gilgamesh. Even scholars that do think the Hebrew accounts were dependent on the earlier Mesopotamian accounts are quick to point out that they are not literary dependent. Though the biblical Flood narrative and the Gilgamesh poem are superficially similar, the differences between the accounts are quite significant.
This is where you are incorrect and you really need to study linguistics. First off, the Israelite's, Canaanites, Babylonians, Akkadians (especially the Akkadians), even the Egyptians (originally Afrocentric language) all have a Semitic based language, they are interdependent on each other while in Mesopotamia. The only language in the land of Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq) that is an isolate language is the Sumerian language, while the Hittites on the other hand speak a Indo-Euro language, this is due to migrations en mass.

So my question to you, what on earth are you talking about?????

Furthermore, the Akkadians develop Semitic mother tongue based on Sumerian language when they integrate and conquer them.

The Epic of Gilgamesh (I would go further to state that the original epic is in a tablet found in Nippur, which you didn't bring up at all) is not the Biblical flood story at all, it is the Epic of Ziusudra, why on earth would there need to be literary dependence between Biblical flood myths and Sumerian flood epics? There cannot be, Sumerian is not a Semitic language, Akkadian is a Semitic language, did you miss the stories of Babylonian Atrahasis or the Akkadian versions as well (these versions predate the Biblical epics as well)? The Bible is obviously off, by a long shot. For example the Bible uses Tevah to describe the Ark, Tevah means to be startled or alarmed, it does not mean Ark at all, go look up Strong's Concordance, or use whatever means you want.

There are differences between the Babylonian deluge and the Sumerian deluge as well between the Akkadian deluge and Sumerian deluge. For example in Sumerian it is "Father Enki" who tells Ziusudra to build an ark, while in Akkadian it is "Ea", this is due to loan language from Sumer. This is changed in Biblical literature.

When you understand this, it is easy to distinguish which God I am referring to when it is written through the context of "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "Elohim" in the Bible could be used either in the singular or plural depending on the context and the linguistic qualifiers that surround it; yet it is spelled the same regardless of the use. These considerations are important, because even though "Elohim" is most often translated as God, it can, for example, also be properly translated in the plural, as gods. Even when the word is translated as "gods," it can either mean inanimate gods, idols, or supernatural spirits, angels or demons - presenting themselves as false gods. Elohim can also mean "divine beings" in general, or even us, as Jesus himself said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:33-34)

Wrong, "God of Abraham"; as I pointed out before Abraham is known as a Moon God in Canaanite literature, and most scholars do not know whether Abraham actually existed. Hence, there is no reasonable conclusion as to who Abraham actually was.

Elohim from the singular El include beliefs from the Ugaritic and Canaanite religions, which will predate the Israelite's considerably. Unless you think that in Ugarit and Canaan El wasn't worshiped?

Elohim can be used as a plural, El is generally singular. You make the assumption that the Israelite's used the term "God", when they clearly did not. Either we will see usage of El or Yahweh in general. I do not know in what context you mean "Elohim" essentially, and neither did the Israelite's.

To further this I provide that, we look at the exegesis of a few biblical passages and some Ugaritic parallels. Many scholars have take Psalm 45:7 as evidence for the royal theology of the king as “divine”

(’eˇlo¯hıˆm): kis’aˇka¯ ’eˇlo¯hıˆm ‘oˆla¯m wa¯‘ed,

“your throne, O divine one, (is) forever and ever.”

The versions generally render the syntax in this manner. Such ambiguity may be as old as the text, and the interpretation of ’eˇlo¯hıˆm as God perhaps contributed to the survival of such an otherwise bald biblical reference to the king’s divinity.

The “muted reflex” of the notion in Zechariah 12:8 reflects, however, the background of a “high” royal theology, which applied ’eˇlo¯hıˆm to the monarch. The description of the king as ’eˇlo¯him in Ezekiel 28:14 may represent a polemic against this notion of the monarchy.

Furthering this we can compare 2 Samuel 14:17, 20, where David’s ability to judge makes him keˇmal’ak ha¯’eˇlo¯hıˆm, “like the angel of God.”






The rest of your post is found to be wanting, and displays a pseudo understanding of historical accuracy and biblical context. You can bring up Bible verses if you want, but expect to be called out on it if you cherry pick verses to suit a pattern to fit an assumption. Without any context, one could spend a lifetime going into an endless kaleidoscope of metaphysical musings from a verse or two.

Please do point out where it is "wanting" and please do show where it is a "pseudo" understanding. Please let's not be vague.

My point can be divided into three points, and are best considered on why using linguistic similarities as grounds of borrowing for structuring belief systems is a flawed approach:

1. Lack of textual substance (biblical and non-biblical) that reflect commonality between God and the other gods.
2. Lack of linguistic and literary dependence.
3. The adaption of etymology in Mesopotamia as confirmation of the Israelites cultural and religious dependency is a non sequitur.
No one is using linguistic similarities, you make the assumption that it was the epic of Gilgamesh and then the Biblical epic. Incorrect, first off it is "Bilgamesh" in Sumerian and "Gilgamesh" in Akkadian, Babylonian, so by literary and linguistic dependence I do not know what you are talking about????

The Israelite's originally arrive out of the land of Canaan, which both spoke Canaanite language. In fact modern day Hebrew is the only defunct Canaanite language in existence, go research it. It's developed via Phoenician.

There is no "adaption of etymology", it is an adoption of language and creation of a new language, from Sumerian (a language isolate) to Semitic. Etymologies at the time are not well understood.

And by the term "God" I have no idea what you mean.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Your version:
250) If an ox gores a man while passing through the street and kills (him), that case has no claim.

Another version:
250) If while an ox is passing on the street (market) some one push it, and kill it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit (against the hirer).
Source: Law Code of Hammurabi

There seems to a discrepancy here having just looked into it, and the translation is alarmingly substandard? From an ox goring a man to someone killing an ox are obviously different situations. Perhaps you misquoted the verse in the Code of Hammurabi?

Before I embarrass you, you might want to reconsider what you have posted.

Go look at your website, you quoted the Babylonian Laws of Hammurabi.

Law Code of Hammurabi

BABYLONIAN LAW--The Code of Hammurabi
That is heading of your website that you quoted, also the website provides:

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness"

This is totally incorrect, Anu is generally An in Babylonian. Anu is not "king of the Anunaki", it is a reference for children. The proper term is Anuna (An) meaning Sky God and (Una) from a Sumerian derivative are a collection of Gods or children. The only proper term I see is Bel (/ˈbeɪl/; from Akkadian bēlu), signifying "lord" or "master", but stems from Akkadian. Marduk is a Babylonian God, Ea is not a Babylonian God, Ea is the term for Enki in Akkadian, but is adopted in Babylon as a separate God than Ea in Akkadian.

Obviously the researcher you saw watched ancient aliens at best and got the ideas from there.

One thing your research fails to indicate that the Ur-Nammu code predated the Hammurabi code.

Also, there are various versions of Hammurabi floating around Mesopotamia at the time. I refer to David P Wright an expert in the subject matter of this.

https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Gods-Law-Covenant-Hammurabi/dp/0199974950

One time period that David P Wright is using is the Neo-Assyrian period, from 911 BC to 612 B.C.

The time for this textual borrowing was most likely during the Neo-Assyrian period, specifically sometime between 740 and 640 BCE, when Mesopotamia exerted strong and relatively continuous political control and cultural sway over the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and a time when the Laws of Hammurabi were actively copied in Mesopotamia as a literary-canonical text.

Also, David P Wright uses the Akkadian versions as well, which predate Babylonian history.

The biblical text imitated the structure of this Akkadian text and drew upon its content to create the central casuistic laws of Exodus 21:2–22:19, as well as the outer sections of apodictic law in Exodus 20:23–26 (along with the introduction of 21:1) and 22:20–23:19.2 This primary use of the Laws of Hammurabi was supplemented with the occasional use of material from other cuneiform law collections and from native Israelite-Judean sources and traditions.

Which I do not see your author doing, the author you cite only uses Babylonian. This is fine, but it doesn't do much justice other than showing the Hammurabi code.

The author you cite is using codes from about 1780 B.C., which is not the only copy, subsequently David P Wright is focusing on Canonical interextualism between Hammurabi Codes and Canonical Codes that include caustic and apoditic laws as well.
 
Upvote 0

GenemZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
22,139
1,372
73
Atlanta
✟75,540.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As I stated numerous times before, there is a difference between linguistic similarities and linguistic dependence where you have made the sweeping assumption that they are the same --- unfortunately for you, they are not. You brought up literature of cultures that predate the Pentateuch, something I assume you fancy yourself as an expert on.


Atheist (the bookworm types) will seek knowledge that most people find as not necessary. It is a ploy to place themselves in an area of appearing to have superior knowledge and expertise. Often times it does not even apply to what they claim, but would take you three years of study to show them that factor.

Its just not worth it to study all that empty knowledge unless you too are a bookworm. Its like a heroin addict bragging about all the knowledge they have (that most people would not want to be bothered with) in order to show they are really smarter than you think they are.

There is worldly knowledge to be found everywhere.... But, knowledge that has life, is hard to find.

Biblical scholars do study those ancient pagan writings in order to gain insight into word usage by the ancients. But, the knowledge itself is only revealing how ignorant, illiterate, pagans set up a system (under the guiding power of demons) to establish what were often times nothing more than brutal and harsh religions designed to keep the pagans from seeking and finding God.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
There’s rather a lot to address - you seem to assuming similarity in expression is a marker of something definite rather than suggestive. What sources are you relying on? What do you think of David Rosenberg’s work? Or Harriet Crawford’s?

There is definitely cross pollination between each culture in Mesopotamia, as Mesopotamia at the time is where history begins and migrations en masse happen.

Not sure who David Rosenberg is, understand there are many researchers, also Harriet Crawford I think has some papers on the Academia website, but I can't tell from not really looking into in depth by her.

This is only some of reference material I suggest (I have all of these on PDF):

https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Gods-Law-Covenant-Hammurabi/dp/0199974950
https://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Image-Likeness-Monotheism/dp/9004129804
https://www.amazon.com/History-Biblical-Israel-Problems-Culture/dp/9004120092
https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Bibl...r=1-1&keywords=origins+of+biblical+monotheism
https://www.amazon.com/Sumerians-Hi...1520628082&sr=1-1&keywords=samuel+noah+kramer
https://www.amazon.com/Adam-Satan-K...d=1520628116&sr=1-1&keywords=hector+m+patmore
https://www.amazon.com/Jealous-Gods...d=1520628155&sr=1-2&keywords=jealous+gods+and
https://www.amazon.com/Religious-Te...1&sr=1-1&keywords=religious+texts+from+ugarit
https://www.amazon.com/Yahweh-Godde...s=yahweh+and+the+gods+and+goddesses+of+canaan
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Ok, I think maybe that explains the (what I think is - sorry but it looks that way to me) lack of rigour in your posts. Harriet Crawford is a leading expert on Mesopotamia, and David Rosenberg has done groundbreaking work on interpretations of Sumerian and later Babylonian religious and literary traditions, particularly in relation to Abraham and the birth of the Israelite nation. Making yourself familiar with their work might give some shape and context to your own ideas.
 
Upvote 0

Abraxos

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.
Jan 12, 2016
1,116
599
123
New Zealand
✟69,315.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Atheist (the bookworm types) will seek knowledge that most people find as not necessary. It is a ploy to place themselves in an area of appearing to have superior knowledge and expertise. Often times it does not even apply to what they claim, but would take you three years of study to show them that factor.

Its just not worth it to study all that empty knowledge unless you too are a bookworm. Its like a heroin addict bragging about all the knowledge they have (that most people would not want to be bothered with) in order to show they are really smarter than you think they are.

There is worldly knowledge to be found everywhere.... But, knowledge that has life, is hard to find.

Biblical scholars do study those ancient pagan writings in order to gain insight into word usage by the ancients. But, the knowledge itself is only revealing how ignorant, illiterate, pagans set up a system (under the guiding power of demons) to establish what were often times nothing more than brutal and harsh religions designed to keep the pagans from seeking and finding God.
I wouldn't worry about atheists, for the most part they are harmless.

And yes, I am an avid reader of history. But thank you for your insight.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Ok, I think maybe that explains the (what I think is - sorry but it looks that way to me) lack of rigour in your posts. Harriet Crawford is a leading expert on Mesopotamia, and David Rosenberg has done groundbreaking work on interpretations of Sumerian and later Babylonian religious and literary traditions, particularly in relation to Abraham and the birth of the Israelite nation. Making yourself familiar with their work might give some shape and context to your own ideas.
I do not know what you mean by lack of rigor, most of my postings are quite long it depends on whom I am posting to and what the subject is.

Unless David Rosenberg is a Sumerian linguistics expert then I would doubt it. One telling sign is that you propose that an Abraham actually existed. Most scholars agree he didn't. Irving Finkel is the curator at the British museum and reads and interprets Sumerian.

I can look at their work but unless new cuneiform had been translated or biblical myths have shown to be independent of older texts then there isn't much they will provide.

A poor assumption is that Abraham existed, even the name itself is just a common stock West Semite name and the name is equated with Canaan and Ugaritic cultic practices.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do not know what you mean by lack of rigor, most of my postings are quite long it depends on whom I am posting to and what the subject is.

Unless David Rosenberg is a Sumerian linguistics expert then I would doubt it. One telling sign is that you propose that an Abraham actually existed. Most scholars agree he didn't. Irving Finkel is the curator at the British museum and reads and interprets Sumerian.

I can look at their work but unless new cuneiform had been translated or biblical myths have shown to be independent of older texts then there isn't much they will provide.

A poor assumption is that Abraham existed, even the name itself is just a common stock West Semite name and the name is equated with Canaan and Ugaritic cultic practices.

What I mean by lack of rigour is that it appears you are simply regurgitating wholesale other people’s ideas without any process of criticism or comparison, or none that is evident in your posts at any rate. Harriet Crawford’s work Sumer and the Sumerians is one of the most up to date, but if you really want to focus on the relation between the OT and Sumerian literature & mythology then you need to read David Rosenberg also. Remember you aren’t theorising about a static subject where everything is agreed on, as much as you might think that is the case.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
What I mean by lack of rigour is that it appears you are simply regurgitating wholesale other people’s ideas without any process of criticism or comparison, or none that is evident in your posts at any rate.

You mean...rigor...keep in mind I have these books on PDF. I have read through most of them, there are more than 100 dealing with ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical criticisms by experts. So regurgitation is only necessary once I have read through the criticisms and alternate possibilities.

One author I have is a Christian theologian, he makes claim that Yahweh is different than the other Gods in Mesopotamia. As Yahweh does not require anything from the ancient Israelite's nor does Yahweh rely on anything from the Ancient Israelite's.

I disagree; oft in the Biblical passages Yahweh will require blood sacrifice, as well Yahweh stems from Canaan so it makes sense that he would require blood sacrifice.

Harriet Crawford’s work Sumer and the Sumerians is one of the most up to date, but if you really want to focus on the relation between the OT and Sumerian literature & mythology then you need to read David Rosenberg also.

I will look at her work on Academia, but do you realize just how many Assyriologists, Archaeologist, Anthropologist, etc... take on these works?

Please reference David Rosenberg I was unable to find him.


Remember you aren’t theorising about a static subject where everything is agreed on, as much as you might think that is the case.

Most of the works I have also offer counter arguments to claims made and then another counter argument is made and so on.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You mean...rigor...keep in mind I have these books on PDF. I have read through most of them, there are more than 100 dealing with ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical criticisms by experts. So regurgitation is only necessary once I have read through the criticisms and alternate possibilities.

One author I have is a Christian theologian, he makes claim that Yahweh is different than the other Gods in Mesopotamia. As Yahweh does not require anything from the ancient Israelite's nor does Yahweh rely on anything from the Ancient Israelite's.

I disagree; oft in the Biblical passages Yahweh will require blood sacrifice, as well Yahweh stems from Canaan so it makes sense that he would require blood sacrifice.



I will look at her work on Academia, but do you realize just how many Assyriologists, Archaeologist, Anthropologist, etc... take on these works?

Please reference David Rosenberg I was unable to find him.




Most of the works I have also offer counter arguments to claims made and then another counter argument is made and so on.

Rigour = UK spelling. Rosenberg’s book is Abraham - the first historical biography.
God’s relationship to Israel is a lot more complicated than did he/didn’t he type of questions. In my opinion you’d get more response to your posts if you narrow it down a bit, focus on one issue at a time. You appear to be skimming over a lot of things without really addressing them very thoroughly.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Rigour = UK spelling.
Got it

Rosenberg’s book is Abraham - the first historical biography.

I found the book on Amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Abraham-The-First-Historical-Biography/dp/B002PJ86NC

and right off the bat, I have an issue. Per the synopsis:

"In his monumental new book, David Rosenberg provides a long-overdue history of the patriarch; while revealing that the original story embedded in the Bible is actually our oldest historical biography."

Abraham is generally only cited as a Patriarch due to Canaan, at one time the patriarchs were interpreted as local Canaanite deities (LUTHER 1901; MEYER 1906, cf. WEIDMANN 1968: 89·94) or in terms of astral myth (GoLDZIHER 1876:109-110, 122, 182-183: JEREMIAS 1906), particularly Abraham. since he was; associated with centres of the Mesopotamian -moon cult (Ur and -Haran). -Sarah was equated with the moon-goddess and Abraham's father -Terah with the moon (= Yerah). Though in biblical tradition, there are allusions to the ancient cults of Abraham's place of origin (Josh 24:2), mythological interpretation of the Abraham cycle plays no role in recent discussion. Still, the religio-historical role of father Abraham as the most venerated ancestor and
saint of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Man 3:9; 8:6, Luke 16:22-23; John 8:39 etc.; Str-B I 116-121; III 186-201; JEREMIAS 1958; BUSSE 1988:81-92) and his mythic image as -Rock, i.e. begetter, (Isa 51:1) is of interest. This latter veneration of 'Father Abraham' may derive from an early Israelite, viz. Canaanite ancestral cult of Abraham at Machpelah (~Cybcle) (WEIDMANN 1968: 27-30; LoRETZ 1978:192).

I suggest

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham

which dismantels the patriarchal narratives.

Tracing the origins of Abraham within the complicated traditions of the Pentateuch is extremely difficult. Pentateuchal traditions picture Abraham as the founder of a number of cult-places (Shechem -Thukamuna, Gen 12:6-7: -·Bethel, Oen 12:8: 13:3-4: Mamre, Gen 13:18; Beersheba, Gen 21 :23: Moriah I Jerusalem?, Gen 22:2; I Chron 3:1): he came either from Ur or from Haran in Mesopotamia (Gen II :27-32; 15:7): his pastoral and sedentary life is mainly concentrated in the environment of the· Negev (Beersheba, E) and/or Hebron (Mamre, JP) and he was buried in the cave of Machpelah (Gen 23: 1-20, JP; 25:1-7, Pl.)

Also, relying on Biblical narratives makes a biography even more difficult when extra Biblical literature is lacking.

I will look at the other researcher.






God’s relationship to Israel is a lot more complicated than did he/didn’t he type of questions. In my opinion you’d get more response to your posts if you narrow it down a bit, focus on one issue at a time. You appear to be skimming over a lot of things without really addressing them very thoroughly.

Not sure what you mean by God, it's either Yahweh or El. Either way, both are extended originally from Canaan, leading to the birthplace of the Israelite's. I don't think a "did he or didn't he" question is being asked, the Christian makes an assertion that the Judeo-Christian God was separate of all other Gods in Mesopotamia, this simply isn't true. We see a divine relationship between Ziusudra and Enki in the Sumerian Nipput tablet concerning the deluge of 5500 BC, much later about 2360 BC we see a divine relationship between the Judeo-Christian God and Noah. The writ of the Noah epic is much younger than the Sumerian version, and both show a divine relationship between God and mankind. Also, the Noah epic for example incorporates unknown language into its text, such as Tevah, as God tells Noah to build an Ark (Tevah), the word Tevah doesn't mean Ark at all, I suggest a look up in Strong's Concordance.

I would like to know that when I am responding to someone and I answer them how I am skimming over a lot of issues?
 
Upvote 0

Abraxos

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.
Jan 12, 2016
1,116
599
123
New Zealand
✟69,315.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
@ShamashUruk

Okay, when I refer to literary dependence (which I thought was quite clear), it means that a direct form of literary influence used to structure biblical narratives are unfounded. The reason is the distinctive features of Noah's Flood which I used as an example are too plentiful to allow such an affirmation that it borrowed from the Gilgamesh Epic (or any respective flood narratives). All you could really say is that the biblical flood story could have been structured around pre-existing oral traditions.

Again, it is a non sequitur to use similar usage of words as the definitive assertion of borrowing cultural aspects in regards to a belief in a God. And again, context will provide you to which God you are having difficulty identifying. I'd suggest you re-read my initial post, as you tend to consistently drown yourself out with your accepted conception of God to appease your mind, rather than directly address opposing views other than, "I just don't understand." Also, look into the Hebrew Bible where it uses the original Hebraic renderings of God, hence Elohim.

PS - Yeah, try not to go galloping around from one point to another, as atheists call a gish gallop. A charming term, but nonetheless an accurate observation on how not to conduct an argument. A person well-versed in these types of debates will recognize the fallacious attempts of persuasion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Okay, when I refer to literary dependence (which I thought was quite clear), it means that a direct form of literary influence used to structure biblical narratives are unfounded. The reason is the distinctive features of Noah's Flood which I used as an example are too plentiful to allow such an affirmation that it borrowed from the Gilgamesh Epic (or any respective flood narratives). All you could really say is that the biblical flood story could have been structured around pre-existing oral traditions.

You obviously didn't read my posting or just came up with some unfounded conclusion, which is lacking.

From Sumerian to Akkadian the literary dependence as you put it is not directly there either, yet the Akkadian's develop Semitic tongue from Sumerian literary, what is your point?

I could not conclude that the Biblical epics of the flood are based on oral traditions at all, as Cuneiform was read and existed previously.

You keep referencing the epic of Gilgamesh and I really do not know why, the Nippur tablet is most likely independent of Gilgamesh.

You obviously have zero knowledge in this area.

The Israelite's are not the first worshipers of El or Yahweh on the scene, they only adopt Yahweh in El and in origin they are from Canaan, so it would make sense that El or Yahweh are referred to. Or did you think that the Israelite's came before the Sumerians? Babylon will exist before the Israelite's, Akkadian's will exist before the Babylonian's, and the Sumerian's will exist long before all of them do. They adopt literature into each culture, Cuneiform is obviously the first writings, the writings of the Bible BTW are on Parchment, and do not predate Cuneiform.

Do you even know any of this? Or am I engaging with a lay person? By your research you posted from some website it seems that is the case here. This is totally dishonest and the research is lacking on your end.



Again, it is a non sequitur to use similar usage of words as the definitive assertion of borrowing cultural aspects in regards to a belief in a God. And again, context will provide you to which God you are having difficulty identifying. I'd suggest you re-read my initial post, as you tend to consistently drown yourself out with your accepted conception of God to appease your mind, rather than directly address opposing views other than, "I just don't understand." Also, look into the Hebrew Bible where it uses the original Hebraic renderings of God, hence Elohim.


Firstly, you realize that the term non sequitur means (a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from a previous argument or statement); hence, you are telling me it is a conclusion that doesn't logically follow from a previous argument or statement concerning the usage of words as the definitive assertion of borrowing cultural aspects in regards to a belief in a God. This statement makes no sense, because we see loan words in Akkadian language from Sumerian, what on earth do you mean?

I have no issue with context, obviously in Sumer An means Sky God, in Akkadian Anu means Sky God, in Canaan El Elyon is a special title for God of the most high, El is the chief God, and Yahweh is adopted as the Israelite God. The title "God" is a nominal term and is applied to all religious beliefs. Elohim is a plural term, generally, it can be used in the singular, all Elohim is, is a plural noun; however, no matter how it is used or spelled as you candidly put, there is no ambiguity between its usage in Canaan and with the later Israelite's.



PS - Yeah, try not to go galloping around from one point to another, as atheists call a gish gallop. A charming term, but nonetheless an accurate observation on how not to conduct an argument. A person well-versed in these types of debates will recognize the fallacious attempts of persuasion.

I would like to know where I am "galloping" around at, and from which point to which point?

You never answered on Gilgamesh, you just seem to skip over what I post and answer me out of context, this is dishonest.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Pretty much everything you write is gish gallop.

Essentially you make little sense, what is your point?

You made an erroneous assumption concerning literary dependence, literary dependence is actually how the Biblical texts relate to each other, this has to do with for example how the gospels relate to each other. The term you use for literary dependence has little to do with Mesopotamia. I already stated Akkad borrows the language from Sumer to espouse the Semitic mother tongue. The Israelite's speak a Semitic based tongue, but they come out of Canaan. Your own Bible will point to their beginnings.

Either you are thoroughly confused or you haven't researched, this is evident in your postings.

You make the assumption that context provides which God is being discussed. When it is not, their is no ambiguity between the Israelite's and the Canaanite's, this is an issue when discussing cultural adaptations from culture to culture. Anu in Akkad is an amalgamation of An from Sumer, in context the God of Akkad is the same God in Sumer; similarly Yahweh and El are amalgamations of those Gods seen in Canaan, because they are the Gods in Canaan, yet you seem to think that the Israelite's are pre Canaan and that the Israelite's are independent of the Canaanite's from their origins, this is simply not true, your dishonesty is constantly being observed.

Also, I guarantee you haven't read my postings, otherwise your responses would be in depth, they are simple paragraphs that attempt to undermine research that you have failed yourself to conduct.
 
Upvote 0