# Gish gallop 1:
You were provided an example of the meaning of literary dependency through the Gilgamesh Epic and Noah's Flood. Literary dependency is a form of textual analysis regardless of what literature is being analysed and compared to; Mesopotamian literature is no exception.
Which Gilgamesh epic???? You keep missing the point, in Sumer it is called Bilgamesh, not Gilgamesh at all.
The epics are different, there is an "evolution" of the epics of Gilgamesh. Also, the tablet in Nippur doesn't really concern Gilgamesh at all.
That is like me telling you that the there is a king in the Bible, and that the king in the Bible between another King "there is or there is no" literary dependence, it's vague, that is my point. There is a process and evolution if you will of Gilgamesh, have you read any of the epics of Gilgamesh? The better usage would be Atrahasis as compared to Noah.
Another example, the Bible has a flood epic in it, the tablets of Gilgamesh have a flood in them, however, those Cuneiform and Bible only contain the epics. There are over 300 flood epics on top of that.
When you talk about literary dependency or an original relationship between texts, you are being vague. Bilgamesh is Sumerian, Gilgamesh is Babylonian and Akkadian.
The Noah myth is an amalgamation of those earlier Semitic and Non Semitic epics of the deluge, that is the heart of the issue.
# Gish gallop 2:
No one here mentioned about literary dependency of the Bible being related to itself. And the Gospels are not literary dependent on each other but describe an aspect of events that are complementary to each other about the events described.
You contradict yourself, whereas literary dependence means the relationship between the texts, and then you state that they are not literary dependent but complementary. The only way one text can complement another text is if literary dependence is involved in some fashion.
# Gish gallop 3:
The Bible doesn't point to the Israelites coming out of Canaan. It points to Abraham as the beginning of the Israelites who came out from Ur of the Chaldeans. Debatable despite some more weightier claims about Ur Kaśdim.
Ur is a Sumerian city, it isn't until much later it is called Chaldean due to the land known as Mesopotamia, this is when the Semitic language is abundant in Mesopotamia, also the Chaldeans inhabit Ur, but this is much later on.
Abraham comes out of Ur and travels to Canaan, he doesn't take Israelite's to Canaan with him as you suggest.
Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Lot, Haran, Sarai, are not at all Israelite.
Also, Abraham is an Akkadian name, not Sumerian. Akkad will have already been in Ur long before the Chaldean's get to Ur.
Abraham is presented in the Bible as having come from Mesopotamia. The descendants of Abraham spent centuries in Egypt and then came to dwell in the midst of a Canaanite civilization. The language spoken by the Israelite's is historically related to the languages of the Semitic world around them. Copies of ancient Near Eastern literature have been discovered in the excavations of Israelite cities. It is profitable to compare the Israelite's to the peoples living around them. The historical and linguistic connections are undeniable, and the Israelite's' awareness of the cultures and literature of the ancient Near East is demonstrable from the biblical record as well as from the archaeological data.
Israel, while being one of the first monotheistic group that gave them a theological beginning, reflected in many ways the culture of the ancient Near East. Such a reflection implies that Israelite thinking cannot be understood in isolation from its ancient Near Eastern cultural context. The similarities that exist can be very instructive and should not be ignored. The ancient Near Eastern literature should and can instruct us about the common world view of biblical times. Israel at times conformed to that worldview and at times departed from it.
# Gish gallop 4:
Linguistic similarities is not confirmation of borrowing from other beliefs. The lack of textual context and traditional practice of the Israelites (levitical law and the 7 feasts of the Lord, etc) in comparison to the Canaanites rituals display a non sequitur.
Linguistics shows a few things about a culture, their native tongue, religion, legal codex, etc... Israelite's are not so seperated from the Canaanite's, check out the archaeological discoveries made concerning the Canaanite's.
Even more so, Phoenician city-states were important for the preservation of second-millennium traditions into the first millennium, and were perhaps the least affected by the events of 1200. Other states inland also have adhered to Canaanite traditions. In Israel and Judah the language, Hebrew, was similar to what was spoken in the region in the second millennium. Gods, myths, and cultic practices attested in the Ugaritic texts, for example, found their way into the Biblical account, because in certain localities they survived into the first millennium. The two kingdoms of Israel and of Judah had separate, yet closely related, histories. These are always reconstructed on the basis of the Hebrew Bible, another reason why your literary dependency fails.
For example, and I assume, because your sentence makes no sense. That the levitical laws and 7 day feasts of the Lord are not seen in Canaan.
Law collections in the Bible indicate that law texts are programmatic and idealistic. This is true of the Holiness Legislation, whose utopianism is especially evident in its sabbatical year and jubilee legislation in Leviticus 25.
Another example:
The replacement of the statue with the altar also operates latently in the festival laws at the end of the final apodictic laws (23:14–19). The wronged-man passage, which influenced this passage, identifies Hammurabi’s statue as the object of judicial pilgrimage: “May a wronged man who has a case come before the statue of me (ana ma'ar almīya), the king of justice” (col. 48:3–8). CC Law's twice similarly describes people appearing before (or seeing) Yahweh: “they shall not appear before me [emended: see my face] empty handed” (23:15); “three times a year each of your males shall appear before [emended: see the face of] the Lord, Yahweh” (23:17). Festival attendance would take place in the sanctuary court area, whose ceremonial focus would be the altar. The requirement not to appear before Yahweh empty-handed at the Feast of Unleavened Bread (23:15) is a requirement to bring sacrifices and offerings; animal sacrifices would be offered at the altar. The other cultic rules in 23:18–19, as well as in 22:28–29 (the verses parallel to the festival laws in the
dual string structure of the final apodictic laws), indicate that a main activity associated with pilgrimage to the sanctuary would be sacrifice (see further in this chapter on the theme of cult).
Hence, we see the Israelite's engaging in a whole host of Cultic practices,
Another example:
In addition in Leviticus 16 when Aaron smears the blood for the Hattat rituals, there is a dispatching of the goat to the wilderness for Azazel. This is comparable to earlier mesoportamian rituals whose operations include dispatching an animal to the wilderness for expiation rites, the same expiation rites that occur in Leviticus.
Expiation rituals are commonplace in earlier Sumerian life and are reflected much later in Leviticus.
# Gish gallop 5:
Yes, context provides which God is being discussed. Refer to post #338, again.
God is a nominal noun, it is used in every single culture and has differing inferences for its usage. You could state the Judeo-Christian God, however, that is a much later adaptation. The proper terms will either be Yahweh or El, but I understand those to be Canaanite deities.
You earlier attempted to tackle the issue of El, but there is a cosmic relationshion between El and Yahweh, before that we should focus on the name "El", as that is the name of the god El and is the same as the word for “god” in many West Semitic languages. This fact might be taken as evidence that as head of the West Semitic pantheon, El was regarded as the pre-eminent god (or, perhaps, divinity “incarnate”). The best guess for the etymology of both the word “god” and the name of El has been *’y/wl, “to be strong,” but other proposals have been made. The noun may be a “primitive” biradical form meaning “chief” or “god.” The name of El occurs clearly first in personal names attested at Ebla, and then Mari and Amarna. In contrast, the evidence in other Mesopotamian personal names is contested. These cases may involve the generic term “god,” not the proper name of El. Because of the lack of evidence for El’s cult in Mesopotamia, the second view may be preferable. The most extensive Bronze Age source about El comes from Ugarit. The texts there attest to the word ’il over five hundred times, in its generic use, in the name of the god, or in proper names. In the Ugaritic mythological narratives, El appears as the divine patriarch par excellence. His role as ’ab, “father,” applies to the pantheon that is his royal family. The deities are generically referred to as dr ’il, literally “the circle of El,” but perhaps better translated, “El’s family” (CAT 1.15 III 19). Athirat is El’s elderly wife with whom he has produced the pantheon, generically (but not all inclusively) referred to as “Athirat’s seventy sons.” As divine progenitor, El is sometimes called ’il yknnh, “El who created him/her.” As the divine patriarchal authority, El oversees the actions of the pantheon, presented as a royal assembly in 1.2 I. He issues decisions and exercises authority over the other deities, including Athirat, Baal, and Anat. His authority is expressed in his title, “king” (mlk). The same notion seems to underlie his epithet, “bull” (tr): like the chief and most powerful of animals, El is the chief of the deities. His fatherly disposition toward his family is captured in his larger appellation, “Kind El, the Compassionate” (ltfipn ’il dp’id).
Both texts and iconography present El as an elderly bearded figure, enthroned sometimes before individual deities (CAT 1.3 V; 1.4 IV–V), sometimes before the divine council (CAT 1.2 I). In 1.10 III 6 he is called drd'r, “ageless one.” His advanced age is apparently expressed also in his title, ’ab sˇnm, “father of years,” although the meaning of the second word is debated. In 1.4 V 3–4 Athirat addresses El: “You are great, O El, and indeed, wise; your hoary beard instructs you” (rbt ’ilm lhfikmt sˇbt dqnk ltsrk). In 1.3 V and 1.4 V, Anat and Athirat both affirm the eternity of El’s wisdom. Anat’s threats in 1.3 V 24–25 and 1.18 I 11–12 likewise mention El’s gray beard. El’s great age is suggested by the royal blessing at the end of 1.108.27, asking that the king’s rule last “in the midst of Ugarit, for the days of the sun and moon, and the pleasant years of El.”
El and Yahweh are rendered with a similar compassionate disposition toward humanity. Like El, Yahweh is a father (Deuteronomy 32:6; Isaiah 63:16, 64:7; Jeremiah 3:4, 19; 31:9; Malachi 1:6, 2:10; cf. Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1) with a compassionate disposition, many times expressed as “merciful and gracious god,” ’e¯l-ra¯hfiuˆm weˇhfiannuˆn (Exodus 34:6; Jonah 4:2; Joel 2:13; Psalms 86:15; 103:8; 145: 8; Nehemiah 9:17). Both El and Yahweh appear to humans in dream-visions and function as their divine patron. Like El (CAT 1.16 V–VI), Yahweh is a healing god (Genesis 20:17; Numbers 12:13; 2 Kings 20:5, 8; Psalm 107:20; cf. the personal name, reˇpa¯’e¯l, in 1 Chronicles 26:7). Moreover, the description of Yahweh’s dwelling-place as a “tent” (’o¯hel) (e.g., Psalms 15:1; 27:6; 91:10; 132:3), called in the Pentateuchal traditions the “tent of meeting” (’ohel moˆ‘e¯d) (Exodus 33:7–11; Numbers 12:5, 10; Deuteronomy 31:14, 15), recalls the tent of El. The tabernacle of Yahweh has qeˇra¯sˇıˆm, usually understood as “boards” (Exodus 26–40); Numbers 3:36; 4:31), whereas the dwelling of El is called qrsˇ, perhaps “tabernacle” or “pavilion” (CAT 1.2 III 5; 1.3 V 8; 1.4 IV 24; 1.17 V 49). Furthermore, the dwelling of El is set amid the cosmic waters (CAT 1.2 III 4; 1.3 V 6; 1.4 IV 20–22; 1.17 V 47–48), a theme evoked in descriptions of Yahweh’s abode in Jerusalem (Psalms 47:5; 87; Isaiah 33:20–22; Ezekiel 47:1–12; Joel 4:18; Zechariah 14:8). Other passages include motifs that can be traced to traditional descriptions of El (Deuteronomy 32:6–7). The eventual identification of Yahweh and El within Israel perhaps held ramifications for the continuation of other deities as well. It has been argued that Asherah became the consort of Yahweh as a result of his identification with El. The history of astral deities in ancient Israel may have been affected by the identification of El and Yahweh. Perhaps originally associated with El, they became part of the divine assembly subordinate to Yahweh.
I assert that it is a reasonable hypothesis because of one basic piece of information: the name of Israel contains not the divine element of Yahweh but El’s name, with the element *’e¯l. If Yahweh had been the original god of Israel, then its name might have been *yis´raˆ-yahweh, or perhaps better *yis´raˆ-ya¯h in accordance with other Hebrew proper names containing the divine name. This fact would suggest that El (the Canaanite deity) not Yahweh was the original chief god of the group named Israel as well in Canaan earlier.
# Gish gallop 6:
There is no commonality between the Israelites and the Canaanites. The Israelites separated themselves from the cultural aspects of the Canaanites, and this is seen throughout Scripture and history.
Separation doesn't mean in anyway "no commonality" go look up the Hebraic language, it is in origin Canaan and develops through Phoenician.
In Biblical mythologies we see the Israelite's separating into Monotheism and departing from Polytheism, originally they are polytheistic.
# Gish gallop 7:
Again, linguistic similarities isn't confirmation of borrowing of religious beliefs.
Linguistic similarities are prevalent in Mesopotamia, there isn't really any other base language but Semitic tongue as it is the majority language.
Cross pollination via cultural adaptation happens in these cultures, didn't you read that in my earlier postings?
You miss other particulars such as legal codex, rituals, expiation rites, etc...
# Gish gallop 8:
The only way to really refute an opposing view is to thoroughly understand their position and break it down to it's essence. I found your essence of your arguments to be based around what was written first historically, and the similarities of words used. There would be nothing to gain from this debate if I didn't understand of my opponent's position.
Wrong again, my assertion is that legal codex, expiation rites, exorcisms, marriages, temple life, cultic life, cultural and societal views are adopted from culture to culture (i.e. cross pollination). Not just linguistics.
I don't see you as my opponent, I see you as having deficiencies, maybe this is why you are a Christian and it fits you well.
...... 
