Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Quid est Veritas?" data-source="post: 71542064" data-attributes="member: 385144"><p>Hammurabi is Babylonian, not Sumerian, and dates from 1800 BC roughly. There are no late codes of Hammurabi extent for Biblical origins to be dependant thereon except by roundabout derivation. Please keep your periods and peoples straight, as else it becomes confusing: Old Sumerians, Gutians, Neo-Sumerian, Akkadian, Old Babylonian, Kassite, Neo-Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, to be precise; if we ignore regional subdivisions like late, middle, and neo-Assyrian, etc.</p><p></p><p>What this shows is cultural affinity, something we are well aware of. Even the Bible says this, as Abraham is from Ur. Direct derivation need not be implied. European law codes are similarly phrased without being based on one another. There is a preamble, the law, then exceptions. I would expect nothing less. </p><p>Also, one or two laws do not equal a complete derivation. It might be a later interpolation or redaction as much as an original component. Especcially taking the Captivity into account, this would be equally as likely. I don't really follow why such a highly suppositional line of inquiry is being pursued? For it is frankly not provable and inevitably remain conjectural and does not really shed light on Israelite culture much, sering that such influence is openly acknowledged by all, even the Bible itself.</p><p></p><p>The development of the Sin concept remained alien to East Semitic peoples right through to the end of their religion in the 10th century at Harran. So any way you slice it, that would not be a East Semitic concept, and certainly not Sumerian.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Quid est Veritas?, post: 71542064, member: 385144"] Hammurabi is Babylonian, not Sumerian, and dates from 1800 BC roughly. There are no late codes of Hammurabi extent for Biblical origins to be dependant thereon except by roundabout derivation. Please keep your periods and peoples straight, as else it becomes confusing: Old Sumerians, Gutians, Neo-Sumerian, Akkadian, Old Babylonian, Kassite, Neo-Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, to be precise; if we ignore regional subdivisions like late, middle, and neo-Assyrian, etc. What this shows is cultural affinity, something we are well aware of. Even the Bible says this, as Abraham is from Ur. Direct derivation need not be implied. European law codes are similarly phrased without being based on one another. There is a preamble, the law, then exceptions. I would expect nothing less. Also, one or two laws do not equal a complete derivation. It might be a later interpolation or redaction as much as an original component. Especcially taking the Captivity into account, this would be equally as likely. I don't really follow why such a highly suppositional line of inquiry is being pursued? For it is frankly not provable and inevitably remain conjectural and does not really shed light on Israelite culture much, sering that such influence is openly acknowledged by all, even the Bible itself. The development of the Sin concept remained alien to East Semitic peoples right through to the end of their religion in the 10th century at Harran. So any way you slice it, that would not be a East Semitic concept, and certainly not Sumerian. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
Top
Bottom