• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The definition of sin

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Nihilist Virus, Nov 30, 2017.

  1. Abraxos

    Abraxos ...

    +529
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Private
    # 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.

    # 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.

    # 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.

    # 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.

    # Gish gallop 5:
    Yes, context provides which God is being discussed. Refer to post #338, again.

    # 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.

    # Gish gallop 7:
    Again, linguistic similarities isn't confirmation of borrowing of religious beliefs.

    # 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.
     
  2. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    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.


    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.



    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...


    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.
     
  3. Abraxos

    Abraxos ...

    +529
    New Zealand
    Christian
    Private
    Word salad.

    You have made many unsupported claims based on half truths with sloppy assertions, all of which have been debunked ad nauseam. I think it's time the etymology of the gish gallop be redefined to "Shamash gallop."
     
  4. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    I have made unsupported claims? Please let's point out how so.

    You haven't debunked one thing I have stated. All you have done is made statements of "not true" or "false", that doesn't debunk, it is just rambling on.

    This makes no sense.

    I am looking to actually debate someone, you clearly are not it.

    A good example is the website you provided me on the Babylonian laws of Hammurabi, which I clearly pointed out discrepancies with.

    Then you attempted to and failed to with apt that there was some kind of issue with the laws of Hammurabi used for Oxen goring laws. Clearly you posted Babylonian Hammurabi copies, while I was posting from Neo-Assyrian, I could have used Akkadian or Babylonian, doesn't change that those laws were copied from culture to culture.

    You fail over and over again, a sign of true Christianity, it fails at it's core, it ignores its origins that perforce out of Polytheism.

    Either actually debate me or stop, you are embarrassing yourself.
     
  5. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The account of the flood was orally handed down by the survivors of the flood. So, it should come as no surprise that those born later would have some sort of account of their own. The difference being, the pagan accounts were demonized distortions of the actual event.
     
  6. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private

    You do realize that the flood epic is in Cuneiform (Clay tablet), at least I hope you do. Oral traditions are generally only thought to be recognized, but more so Cuneiform is recognized. The hint should be that the 10 commandments are etched in tablet form (Cuneiform).

    The Biblical flood epic BTW is thought to be 2359 BC or so, while the Sumerian epic predates about 5500 BC.

    Do you understand the usage of the word "demon" in a historical context? It's origins are in Sumer, for Sumerian exorcism rituals performed.

    Pagan is a derogatory word enacted by Christians in Rome, it is a "hick" or "country bumpkin", I don't understand why Christians use this term and think it means or equates to something else.
     
  7. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Really now?

    The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia that is often regarded as the earliest surviving great work of literature. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about Bilgamesh (Sumerian for "Gilgamesh"), king of Uruk, dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2100 BC)

    Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia
     
  8. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    Notice a few things (and I always have to correct people on this)

    1. You use the noun "Gilgamesh" and is from "ancient Mesopotamia"
    • The proper noun is Bilgamesh which is the Sumerian version
    • Ancient Mesopotamia? Mesopotamia is ancient, it's just now called Iraq. Also Mesopotamia doesn't describe a specific culture (i.e. Israelite's, Sumerian's, Babylonian's, Canaanite's, Hittite's, etc...). Mesopotamia is a land description.
    2. Where in my previous posting "the one you replied to" do I ever use the noun "Gilgamesh" or "Bilgamesh"?????? You are missing the mark here.
    • The Nippur tablet has the first flood epic, and I cannot remember the Archaeologist who founded the tablet. I recommend Irving Finkel however, with the research he does on the tablet, and since you are using wikipedia as your source you might as well use youtube. Luckily for you Irving Finkel posts some of his lectures on the ark before Noah.
    • There is some connection between "Gilgamesh" and the flood deluge, it is famous because an epic of the flood deluge is in one of the Gilgamesh accounts, but it is the epic of Ziusudra that is the mainframe for the epic of the deluge. It's like stating the book of Exodus is it's own Bible, when it is only contained in the Bible. Rather it's a book (Exodus) and not a Bible.

    Just a word of caution when researching Mesopotamian origins, some information is lacking.

    For example: The other day someone brought up the word Nibiru and equated it with "ancient aliens" and a planet, not realizing that the proper term is Nibru and is a transliteration for Nippur. Do you know where Nippur is at? It's in Nuffar, Al-Qādisiyyah Governorate, Iraq, it isn't a planet. And it's not that I have an issue with wikipedia but you really have to read because for example the noun enki:

    Enki (/ˈɛŋki/; Sumerian: dEN.KI(G)) is the Sumerian god of water, knowledge (gestú), mischief, crafts (gašam), and creation(nudimmud). He was later known as Ea in Akkadian and Babylonian mythology.

    The Sumerian term is dEN.KI(G) while the term EA is Akkadian and is seen in Babylonian mythology. Sumerian's are totally different than Akkadian's and Babylonian's are totally different than both Sumerian's and Akkadian's.
     
  9. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    What are we getting at? The flood took place long before God had Moses pen about the flood account. It was not written about mere weeks after the flood.

    The date of writing is only incidental, for Moses by the power of God even gave the creation account that was about the beginning for time of this present creation. Was Moses there?

    Whatever pagan account with similarities you are going to show is not the issue. The flood took place. The pagan account was written by descendants of those who walked off the Ark. That's what matters. It was real. It happened.
     
  10. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    By "God" I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian God specific to Christian mythology. Biblical literature does not provide a timeline of when the flood was written, it would be hard pressed to state when the Biblical deluge was actually written if you are using the Bible exclusively.
    Dates are important to establishing timelines of events, otherwise it's a guess in the dark as to when a flood occurred or was even written. The rest of your statement is just preaching, which I will ignore as that is irrelevant to the topic.
    Pagan is a term coined in Rome by the Christians and is a derogatory term. There is no such word as "pagan" in Sumer or in Mesopotamia. You have an issue with your statement of "the pagan account was written by descendant of those who walked off the Ark", mainly for the fact that Bible is written on Parchment paper, the flood epic of Ziusudra is written on Cuneiform (clay tablet) meaning that it predates Biblical parchment writings. Your claim fails on this basis alone. The Sumerians predate the Israelite's by either 1000 or 2000 years and Cuneiform writing predates Israelite writings by 1000 or 2000 years, meaning the Ark epic was written much earlier and is a Polytheistic writing. Ziusudra means in Sumerian "man of long life", Noah I believe lived 800-900 years or more per the Bible (Noah would have been a man of long life), this is called adoption or cross pollination, the Bible adopted it's epics from the Sumerians.
     
  11. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private

    And, you are being relevant to the topic? :scratch: ...... "The definition of sin"
     
  12. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    Very relevant actually, in the myth of Biblical epics God sends a flood because he is angry with the "sins" of the people. The Bible attempts to incorporate "sin" into the deluge, but this is a misnomer. Sin is already a concept in Sumer, and is dealt with in legal codex and religious writs, the Biblical epics mislead into conceptions of sin being abundant during the epic of Noah. The problem is that this notion fails with the epic of Noah for a few reason:

    1. There is no conclusion that can be made that the epic of Noah is a singular flood deluge irrespective of earlier flood epics is an origin epic, as floods have already happened.
    2. The concept of "sin" was already a Sumerian concept, to "miss the mark" is latinized, while in Sumer it is a personal offense against one's God.
    3. The "sin" of the people offended the Gods and a flood is sent, hence the usage of the term "the noise of the people", this is reflected much later in Biblical mythology.
     
  13. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Define those sins then. Or, take your (apparent) favorite pet topic to start a new thread where it belongs.
     
  14. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    You took one statement of mine and I stated that based on the Bible God sends a flood to destroy humans based on "sin", you totally ignored the earlier epic of Ziusudra and how Enlil sends a flood to destroy mankind due to their sins.

    Either your Biblical epic is correct or mine is correct, but not both.

    Meaning, you would have to prove that the Biblical epic is not a fallacious epic and that it has no basis from earlier cultural adaptations, and you cannot prove that at all, not by any stretch.

    I'm going to make an assumption that you are incapable of holding an actual discussion, thank you for your time but this has to be one of the worst conversations I have ever had on this forum. Preaching gets you nowhere, because I can also preach and make irrelevant statements, but I withhold from doing so, and prefer to compare, but if you can't act like an adult and approach this topic with a logical mind then we have an issue, and by "we" I mean you.
     
  15. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    That does not speak of abortion.... but involves the sin of jealousy of the woman's husband who suspected adultery.

    God performed supernatural acts at that time of history because God was pruning the tree of Israel. Numbers 5 speaks of the same drink for either a guilt or innocent woman. Not an abortion formula. If the woman was innocent? She would remain fertile. If she were committing adultery? She will not be able to carry to term and she would remain barren. Same formula was drank by either innocent or guilty. It was not an abortion drink.

    Back when God first introduced the Law to His chosen people the world was amoral and primitive. Morality as we know it today was an alien concept to the ancients. For God to bring man out of immorality? Immorality which men considered to be normal? God needed to intervene directly.

    In essence, God performed miracles and certain signs as a means to house break "wild dogs" into domesticated men. So, in that matter. No abortion was caused. If guilty a curse on her womb was the result and she would not be able to bear children.

    Over a long period time and many generations God caused the Jews to become conditioned to what we now consider to be sexually moral. Before then, men really had no concept of God's standards.
     
  16. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Were the sins described?

    According to what you said about both accounts? How would they be different?

    Man was committing great evils.. Not simply sins.


    5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great
    on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his
    heart was only evil continually.



    If sins were all it took? God would have destroyed man a long time ago...Men were continuously doing evil, not simply sin.

    The epic of Ziusudra? Does it explain what took place that caused a hybrid half man half angel to be born? (its where the Greek god myths originated from) That was the real reason mankind needed to be destroyed in the flood. For if allowed to continue, the Messiah born of a woman could not have taken place.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
  17. Nihilist Virus

    Nihilist Virus Infectious idea

    +918
    Atheist
    Private
    I realize that no abortion can be performed if a woman is not pregnant. But if she had been committing adultery, and if she was pregnant, then the fetus would be killed. Right? And that's an abortion, by definition. Right?
     
  18. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The baby would have miscarried and it would have been stillborn. No one would have killed the baby if born. It would have been a"act of God," not men.
     
  19. ShamashUruk

    ShamashUruk Hello

    563
    +67
    United States
    Other Religion
    Private
    So a major issue with this statement, "sin" is not an original concept. You seem a simpleton, so I will put in terms you can understand.

    The concept of Sin is stolen and placed into Israelite literature.

    Sin in origin is an offense, it is only later in the Hebrew that it is chata: to miss, go wrong, sin Strong's Hebrew: 2398. חָטָא (chata) -- to miss, go wrong, sin the term wicked seen here Strong's Hebrew: 7563. רָשָׁע (rasha) -- wicked, criminalStrong's Hebrew: 7563. רָשָׁע (rasha) -- wicked, criminal in Strong's Concordance is:

    3) guilty of sin, against either God or man, wicked: האנשׁים הרשׁעים Numbers 16:26 (J, rebellious Korahites), Malachi 3:18 (not serving ׳י), opposed to צַדִּיק; singular individual Ezekiel 3:18 (twice in verse); Ezekiel 21:30; Ezekiel 33:8 (twice in verse); Psalm 11:5; Psalm 32:10; Proverbs 9:7 +; collective Isaiah 3:11; Job 34:18; Job 36:6,17; plural רשׁעים Isaiah 53:9; Jeremiah 23:19 = Jeremiah 30:23, Zephaniah 1:3; Psalm 26:5; Proverbs 10:3; Ecclesiastes 8:10 +; "" חסֹידים 1 Samuel 2:9 (Poem), Psalm 12:9; Psalm 50:16; Psalm 97:10; Psalm 145:20; "" עֹזְבֵי תוֺדָתֶ֑ךָ Psalm 119:53; compare V:61, +; ׳אדם ר Proverbs 11:7; Job 20:29; Job 27:13; ׳אִישׁ ר Proverbs 21:29; ׳מלאך ר Proverbs 13:17; זֶרַע רשׁעים Psalm 37:28; עֲצַת רשׁעים Psalm 1:1; Job 10:3; Job 21:16; Job 22:18; דֶּרֶךְ רשׁעים Jeremiah 12:1; Psalm 1:6; Psalm 146:9; Proverbs 4:19; Proverbs 12:26; דֶּרֶךְ רשׁע Proverbs 15:9; מִדַּדְכּוֺ הָֽרְשָׁעה Ezekiel 3:18,19 (but see, Co, above); רִשְׁעֵי (ה)ארץ Psalm 75:9; Psalm 101:8; Psalm 119:119; Ezekiel 7:21 (ᵐ5 Co עריצי). — is rare before exile; chiefly Ezekiel Psalms Wisdom Literature.

    You attempting to separate Sin and Wickedness is futile, due to the fact that both words are related.



    In establishing that there is no difference from Strong's Concordance of "sin" and "wickedness", God in Biblical epics destroys mankind for their sins or wickedness which ever word you want to sub in it really doesn't matter. The Bible doesn't describe "sin" either, so I have no clue what your point is.

    In the Atrahasis Epic Enlil puts it to his fellow Gods "The noise of mankind has become too intense for me, With their uproar I am deprived of sleep", the Babylonian word, rigmu, ‘noise’, is seen a euphemism for bad behavior, sin, or wickedness.

    Neither texts outline why there was a destruction, except for "sin".

    The term "Angel" does not exist during the time of the early Israelite's (who are from Canaan) nor does it exist in Sumer. An Angel is generally a messenger of God, in the epic of Balaam God sends the Malak-Yahweh as his messenger, the Malak-Yahweh is seen as evil an evil spirit. An Angel is literally an errand spirit or errand boy/girl.

    The term you use is vague and broad sweeping.
     
  20. genez

    genez Contributor Supporter

    +1,024
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Jesus died for the sins of the world. He did not die for evil. Evil, not sins is what sends people to the Lake of Fire.
     
Loading...