Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I once came up with a formula for the entropy of the Bible: ΔH[BIBLE]=Ø
Agreed. Strong evidence. Uncontroversial.
Take a whole bunch of floods and put them all together - what have you got?
A lot of water?!
I would ask the same question as Bradskii - "Are you saying that all the flood myths (there are dozens) say that the floods all happened at exactly the same time?"
Have you some info/evidence on this? I don't think I've seen this contention before.
This doesn't really weigh in favor or against the material consequences of a Noachian deluge event. Whether you're a Buddhist or an atheist or a pastafarian, or a flat earther, your personal beliefs don't really stop water from accumulating in a flood scenario.
The people of the Near East thought of the whole world as only existing in their part of the world. There is a lot of evidence of this, Roux discusses this and others I've read. So when they said whole world, it was describing their local geographical area. People have since mistakenly interpreted this to mean the whole earth as we know it today. (taken it literally). Given the evidence from near eastern studies, I think it would be pretty hard without a lot of hard evidence, to demonstrate that the geographical area described was more than local.
Yes, a little.
There is a lot of evidence and writing on this. I would recommend you read on this from a non-Christian perspective with an open mind - to get a balanced view. I suggest you start with Georges Roux book called Ancient Iraq. An older book but still excellent. From here one would have to start looking into journal articles etc. but that is for another day.
No, it's not settled historiography who plagiarised who.
Most main stream scholars would disagree. The archeological and written evidence is quite extensive as you will discover as your read books like Roux. There is nothing comparable to this related to what the Bible writes about. Randall Price, a well known Christian on the near east, surveys the evidence of what is known archeologically about the early part of the OT. There is very little evidence in favor and nothing like the wealth on known information presented by Roux about Sumer and Akkad. There has been a lot of digging and archeology (at least comparable to what has been done in Sumer) but with almost no archeological evidence (including for the Exodus). god seems to keeping what is recorded in the Bible secret?!
The so-called vast majority of scholars I've read do not agree that they are in the minority.
Who have you read? What is their background and scholarship credentials? Are they more than just apologists? How many secular and liberal Christian scholars have you read?
"...this would seem" ???
"...much more probable" ???
This is drifting into the very same deep water which I contend leaves the topic open to such speculation. You also threw in an argument from silence.
Youre guilty of cherry picking your mythology here.
You can't take one ancient flood "myth" and argue that it invalidates another.
I think you misunderstand me (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). I'm not saying that. The Sumerian myths have been traced back both literarily and archeologically to a quite ancient time perhaps 5000 years ago or more. Books like Roux discuss the wealth of information we have on these things. Multiple lines of evidence show convergence about these stories developing at the dawn of civilization. The flood myths of the Bible appear to come from a common source. However, outside of evidence from about the 6th century BC, there is little evidence of this story existing earlier. I'm not saying it didn't. However, without evidence after quite extensive archeological research and study of language without finding almost anything, it is more likely that the stories in the Bible are from older traditions taken from the older Babylonian and Sumerian traditions. If Abraham came from Ur in Sumer (although Conservative Christian dating would have the empire as Akkadian at his time), than there is no reason that written language couldn't have existed down to the Babylonian Captivity. There is a little bit of evidence for that (some words do appear in Genesis to be quite early and perhaps even of late Sumerian origin) but the majority of linguistic and other evidence has been interpreted by the majority of non-conservative scholars as supporting Genesis formation as supporting a late date.
Abram/Abraham lived in the birthplace of cuneiform - the invention of writing.
Ur was probably the largest city in the world.
Yes he did. Cuneiform was created long before Abraham would have lived. If Abraham lived, and knew cuneiform then he could have even brought it into the Levant. Having language would seem more likely than not considering there is some evidence that words came from ancient Akkadian and Sumerian languages in Genesis. However, like the later Babylonian Empire, one would expect more evidence to exist if Israel, as a people originally from the Ur area, considered language very important. However you slice it, there doesn't seem to be much much evidence for Israel having written language very early.
Again, "seems to derive from" doesn't get you across the line.
I agree. It is evidence in favor of Genesis being written early (early words that are Akkadian and perhaps even Sumerian in origin) but it doesn't get one across the line.
An extant written history doesn't necessarily predate an unwritten (earlier) oral tradition discovered after the written alternative.
Give me examples of this contention and how it might relate to an argument that counts in favor of the Bible content as being historical and recording things that are very old.
The exodus is well attested.
The Bible accuses them of those crimes. Atheists are pointing out the problems with interpreting the Bible literally. Luckily for Christians it appears that those tales never happened either. The early Hebrews did not practice genocide. Genetics finds ample traces of people that were supposedly extinguished.
I am not sure that I can explain it here. Such explanations are too often considered "blasphemy". The promised land may be more of an idea than a real thing.
It's well-documented in the Bible for your perusal as well.
Or a piece of self justification, made up after the fact, to justify conquest and enslavement of the original population.
Want some help?
Was the world promised to Voldermort beforehand?
