Ken Ham's Opening Day at the Ark. #FAIL only 4000 show up. (Greek, Egyptian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have seen those argument many times before. You may have seen (just ONE example) the discussion on the rival merits of the Bible version (which in the discussion was put to around 1200 - I suggested a century later at earliest and there are clues to mage it exilic or post exile date - while the Gilgamesh version in 1800 and since it is in Sumerian, c 2,500BC.) failed to support any suggestion that the Bible version is the original and correct version.
Yes, if you study comparative religion, and the histories of the origins of religions, particularly the semitic ones (but with regards Judeo-Christianity we should include Egyptian and Greek) you can actually see the movement and transformation of one god and one story from one culture into another. It is clearly an "evolution" of gods and legends.
Many sources, such as the Enumah Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, many Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian holy texts and god-legends, are like pre-echoes to biblical stories, including accounts of creation in Genesis, the Flood and the Ark, Moses in the basket on the river...it's really a beautiful thing, and absolutely fascinating to me.
Of course, for every thing like this, there are a half-dozen apologist websites trying to explain how these things aren't real, the steles and cuneiform clay tablets are fakes, or the dating is way off, or the text has been poorly translated, or some culture stole the story from the Hebrews (who in some of these cases weren't really in existence yet) because they liked the stories and wanted their kings to be like gods, etc.
But among actual scientists, scholars, etc., it's pretty clear to see. Clear enough that even a layperson like me can appreciate it.
You can even see how Yahweh developed, became mixed with some gods from other cultures, and became the patron deity of some sects of ancient Hebrews. Much of this "evolution" is wound up deeply with the move towards monotheism in the ancient world.
To me, none of these facts make The Bible any less meaningful or wondrous in any way. It's just what we are discovering more and more about its origins and contexts. That shouldn't bother anyone or make them fearful or shake their faith.
I have seen those argument many times before. You may have seen (just ONE example) the discussion on the rival merits of the Bible version (which in the discussion was put to around 1200 - I suggested a century later at earliest and there are clues to mage it exilic or post exile date - while the Gilgamesh version in 1800 and since it is in Sumerian, c 2,500BC.) failed to support any suggestion that the Bible version is the original and correct version.
The original is the primitive Mespotamian ark and Flood and the Biblical version is a later more sophisticated and necessarily bigger version. Thus the link you provided is debunked where relevant (what 'pitch' means is irrelevant and the Sumerian original certainly means Bitumen) and spending time on it is as much a waste of effort to me as reading up on Transitional forms would be to you or Ken Hamm.
But then one needs to ask oneself if the Gilgamesh version was meant to be fiction or of historic fact?
And one needs to ask oneself if the Gilgamesh version was meant to be counter to the Mosaic version due to warring factions where warring countries had bad blood between each other and so they would make things up as they went along to sort of get even with the Israelites or pre-Israelites or post tower of Babylon where things are lost in translation?
Yes, if you study comparative religion, and the histories of the origins of religions, particularly the semitic ones (but with regards Judeo-Christianity we should include Egyptian and Greek) you can actually see the movement and transformation of one god and one story from one culture into another. It is clearly an "evolution" of gods and legends.
Many sources, such as the Enumah Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, many Akkadian, Babylonian, Assyrian holy texts and god-legends, are like pre-echoes to biblical stories, including accounts of creation in Genesis, the Flood and the Ark, Moses in the basket on the river...it's really a beautiful thing, and absolutely fascinating to me.
Of course, for every thing like this, there are a half-dozen apologist websites trying to explain how these things aren't real, the steles and cuneiform clay tablets are fakes, or the dating is way off, or the text has been poorly translated, or some culture stole the story from the Hebrews (who in some of these cases weren't really in existence yet) because they liked the stories and wanted their kings to be like gods, etc.
But among actual scientists, scholars, etc., it's pretty clear to see. Clear enough that even a layperson like me can appreciate it.
You can even see how Yahweh developed, became mixed with some gods from other cultures, and became the patron deity of some sects of ancient Hebrews. Much of this "evolution" is wound up deeply with the move towards monotheism in the ancient world.
To me, none of these facts make The Bible any less meaningful or wondrous in any way. It's just what we are discovering more and more about its origins and contexts. That shouldn't bother anyone or make them fearful or shake their faith.
And of course it could be that while the world went polytheistic from the day Cain rebelled against Yahweh, that Yahweh was still revealing Himself to select individuals in the Messianic line that He was the One True God and that there was no theological evolving taking place but that while the nations were going their way, Yahweh was revealing Himself, as I said, to select individuals and then eventually to the nation of Israel.
But then one needs to ask oneself if the Gilgamesh version was meant to be fiction or of historic fact?
And one needs to ask oneself if the Gilgamesh version was meant to be counter to the Mosaic version...
Many scholars accept the Epic of G as being earlier in origin than the Mosaic, which would render this point moot. I'm willing to acknowledge archaeological scholarship is not an exact science, so I don't consider this earlier dating as strict fact.
However, you are probably aware I view both the Epic of G and the Flood account in Genesis as...well, not "fiction" per se, but legend and myth wrapped around a kernel of truth and history.
For instance, many cultures have similar flood myths. All this says to me is that a flood affected what was much (to those people) of the known world, and in the wake of it, all kinds of wonderful stories were told, the story of Noah and the ark being one.
I realize you believe The Book of Genesis represents a 100% historically accurate and valid depiction of the flood and attendant events and will bend time and space to support this view, which is fine. I, on the other hand, do not. To me, it is one of many myths which rose from the wake of the flood (or series of floods, or whatever meteorological events took place that made so big an impression on so many.)
Quote:
...due to warring factions where warring countries had bad blood between each other and so they would make things up as they went along to sort of get even with the Israelites or pre-Israelites or post tower of Babylon where things are lost in translation?
I know you meant Tower of Babel. I do believe you know your Bible. You likely realize that I also regard the Tower of Babel as myth. This doesn't diminish the greatness of the story or the wisdom it conveys. To me, at least. I have no vested interest in, or bias about the Tower of Babel, or any number of biblical passages being allegorical and/or mythical as opposed to "actual history."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
And of course it could be that while the world went polytheistic from the day Cain rebelled against Yahweh, that Yahweh was still revealing Himself to select individuals in the Messianic line that He was the One True God and that there was no theological evolving taking place but that while the nations were going their way, Yahweh was revealing Himself, as I said, to select individuals and then eventually to the nation of Israel.
I mean, who knows? I believe, whether there is a god or gods, or not, Yahweh (just like Odin, Zeus, etc.) isn't "real." I do not personally believe you can read Yahweh's bio in the OT. Yahweh (and other gods) may indeed be reflections of, or representations/symbols of, some ultimate "god-reality" and that would be cool, to find some proof of that!
Meantime, I am just going to get what I can from The Bible (which is a great deal) and the scriptures and stories of other cultures because, while they may contain gods, miracles, other supernatural beings and events, they are, to me, the most human of writings we have. That's enough for me.
Many scholars accept the Epic of G as being earlier in origin than the Mosaic, which would render this point moot. I'm willing to acknowledge archaeological scholarship is not an exact science, so I don't consider this earlier dating as strict fact.
However, you are probably aware I view both the Epic of G and the Flood account in Genesis as...well, not "fiction" per se, but legend and myth wrapped around a kernel of truth and history.
For instance, many cultures have similar flood myths. All this says to me is that a flood affected what was much (to those people) of the known world, and in the wake of it, all kinds of wonderful stories were told, the story of Noah and the ark being one.
I realize you believe The Book of Genesis represents a 100% historically accurate and valid depiction of the flood and attendant events and will bend time and space to support this view, which is fine. I, on the other hand, do not. To me, it is one of many myths which rose from the wake of the flood (or series of floods, or whatever meteorological events took place that made so big an impression on so many.)
I know you meant Tower of Babel. I do believe you know your Bible. You likely realize that I also regard the Tower of Babel as myth. This doesn't diminish the greatness of the story or the wisdom it conveys. To me, at least. I have no vested interest in, or bias about the Tower of Babel, or any number of biblical passages being allegorical and/or mythical as opposed to "actual history."
I mean, who knows? I believe, whether there is a god or gods, or not, Yahweh (just like Odin, Zeus, etc.) isn't "real." I do not personally believe you can read Yahweh's bio in the OT. Yahweh (and other gods) may indeed be reflections of, or representations/symbols of, some ultimate "god-reality" and that would be cool, to find some proof of that!
Meantime, I am just going to get what I can from The Bible (which is a great deal) and the scriptures and stories of other cultures because, while they may contain gods, miracles, other supernatural beings and events, they are, to me, the most human of writings we have. That's enough for me.
Well, I try to be somewhat discerning, but I also try to be accepting and open hearted.
I mean, what physicists and other scientists are discovering about the nature of reality, I don't feel overly comfortable ruling out or depending upon anything.
For all I know, maybe the Biblical account of creation is absolutely correct! Maybe it is one of an infinite number of probabilities/possibilities.
Based on current theories, time itself may be illusory, as well as the three-dimensional universe.
Things be cray-cray!
At base, I just feel like we're all in this together, should try to get along and find common ground, and I ultimately want to support whatever another person has in their lives that gives their lives meaning or gives them comfort in a world that is often so dark and confusing.
Who am I to tell other people they are stupid, or wrong, etc., etc. (Though I'm ashamed to say I have to admit to having said those sorts of things.)
I may not always care for the way some people argue here (and I could be more understanding and empathetic as well) but really, we may disagree very strongly about this or that but I have absolutely no problem believing that you, or Vizio, or others that I tangle with here are good, kind people. In the non-internet world, I bet we could have a good time and get along together just fine.
I
The original is the primitive Mespotamian ark and Flood and the Biblical version is a later more sophisticated and necessarily bigger version. Thus the link you provided is debunked where relevant (what 'pitch' means is irrelevant and the Sumerian original certainly means Bitumen) and spending time on it is as much a waste of effort to me as reading up on Transitional forms would be to you or Ken Hamm.
First of all, you don't really know if the Mesopotamian ark and flood is more primitive than the Biblical version. By "primitive" I imagine you mean "older"? But you don't really know that since you don't really know if Moses got his original from Noah and progeny.
No, in fact the link I provided has never been debunked. Take for instance this article from the link I provided: WWF: Wood Strength
Yes, a game of telephone over multiple generations always ends up with exactly the real situation.
You don't really know if it is just like the telephone game. Unless you have the diary of Noah, you don't really know how much the account Moses wrote 3,461 years ago diverged from the original.
Quote:
Virtually none of the stories discussed in it can be backed up by real history or archaeology. Even a first century Nazareth did not exist.
Real ancient historians were writing about people visiting Noah's ark and taking pieces of wood from it for good luck etc.
I wonder if a thousand years from now Atheists will be saying Ken Ham never built a replica of Noah's ark. It was all based on made-up stories by Christians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
