• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

joelr

Well-Known Member
your interpretation?

101G.
no.


scholars:
"Although this epistle claims to have been written by Peter, he was almost certainly not its author. It was written around 90-100 CE, long after Peter's death. The late date is suspected because: verses 3:3-4 make excuses for the failure of the expected second coming of Christ; the author refers to "all of the letters of Paul" in a way that indicates that Paul's epistles were already considered equal to "the other scriptures;" and the epistle depends upon the letter of Jude, which is thought to have been written around 80-100 CE."


opinion of 2 Peter: Introduction
There's some embarrassing stuff in Second Peter. Noah is a "preacher of righteousness" (2:5), Lot is "a just and righteous man" (2:7-8), God plans to burn up the entire earth (3:10), and believers were already making excuses for Jesus' non-return 1900 ye


not my opinion. But God planning to burn the earth, yeah pretty embarrassing for religious people.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I'll be back latter get yourself together, and we will discuss Isaiah chapter 53

101G

I'm going with the scholarship consensus.

originated the view, held as a consensus through most of the 20th century, that the book comprises three separate collections of oracles:[4][5] Proto-Isaiah (chapters 139), containing the words of the 8th-century BCE prophet Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 4055), the work of an anonymous 6th-century BCE author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 5666), composed after the return from Exile.

General scholarly consensus through most of the 20th century saw three separate collections of oracles in the book of Isaiah.[4] A typical outline based on this understanding of the book sees its underlying structure in terms of the identification of historical figures who might have been their authors:[16]

  • 139: Proto-Isaiah, containing the words of the original Isaiah;
  • 4055: Deutero-Isaiah, the work of an anonymous Exilic author;
  • 5666: Trito-Isaiah, an anthology of about twelve passages.[17]
While one part of the general consensus still holds, this perception of Isaiah as made up of three rather distinct sections underwent a radical challenge in the last quarter of the 20th century.[18] The newer approach looks at the book in terms of its literary and formal characteristics, rather than authors, and sees in it a two-part structure divided between chapters 33 and 34:[19]

  • 133: Warnings of judgment and promises of subsequent restoration for Jerusalem, Judah and the nations;
  • 3466: Judgment has already taken place and restoration is at hand.
You would want to check out
For explanations on the evidence and how they know these things to decide for yourself.

I don't think there is any reason to discuss anything else.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Yes the Sumerians may have gotten it from smaller tribes. Not Jewish tribes?
How does one define "Jewish"?
  1. Monotheist
  2. God is the creator
  3. God is the law giver
  4. God cannot be compared to any other creation
  5. God reveals itself and makes its will known
Are you claiming that no small tribe of primitive people with these beliefs existed? The lack of evidence can be explained easily. If God cannot be compared to any creation, there won't be statues or idols or carvings depicting it.
Early religious sites show Yahweh was worshipped with his consort Ashera in many homes.
This is a bit confusing, were they religious sites, or were they homes? Also, as far as I can tell, there is only 1 location where maybe Yahweh and ashera are *maybe* brought together as consorts. Not "religious sites" plural. And it's a "maybe" based on what is actually inscribed.

Example: One of the inscriptions is transliterated as "Berakhti et’khem l’YHVH Shomron ul’Asherato" and then this is translated to "I have blessed you by Yahweh of Samaria and [his] Asherah". Do you know why this source ( link ) put the "his" in brackets? It's because linguistically, the "his" comes from the vowels, and the vowels are omitted in the inscription. Thus, the idea of Yahweh with a consort is really an assumption when the actual evidence is examined.

Day 7 doesn't have a direct comparison, just:
"Creation is followed by rest. In ancient Near Eastern literature the divine rest is achieved in a temple as a result of having brought order to chaos. Rest is both disengagement, as the work of creation is finished, but also engagement, as the deity is now present in his temple to maintain a secure and ordered cosmos."
No direct comparison? Correct!
There is no doubt among historical scholarship that Genesis and other myths in the OT are taken from Mesopotamian sources and later theology from Persian.
Scholars are not immune to bias, they get excited about making discoveries, they are under pressure to publish.

The simple truth is people come up with similar ideas all the time, it doesn't mean one borrowed from the other.

Let me show you something. Have you ever heard of the Hawaiian flood myth? It is remarkably similar. Nu'u - Wikipedia

Now, how could this isolated people have come up with virtually the same story, with the same elements down to the name of the man who built the ark ( compare Noah to Nu'u )? Did they somehow borrow it? Is it evidence of the same global flood? Is there a divine being who shared the same story with these EXTREMELY geographically distant people?

According to your logic, and the logic of these scholars, the Hawaiians *must* have had some contact, some link, between mesopotamia and persia so that they could borrow the story. It doesn't add up. Do any of the scholars making the claims you're citing address this very important counter example?

Conclusion: similar people experience similar events ( flooding and rainbows ) and end up making similar stories to explain them. The similarities are not evidence of borrowing. If they were, then somehow, magically, the Hawaiians had contact with ancient mesopotamia.

Th rest of your reply is simply "copy and paste". It doesn't bring any critical analysis, nor does it address the point I was making. This notion of "borrowing" is based on an assumption that the one who wrote it first is the original source. That's faulty logic. And I'm adding to that in this post further assumptions being made based on absent vowels, and ignorance of at least one counter example where geographically distant peoples have come up with the same flood myth.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
How does one define "Jewish"?
  1. Monotheist
  2. God is the creator
  3. God is the law giver
  4. God cannot be compared to any other creation
  5. God reveals itself and makes its will known
Are you claiming that no small tribe of primitive people with these beliefs existed? The lack of evidence can be explained easily. If God cannot be compared to any creation, there won't be statues or idols or carvings depicting it.

Jewish is a late term. The early religions were not monotheism and neither was the Israelite religion until around 600 BCE when they encountered the Persians who were.

Ancient Israelite & Judean Religion
As early as the 10th century BCE, Israelite and Judean religion began to emerge within the broader West Semitic culture, otherwise known as Canaanite culture. Between the 10th century and 7th centuries BCE, ancient Israelite and Judean religion was polytheistic. The polytheism, though, was counterbalanced by devotion to one or two primary deities, a practice known as henotheism (van der Toorn, 2047). Henotheism is recognition and worship of many deities; however, the primary worship revolves around a single deity. Within Judean and Israelite communities, primary devotion was oftentimes towards Yahweh. As both Judah and Israel were emerging states, Yahweh was the national deity, an idea which finds its origins in religious practices from the Bronze Age.

Outside of the Hebrew Bible, one of the best examples of ancient Israelite and Judean religion comes from an archaeological site called Kuntillet 'Ajrud, possibly dating as early as the 10th century BCE. One inscription from this site reads, "to YHWH of Samaria and to Asherata." Another inscription reads, "To YHWH of Teman and to Asherata" (Na'aman, 305). Both of these inscriptions demonstrate that some ancient Israelites and Judeans were not monotheistic in how they practiced religion; rather, they were henotheistic. YHWH, which may be read as Yahweh, was the primary tribal deity. He is best known from the Hebrew Bible. Asherata, also known as Asherah, was a deity within the Ugaritic pantheon. She is also a common figure in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, we can confidently say that among the spectrums of how people in ancient Israel and Judah practiced religion, Asherah and Yahweh were both honored in cults. Priority, though, tended to be given to Yahweh.

And as the previous inscriptions demonstrate, worship of deities other than Yahweh seems to have been a regular part of life for people. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, it suggests that Yahweh has always been the deity that people should worship. Based on these inscriptions, Psalms, Kings, Deuteronomy, and other unmentioned evidence, though, we know this is not the case; rather, henotheism was likely the norm for ancient Israelites and Judeans.

One scholar suggests that "whatever the biblical authors may have tried to convey, may not have been… the primary form of belief or religious exercise" (Gilmour, 100). In other words, the Hebrew Bible does not accurately represent how people actually practiced religion in the ancient world. He claims this because the Hebrew Bible itself was likely edited and compiled between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE. So, although the Hebrew Bible preserves traditions going back as far as the 11th century BCE, the theological and cultural positions between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE were likely read into the past and, among these, was monotheism.

Additionally, attentive readers may notice that there was no discussion of Judaism. Generally speaking, the scholarly consensus is that the religion of Judaism was distinct from ancient Israelite and Judean religion. The elements which define Judaism, though, are beyond the scope of this article.


This is a bit confusing, were they religious sites, or were they homes? Also, as far as I can tell, there is only 1 location where maybe Yahweh and ashera are *maybe* brought together as consorts. Not "religious sites" plural. And it's a "maybe" based on what is actually inscribed.


William Dever:
"
One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair."

Dever believes the figurines in houses and tombs are Ashera
"
For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century.

They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are representations of Asherah, so I call them Asherah figurines."

Francesca Stavrakopoulou OT Hebrew Bible professor gives many examples of Ashera finds in her works as well.




No direct comparison? Correct!

But rest after a creation period is common. Syncretism isn't direct copying, it's taking myths and re-writing them to make a new version which was done in Genesis.





Scholars are not immune to bias, they get excited about making discoveries, they are under pressure to publish.

The evidence is vast, at this point no historian has any doubt, there are too many examples.
Not immune to bias? Are you serious with this? Copying mythology is the oldest thing and done exclusively in all religions. It's religious syncretism. The only reason you could possibly object to this is because you believe these myths are actually true. Which is MASSIVELY BIAS??????????

The simple truth is people come up with similar ideas all the time, it doesn't mean one borrowed from the other.

There are other gardens of Eden with a tree of magic food and a snake telling a human to eat.
The Epic of Gilamesh was used to write the Noah story. Here are a fgew lines

Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.


Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood


Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.


Noah - And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.




Gilamesh - Gilgamesh, the son of Ninsun, lies in the tomb.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Let me show you something. Have you ever heard of the Hawaiian flood myth? It is remarkably similar. Nu'u - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu'u

So first those people may have already had Christian people come and evangelize and Noah was used as inspiration.
But it doesn't say God decided to flood the world for sin, he commanded to take 2 of all animals and so on.
There is no doubt Noah is from Gilamesh.


Now, how could this isolated people have come up with virtually the same story, with the same elements down to the name of the man who built the ark ( compare Noah to Nu'u )? Did they somehow borrow it? Is it evidence of the same global flood? Is there a divine being who shared the same story with these EXTREMELY geographically distant people?

" It was only during the reign of Kamehameha I that a ruler from Hawaii island attempted to impose a singular "Hawaiian" religion on all the Hawaiian islands that was not Christianity.[2]"

This might be a story written after they were exposed to Christianity. I haven't read the myth. Generally the Biblical muyths are only found close to the Middle East. Eden, Job and many others are traced to local nations. The 2nd Temple period was all Persian influence, so devil vs God, no hell, no messiah, no frewill for people, general resurrection after a final batle, this all comes from Persian theology during the invasion.

As Mary Boyce wrote:

Doctrines



fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.
1st Persian influence on Judaism

Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and

this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.







According to your logic, and the logic of these scholars, the Hawaiians *must* have had some contact, some link, between mesopotamia and persia so that they could borrow the story. It doesn't add up. Do any of the scholars making the claims you're citing address this very important counter example?

I need to know when the flood myth was written. Flood myths are the one thing that are universal to cultures surrounded by water. The difference is the Epic of Gilamesh is so exact to Noah that it's impossible it wasn't used.

Noah's flood[edit]

Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.

The Hawaian myth was from settlers who went there as late as 1300 CE, and - "Along with the surviving traditions, some Hawaiians practice Christianized versions of old traditions. Others practice the old faith as a co-religion."
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Conclusion: similar people experience similar events ( flooding and rainbows ) and end up making similar stories to explain them. The similarities are not evidence of borrowing. If they were, then somehow, magically, the Hawaiians had contact with ancient mesopotamia.


Ok, here is information on the myth:

Hawaiian Mythology: Part Three. The Chiefs: XXII. Era of Overturning


I gave a few lines from Noah and Gilamesh which are basically verbatim. Both Gods smelled a sweet savior when smelling the sacrifice and so on. The stories are also identical. The Hawaiian myth is completely different, just a flood and people escape on a boat. Landing on a mountain is pretty obvious.

But Noah isn't the only Mesopotamian myth used?



The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity

The Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology, but adapted them to their unique belief in one God.[2

The combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies..


Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[17][18] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[19][20]

Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.

Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. the divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.[25]











Th rest of your reply is simply "copy and paste". It doesn't bring any critical analysis, nor does it address the point I was making. This notion of "borrowing" is based on an assumption that the one who wrote it first is the original source. That's faulty logic. And I'm adding to that in this post further assumptions being made based on absent vowels, and ignorance of at least one counter example where geographically distant peoples have come up with the same flood myth.


1) copy and pasting is providing evidence that historical scholarship agrees with this and is where I'm taking the idea from. I am familiar with critical historical scholars so I know this is the consensus.


2)No one said the Mesopotamians were the original authors. They may have copied from the Sumerians. Religious syncretism is in every religion, Judaism and Christianity are completely full of it. That "faulty logic" is yours. The people who sign off on this are all familiar with Biblical Hebrew and Mesopotamian cuniform.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou speaks on this, Dr Josh Bowen speaks on this and the historian /pastor who lectures are on youtube:

- Gilamesh and the Bible


3)The Hawaiian flood myth is not a "counter example", it is not "strikingly similar" and a myth that "the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.". It's already known that all water civilizations have flood myths. Just not similar to Noah.



Religious journal paper,

Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel



K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.



As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are


The Mesopotamian comparisons are numerous and were picked up during the exile. Genesis is believed to have been written after the return from the exile which also helped ease tensions with the Persians. Cyrus the Persian King is even given props from Yahweh in scripture.
The Persian theology all filtered into Israelite thinking.

Judaism - Myths


Myths

Biblical myths are found mainly in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, the first book of the Bible. They are concerned with the creation of the world and the first man and woman, the origin of the current human condition, the primeval Deluge, the distribution of peoples, and the variation of languages.

The basic stories are derived from the popular lore of the ancient Middle East; parallels can be found in the extant literature of the peoples of the area. The Mesopotamians, for instance, also knew of an earthly paradise such as Eden, and the figure of the cherubim—properly griffins rather than angels—was known to the Canaanites. In the Bible, however, this mythical garden of the gods becomes the scene of man’s fall and the background of a story designed to account for the natural limitations of human life. Similarly, the Babylonians told of the formation of humankind from clay. But, whereas in the pagan tale the first man’s function is to serve as an earthly menial of the gods, in the scriptural version his role is to rule over all other creatures. The story of the Deluge, including the elements of the ark and the dispatch of the raven and dove, appears already in the Babylonian myths of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis. There, however, the hero is eventually made immortal, whereas in the Bible this detail is omitted because, to the Israelite mind, no child of woman could achieve that status. Lastly, while the story of the Tower of Babel was told originally to account for the stepped temples (ziggurats) of Babylonia, to the Hebrew writer its purpose is simply to inculcate the moral lesson that humans should not aspire beyond their assigned station.


Scattered through the Prophets and Holy Writings (the two latter portions of the Hebrew Bible) are allusions to other ancient myths—e.g., to that of a primordial combat between YHWH and a monster variously named Leviathan (Wriggly), Rahab (Braggart), or simply Sir Sea or Dragon. The Babylonians told likewise of a fight between their god Marduk and the monster Tiamat; the Hittites told of a battle between the weather god and the dragon Illuyankas; while a Canaanite poem from Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in northern Syria relates the discomfiture of Sir Sea by the deity Baal and the rout of an opponent named Leviathan. Originally, this myth probably referred to the annual subjugation of the floods.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
they are wrong. and I can careless what the Hindus say about the Spirit, only God word rules.

101G.


The Hindu God is as fictional as your God.
My beliefs are based on evidence and rational thought. Not fantasy and emotional attachments. Please demonstrate my beliefs are wrong. I am the only one entering evidence by people who study these matters as their lives work. You seem to have claims. Same as Hindus, Muslims, Mormons, and race supremacists.

Anyone can say "you are wrong", especially one who doesn't know how to debate. OR doesn't have any evidence to debate with.

You also haven't demonstrated the myths in the OT are the word of any God. They appear to be re-worked myths from Mesopotamian, Egypt and so on.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
A human man's idea. Standing on earth.

1. First ordinal numbers position of his imposed humans reasoning.

In life his own...two of. He believed he was dominion even over a human female. First incorrect thought.

As my brother not my father. I love father. I don't trust you whatsoever. He knew humans were as father Mutual equal. Why spiritual humans believe father not brother.

As I am important as dominion human lying he says.....he said one 1 is hence as gods earth body the same as I am.

Just a theme he chooses as he wants to. You begin to realise logic is not what theists used.

He Lied. He owned a pre want as a human. To Understand heat within spatial history first. Not humans.

As one in science he said was core heat.

Number 1.

Now earth is rock.

Our life support.

Why father's teaching is no man is God and God is the rock.

Not 1...not I and not core heat.

So if you're a realist. Wanting humans success..you aren't a scientist. Pretty basic human choice. Human thought relating to human behaviours.

Pretty basic human advice. You'd be a spiritualist.

My term ist is real...yours isn't.

Isn't. Versus Ist.

You wanted. I didnt I just accepted.

My honour is my life my father my mother my brother.

A theist says by theism core heat...within a body of mass power is the claim power.

The very first unrealistic humans biological review . What is within my own body is heat.

As compared by a theists brothers claim to want to idealise the history of core heat within.

Our answers today say look what you compared bio humans DNA within our God genesis DNA humans body to your theme thought to earths God science body mass core heat.

Which you ignore completely. As consciousness versus introduced psyche who reclaims conscious thought.

So a man theist then attacks a conscious mind with a claim we are less Intelligently advised than his self chemical based ideas by psyche causes.

Pretty basic constant science reminder you own chemicals as a bio human they interfere with beliefs theirs and choices.

Yet the scientist says it about everyone else not their self.

As a spiritualist all my teachings I self include in case I'm doing it myself.

I've self reflected upon every human I taught who taught me too.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
it's been proven scholars lie. :rolleyes: Yikes!

101G
Yes and it's been proven religious scripture lies sometimes. Epistles 3, considered a forgery by all scholarship. The 36 other gospels not used in the canon, considered heretical by all religious people and forgeries by scholarship. Many of the Epistles are known forgeries, only 7 are authentic.
Ascension of Isiah, considered heretical. Many many more just in Christianity. Dead Sea Scrolls, not authentic......

So religious writers lie. Does that condemn every writer of scripture? No. But you do love a good fallacy.

So scholars show evidence. A scholarly monograph will be 50% footnotes on every page. Then it has to pass peer-review.
So it's usually reliable information.
Yet you trust anonymous, non-eyewitness documents writing over 50 years after the fact. So your material has no credibility.

But please, demonstrate any lies by scholars you see and show the scholarship that demonstrates it's a lie. You are free to do that. Or is unsupported personal opinion all you have? Why you thought that would do well in a debate forum is bizarre but it takes all types I guess.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Yes and it's been proven religious scripture lies sometimes. Epistles 3, considered a forgery by all scholarship. The 36 other gospels not used in the canon, considered heretical by all religious people and forgeries by scholarship. Many of the Epistles are known forgeries, only 7 are authentic.
Ascension of Isiah, considered heretical. Many many more just in Christianity. Dead Sea Scrolls, not authentic......

So religious writers lie. Does that condemn every writer of scripture? No. But you do love a good fallacy.

So scholars show evidence. A scholarly monograph will be 50% footnotes on every page. Then it has to pass peer-review.
So it's usually reliable information.
Yet you trust anonymous, non-eyewitness documents writing over 50 years after the fact. So your material has no credibility.

But please, demonstrate any lies by scholars you see and show the scholarship that demonstrates it's a lie. You are free to do that. Or is unsupported personal opinion all you have? Why you thought that would do well in a debate forum is bizarre but it takes all types I guess.
A scholar says I know I pretended to know all things. When I hadn't and didnt.

I contrived.

I theme thesis constantly. I collect intelligence not my own claiming one day I'll know it all. No different from putting all words into a machines program.

As a man named all things never named.

The same outcome. No you aren't who you claim you were...a God.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
Yes and it's been proven religious scripture lies sometimes.
GINOLJC, to all.
the KJV so far is the only bible translation that exposes add on to it. it is the only self-correcting bible translation out there. and it's the only false Prophet destroyer in existence. it corrects contradiction claims by men, by exposing the so-call contradictions. it's the only translation that has a built in dictionary within itself.

all these things are accomplish by the teaching and guidance of God himself, the Holy Spirit.

so. yes, scholars lie.... men, but God do not.

have a nice day, or a least try to...... (smile).

101G.
 

101G

Well-Known Member
The Hindu God is as fictional as your God.
personal opinion? u know what I go with them ..... (smile). lol, lol, lol.
Epistles 3, considered a forgery by all scholarship.
see above
The 36 other gospels not used in the canon, considered heretical by all religious people and forgeries by scholarship. Many of the Epistles are known forgeries, only 7 are authentic.
see above


So religious writers lie. Does that condemn every writer of scripture? No.
FINALLY, some TRUTH.

So scholars show evidence. A scholarly monograph will be 50% footnotes on every page. Then it has to pass peer-review.
So it's usually reliable information.
Yet you trust anonymous, non-eyewitness documents writing over 50 years after the fact. So your material has no credibility.
Spoke too soon, see above, above.
But please, demonstrate any lies by scholars you see and show the scholarship that demonstrates it's a lie.
see above, above, above. ..... (smile) ...lol. Oh dear

have a good day..... ,maybe. ,..,,,, :rolleyes:

101G
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Ancient Israelite & Judean Religion
As early as the 10th century BCE, Israelite and Judean religion began to emerge within the broader West Semitic culture, otherwise known as Canaanite culture. Between the 10th century and 7th centuries BCE, ancient Israelite and Judean religion was polytheistic. The polytheism, though, was counterbalanced by devotion to one or two primary deities, a practice known as henotheism (van der Toorn, 2047). Henotheism is recognition and worship of many deities; however, the primary worship revolves around a single deity. Within Judean and Israelite communities, primary devotion was oftentimes towards Yahweh. As both Judah and Israel were emerging states, Yahweh was the national deity, an idea which finds its origins in religious practices from the Bronze Age.

Outside of the Hebrew Bible, one of the best examples of ancient Israelite and Judean religion comes from an archaeological site called Kuntillet 'Ajrud, possibly dating as early as the 10th century BCE. One inscription from this site reads, "to YHWH of Samaria and to Asherata." Another inscription reads, "To YHWH of Teman and to Asherata" (Na'aman, 305). Both of these inscriptions demonstrate that some ancient Israelites and Judeans were not monotheistic in how they practiced religion; rather, they were henotheistic. YHWH, which may be read as Yahweh, was the primary tribal deity. He is best known from the Hebrew Bible. Asherata, also known as Asherah, was a deity within the Ugaritic pantheon. She is also a common figure in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, we can confidently say that among the spectrums of how people in ancient Israel and Judah practiced religion, Asherah and Yahweh were both honored in cults. Priority, though, tended to be given to Yahweh.

And as the previous inscriptions demonstrate, worship of deities other than Yahweh seems to have been a regular part of life for people. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, it suggests that Yahweh has always been the deity that people should worship. Based on these inscriptions, Psalms, Kings, Deuteronomy, and other unmentioned evidence, though, we know this is not the case; rather, henotheism was likely the norm for ancient Israelites and Judeans.

One scholar suggests that "whatever the biblical authors may have tried to convey, may not have been… the primary form of belief or religious exercise" (Gilmour, 100). In other words, the Hebrew Bible does not accurately represent how people actually practiced religion in the ancient world. He claims this because the Hebrew Bible itself was likely edited and compiled between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE. So, although the Hebrew Bible preserves traditions going back as far as the 11th century BCE, the theological and cultural positions between the 7th and 3rd centuries BCE were likely read into the past and, among these, was monotheism.
this is just copy-paste lacking any critcal analysis, Joel.
Additionally, attentive readers may notice that there was no discussion of Judaism. Generally speaking, the scholarly consensus is that the religion of Judaism was distinct from ancient Israelite and Judean religion. The elements which define Judaism, though, are beyond the scope of this article.
Ah! Finally. And thank you! So, these inscriptions don't define Judaism. Brilliant. I agree!
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
William Dever:
"
One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."
Confirmed. 1 religious site. Not religious sites plural. Just 1. And this does not address that there is no word for "his" in the ancient language, possession is indicated with vowels which are missing.
Asherah is the name of the old Canaanite Mother Goddess, the consort of El, the principal deity of the Canaanite pantheon. So why is a Hebrew inscription mentioning Yahweh in connection with the Canaanite Mother Goddess? Well, in popular religion they were a pair."
Again, vowels. What was the name of the Canaanite god? No one actually knows. Without vowels it could be el, ol, ool, eel... or even elo, eeloo, or ooloo. In this ancient language, your written name would be JL. Is your name Joel the same as Jool, or Jeel, or perhaps Julie?

So, the conclusion that YHVH had a consort is derived from 1 religious site, where the word "his" is assumed and added, combined with a Canaanite pantheon who had a god with short name that is *assumed* to the same as one of the names of the Jewish God. It's weak evidence + weak evidence + weak evidence being exaggerated into strong evidence. And you have not addressed these weaknesses. Instead you're copying and pasting more weak evidence. Keep going.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Dever believes the figurines in houses and tombs are Ashera
So what? The claim in discussion is that of a consort. Were YHVH and asherah actually connected, or were the ancient people basically throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks? IOW, were they saying "These two gods go together", or were they saying "These people claim YHVH is a god, and these people over here say asherah is a god, I'm going to hedge my bets and worship both of them"?

See here: Archaeologist claims to find oldest Hebrew text in Israel, including the name of God

This ^^ is older than the inscription found by Dever, and guess what??? No ashera. YHVH is alone on this archeological discovery. How would you explain that? Now apply that same explanation to the other inscriptions which include ashera, and I think you're on your way to an honest, balanced, fair conclusion of what the ancient writing means.
"
For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century.

They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are representations of Asherah, so I call them Asherah figurines."

Francesca Stavrakopoulou OT Hebrew Bible professor gives many examples of Ashera finds in her works as well.
Many primitive people were polytheists. Agreed.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The evidence is vast, at this point no historian has any doubt, there are too many examples.
Not immune to bias? Are you serious with this? Copying mythology is the oldest thing and done exclusively in all religions. It's religious syncretism. The only reason you could possibly object to this is because you believe these myths are actually true. Which is MASSIVELY BIAS??????????
No, not at all. I'm not objecting to the idea of syncretism. I'm objecting to the direction of the borrowing and to the assumption that those who wrote it first are the originators. That's all. I'm applying critical analysis to the claims made to see if they make sense. And they don't. It's the certainty that I object to. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.
There are other gardens of Eden with a tree of magic food and a snake telling a human to eat.
The Epic of Gilamesh was used to write the Noah story. Here are a fgew lines
You've got 1 very good example with the story of the flood that ideas were being shared between two groups of people who lived in close proximity.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
So first those people may have already had Christian people come and evangelize and Noah was used as inspiration.
Uh-huh :rolleyes: Seems you don't know much about the history of Hawaii.

Colonial epidemic disease in Hawai'i - Wikipedia

Evidence that the Hawaiian's were isolated ^^
But it doesn't say God decided to flood the world for sin, he commanded to take 2 of all animals and so on.
What a minute, wait a minute, so if the details don't match precisely then there wasn't borrowing? That's a pretty major flip-flop compared to what you said about the creation myth. Before it was "close enough", but here it's not. That's an arbitrary choice, aka bias.
There is no doubt Noah is from Gilamesh.
YOU have no doubt. That's true. But again this is only based on who wrote down the story first. That's it. Nothing you've brought addresses this very simple, obvious problem with your conclusion.
" It was only during the reign of Kamehameha I that a ruler from Hawaii island attempted to impose a singular "Hawaiian" religion on all the Hawaiian islands that was not Christianity.[2]"
And this means what precisely?
This might be a story written after they were exposed to Christianity.
No, Hawaiian myths were passed down orally in song and dance. Aka "Hula".
I haven't read the myth.
What you'll find is that different people have different versions of the story. Some are remarkably similar, some are less similar. Not surprising.
Generally the Biblical muyths are only found close to the Middle East. Eden, Job and many others are traced to local nations. The 2nd Temple period was all Persian influence, so devil vs God, no hell, no messiah, no frewill for people, general resurrection after a final batle, this all comes from Persian theology during the invasion.
Um. Devil vs. God is Christian. Hell is Christian. So if you want to claim Christianity borrowed from Persian beliefs, fine. Have at it. At least there you have plausible motive. Christianity attemted to create a universal world religion. So including elements from the various neighbors and peoples they encountered on their mission makes sense. What's the motive for the Jewish people to adopt other people's practices? Is this "adoption" at all in any way encouraged in Jewish mythology? I mean anywhere and in anyway.
As Mary Boyce wrote:
Yes, let's look at what she wrote. The refutation of your conclusion is in there, but, it's buried. It needs to be highlighted.

In this case, I have to say, your copy-paste method is a blessing. At least you didn't snip out the parts that refute your claim. And I really appreciate that. Someone less honest, would have done that.

These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period,
Note. Post exhilic period, meaning, after Babylonia, after scholars claim the Hebrew bible was written. IOW, these ideas can be found in COMMENTARY. Sure. No arguments there.
for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith.
This is confusing, isn't it. On the one hand the author claims Jews were open to influence, but then immediately admits they were "holding staunchly to their own beliefs". So, which is it? Oh! The author says that the Jews agreed when there were congenial elements. That makes sense, right. When the Jewish people encountered a foreign belief that matched their own beliefs, they agreed with it. Well.... duh. Obviously.
The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period
Ah. The Parthian period. Long after the Torah was written. According to scholas who claim the Torah was written in Babylonia, that would be 1000 years or so, right? So all of this is comletely irrelevant, and your source admits that the Jewish people simply agreed with the elements that agreed with their prior mythology.
Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and

this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.
All of this is a big, so what?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש

Yup, what are the common elements?
  1. the name of the hero is "Noah" and "Nu'u"
  2. The hero is "perfect in his generation" and "a great kahuna"
  3. a world wide flood occurs as the result of sin
  4. the hero escapes in an "ark" and a "house boat"
  5. The hero takes the animals with him in both stories
  6. At the conclusion of the flood there is a rainbow
  7. The story ends with the hero making an offering
Naturally not all Hawaiian's agree with this version of the story. But, Hawaiian's didn't have a written language, so, deviations in the story are expected.
I gave a few lines from Noah and Gilamesh which are basically verbatim.
Let's see.
Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned

Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned.
On the 7th day. That doesn't match the story.
Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;
The 17th day is not veratim of the 7th day.
Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;


Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.
Hmmm, gathered like flies compared to an end to cursing the earth. That doesn't match.

Anyway, animal offerings are super common in ancient religions, they're in the African religions, the South American religions, the Polyneisan religions. Everybody was doing it, so, here you have 2 stories with offerings. Great! Makes perfect sense.
Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood
well, this isn't "verbatim". It's actually the opposite. The criticism of Noah is that he *didn't pray*, he merely accepted what was happening, never tried to change the course of events, never tried to convince people of their evil ways, never appealed to God's mercy, he just accepted it. This is why Noah is described as "perfect in his generation" why not completely perfect? because he didn't appeal to God.
Gilamesh - ‘For six days and six nights the winds blew, torrent and tempest and flood overwhelmed the world, tempest and flood raged together like warring hosts. When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;


Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Um, this isn't verbatim. I think you are confusing the word "were upon" as if that means they began and ended in seven days. The story in the Hebrew bible has the flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights. Most people know this. So in Gilgamesh, the flood lasts a week, in the Hebrew bible it lasts over a month. The stories don't match verbatim.

Noah - And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Gilamesh - Gilgamesh, the son of Ninsun, lies in the tomb.
well, the two heros die, that's supposed to be a massive "aha" moment? :rolleyes:

I'm looking at the wiki article on the Giglamesh flood story and they claim the hero becomes immortal in the original oldest version. And the wiki article claims this is mportant because the entire story of Gilgamesh is about immortality. So no, not a verbatim match.
 
Top