syo
Well-Known Member
To cause confusion.The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To cause confusion.The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?
Because it's so mixed with Hellenic philosophy and religious concepts. Not only with Jesus being a God-man but the teaching of theosis seems to be influenced by the concept of apotheosis.As you know, in the Christian scriptures (New Testament), Jesus is mentioned as the “Son of God”, being of divine origin, God, with a mortal mother, Mary, so biologically part god and part human. His conception “supernatural” or “unnatural”, while his birth natural.
In Genesis 2, Adam was created from dust, and given life from God’s breath, hence a living soul, human. But Adam is usually seen as god’s creation, not as god’s son in the (literal) biological “reproduction” sense.
With Jesus, there are simply no precedence in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor in Judaism, where God fathered an offspring upon a mortal woman.
But in other (polytheistic) religions and myths, from other ancient civilizations and cultures, such children were born from divine and mortal parentage, and were called demigods.
Gilgamesh was such a one, whose father was Lugalbanda and mortal, while his mother was the goddess.
Dionysus, Minos, Perseus, Heracles (Hercules), Polydeuces (Pollux), Helen and many others, were all children of Zeus and mortal women. Poseidon, Ares, Hermès and Apollo have many children with mortal women.
Achilles was son of Peleus and goddess Thetis, while Aeneas was son of Anchises and goddess Aphrodite. Far fewer goddesses would have have children with mortal men.
The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?
The word angel is modern. We're talking about heavenly beings, servants or messengers of God or the gods. The Bible uses the term "sons of God" They did exist in the lore of these cultures even though of course they aren't called angels.In much older Sumerian texts, the gods and goddesses that exist in their religions , were never described as angels, because angels don’t exist in this culture, or in successive culture that followed the Sumerian culture, eg the mid-3rd millennium Akkadian, the Amorite and Kassite dynasties of Babylon in the 2nd millennium BCE (these 2 dynasties coincided with respective Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian languages), the 7th & 6th centuries Chaldean dynasty in Babylon (Neo-Babylonian).
And you assume it's not true without evidence.You are right that Ur was a “Sumerian city”, but by 2000, it was no longer important, because the Sumerians were weakened by repeated invasions. It had collapsed when the 3rd dynasty of Ur ended around 2004 BCE.
Just because Genesis can named some cities in Mesopotamia, doesn’t mean who wrote them know history around that time.
That “Ur” you talked about, Genesis 11 say:
By that reasoning if I found a dinosaur bone in Nevada; I must be lying because it was not called Nevada when dinosaurs lived. The scripture isn't saying that there were Chaldeans already there. It's just saying the actual location that Abraham came from.The fact is in -
- there were Chaldeans living in Babylonia, around these times.
- the Old Babylonian period (c 1894 -1595 BCE) or Middle Bronze Age, which coincided with the Amorite dynasty or the 1st dynasty of Babylon,
- and Middle Babylonian period (1595 - c 1155 BCE ) or late Bronze Age, which coincided with the Kassite dynasty or the 2nd dynasty of Babylon,
The Amorites lived in the land of what called Syria, and the Sumerians have known of their existence as far back as 2400 BCE. The Amorites were partly responsible for the end of 3rd dynasty of Ur, and established originally minor Akkadian city of Babylon into their capital.
The Amorite dynasty ended with the Kassite invasion of Babylonia.
The Kassite dynasty didn’t end until the Assyrians invaded Babylonia and captured Babylon itself a few years later.
The Chaldeans, originally known as the Kalhu, didn’t migrate into marshy region, southeast of Ur, to the Persian Gulf, until early 9th century BCE. Ur was still in Assyrian hand when the Chaldeans arrived.
So what Genesis say “Ur of the Chaldeans” around the time of Abraham, this anachronistic.
It is clear that whoever wrote Genesis, didn’t know Chaldean history, let alone the history of Ur.
Just as I assume Moses did happen; you assume the opposite so let's not pretend we don't both have assumptions. I think you're using circular reasoning by assuming it didn't happen without even considering anything to the contrary.First, you are the impression that Moses’ did happen, and you believed that invasion of Canaan, as narrated in Exodus and Joshua...
...neither of these belief in these events happen, because there are no evidence that either happen
And 2nd the most popular form of writing in much of the 2nd millennium BCE in the Levant, including Canaan, were cuneiform. The palace archive in Megiddo in the mid-2nd millennium BCE (c 1700 - c 1250 BCE) were all in cuneiform, including the discovery of fragments of Epic of Gilgamesh (clay tablet fragments dated to about 1400 BCE).
So your argument against cuneiform being used in this region around this time is seriously flawed.
And the paleo-Hebrew alphabet evolved from Proto-Canaanite alphabet were developed by the Phoenicians, not from Egyptian hieroglyphs, nor hieratic.
The Zayit Stone and Gezer Calendar are evidence from the 10th century BCE.
While they don't quote the scriptures they commemorate an event referenced in the scriptures.While I understand the significant of the tunnel and inscriptions been dated to around Hezekiah’s time, and Hezekiah is a real historical person, as the Assyrian annals independently indicated as contemporary to Sargon II and Sennacherib, the inscriptions is more about the construction of the tunnel, not inscriptions of biblical passages.
I am talking about the oldest surviving passage from Numbers 6, the Priestly Blessing, actual reference to the biblical work. The Siloam inscriptions quoting nothing from scriptures.
The Silver Scrolls aren’t the oldest writing ever, but they are the oldest evidence that have quoted passage from biblical book.
True, yet for those whose hearts are true, the essential truth of the message of Jesus is not obscured, the kingdom of God is within.The Jesus of the Gospels was an observant Jew, conversant with Jewish scripture. But Galilee was a Hellenised region of Judea, and Christianity became a religion in it’s own right in the Greco/Roman world. Hardly surprising therefore, that it absorbed elements of Hellenic thought and religious practice. As it spread around the world, it absorbed North European, African, South and Central American, and Asian influences.
Buddhism has followed similar patterns, growing out of Hinduism before absorbing elements of Taoism, Tibetan Shamanism, Shinto and Bushido philosophy in Japan, materialism and secularism in California, etc. It’s what human culture does, it adopts, adapts, shares, mixes and evolves.
The scripture isn't saying that there were Chaldeans already there. It's just saying the actual location that Abraham came from.
Genesis 11:28 say of the Chaldeans because the book of Genesis was written around the time when the Chaldeans have already occupied Babylonia, as the 3rd dynasty of Babylon, and created the Neo-Babylonian empire.
Chaldea never exist as a region southeast of Ur to the Persian gulf until their migration brought them there, as I said from the early 9th century BCE, or perhaps at the earliest as late 10th century BCE. But entire Babylonia were under Assyria rule since the 2nd dynasty of Babylon (Kassite dynasty) had fallen, around 1155 BCE.
The region the Chaldeans occupied was a large marshy region, because before their arrival, the marsh didn’t exist in the mid-6th millennium BCE and the shoreline of Persian Gulf was much further inland.
What I am saying Eridu, Ur and Lagash used to be coastal cities.
Eridu was first original settlement in the Neolithic period, near the shore, as early as 5400 BCE. I don’t know when Lagash was first built, but the foundation of Ur have been dated to between 4000 and 3800 BCE.
By the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 - 2900 BCE), it was the start of Sumerian proper, Sumerian civilization and culture, and these 3 cities became important and prosperous city-states.
My point is that at some points in the 2nd millennium BCE, the shoreline moved away from these cities, gradually because of built up of soil erosion creating increasingly larger but uninhabited marshland.
The marshy region was uninhabited until the Chaldeans migrated to the region. There were no Chaldea and no Chaldeans in Ur during the Old Babylonian period (c 1894 - c 1595 BCE), in which Abraham was supposedly born and later left Ur.
As I said, that Genesis 11:28 states “Ur of the Chaldeans” is anachronistic. Genesis wrote of some people and place that didn’t exist at the time. If Abraham did exist, he wouldn’t know of any Chaldeans, because Chaldeans weren’t natives to the region.
No, during the time of the 1st dynasty in Babylon or Old Babylonian period - 1894 to 1595 BCE, Babylon and other cities in Babylonia including the southeast Mesopotamia, like Uruk and Ur, were overrun by Amorites, not Chaldeans, and certainly not Arameans.Chaldeans were an Aramean tribe and could have been in control of Ur at the time of Abraham.
No, during the time of the 1st dynasty in Babylon or Old Babylonian period - 1894 to 1595 BCE, Babylon and other cities in Babylonia including the southeast Mesopotamia, like Uruk and Ur, were overrun by Amorites, not Chaldeans, and certainly not Arameans.
All you are doing is making excuse about Genesis 11:28 that never happen in this time period, because the Chaldeans never migrated to southeast Babylonia in that time period.
Chaldeans never migrated to the land that were later referred to as Chaldeans until the late 10th century or early 9th century BCE, WHICH WAS AFTER THE 2nd dynasty of Babylon (1595 - 1155 BCE) had fallen to the Assyrians. Assyria was in control of Babylonia including the region called chaldea, which was south and east of Ur.
It is clear that whoever wrote Genesis was unaware that there were never any Chaldeans present in region during the Old Babylonian period.
Hence, the author was writing something about Ur that was anachronistic - the Chaldeans issue.
All you are doing is making excuses and trying to twist history to fit in with Genesis-Abraham timeline.
Genesis isn’t just wrong about Ur and Chaldeans, Genesis 10 were also wrong about Egypt (biblical Mizraim), and wrong about when Erech (Uruk), Nineveh and Calch (Kalhu) first built. While in Exodus, when Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) was built, and in Joshua, when Jericho was abandoned.
Then WHEN did Genesis Flood occur?Wrong about Egypt would depend just when the flood was.
The question is why an Abrahamic religion, like Christianity, that is supposed to be monotheistic, would choose to follow foreign pagan example?
We are not talking about dinosaurs in Nevada.By that reasoning if I found a dinosaur bone in Nevada; I must be lying because it was not called Nevada when dinosaurs lived. The scripture isn't saying that there were Chaldeans already there. It's just saying the actual location that Abraham came from.
We are not talking about dinosaurs in Nevada.
You are simply making excuse that have nothing to do with Genesis.
We are talking about the writing of Genesis 11.
Genesis allude to the city of Ur, being a Chaldean city in “Abraham’s time”, talking about people that did exist in Ur (Early Bronze Age). And it talk of people called “Chaldeans”, hence “Ur of the Chaldeans”; Genesis didn’t say anything about a place called called “Chaldea”.
Chaldeans were only around this region in the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE (hence early Iron Age), so whoever wrote about Abraham’s birthplace, didn’t write Genesis in Abraham’s time, nor in Moses’ time, who was supposedly wrote Genesis, according to traditions.
This is why the Genesis 11 is anachronistic.
Then WHEN did Genesis Flood occur?
I won’t say anything more till you give me the year of the Flood.
I don't think you are giving me a serious answer at all...How about 2PM on 6th March 5600BC?
To cause confusion.
I don't think you are giving me a serious answer at all...
...because that would put Abraham, Moses, David and even Jesus completely out of alignment, when Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman civilizations don't exist.
You are not being serious at all. Try again.
Because if you do the maths, it would put Jesus in the Bronze Age, where there were no Roman Empire.We are talking about prehistory here. Why would the existence of nations such as Egypt, Babylon, Persia etc be a problem?
The dating I see for the flood from the Mediterranean, that broke through the Bosporus and doubled the size of the Black Sea turning it from fresh to salt, is about 5600 BC.
Because if you do the maths, it would put Jesus in the Bronze Age, where there were no Roman Empire.
According to Genesis, there are only 292 years gap between Noah boarding the Ark and Abraham’s birth. There are no thousands of years between these two times (flood and Abraham’s birth).
Did you even both to calculate the years between Noah and Abraham?
And beside that the Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis is still a hypothesis.
The evidence point to that the Bosporus being flooding and receding - on and off - for the past half-a-million years, many times.
The 5600 BCE dating doesn’t indicate massive flooding, especially not in the scale Genesis talk off, and it had no effect in regions like the Levant, Mesopotamia, nor Egypt.
Genesis point to massive flooding in all the lands, occurring in a single year, no such consistent evidence were found in 5600 BCE in regions.
You are not thinking logically. In no way does Black Sea deluge hypothesis support Genesis Flood. And as usual, you are grasping at straws.
Wow!I myself am piecing together the evidence to see if it confirms my faith. If it does not then I have troubles with my faith.
The 5600 BC flood does fit with the beginnings of ancient cities such as Uruk and so I chose it for that reason over the evidence of floods in the 3rd Millenium which probably would have been much smaller than the 5600 flood even though more amenable to Biblical chronology if the Chronology is taken literally. A larger flood equates more with the Genesis account and
The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education
So that is the point, the chronology of the genealogies was not meant to be literal as we might see chronologies today. "The father of" can be read "the ancestor of" and gaps are probably more common than not in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.
After that we have summations of years from person X to person Z or a certain event so the genealogies can be seen to be more literal (used as we would use a genealogy) even though gaps still occur in those also.
Here is a couple of sites that give an overview of the idea, which you probably know already.
Are the Genealogies in Genesis 5 Complete?
The Genealogies of Genesis 1-11 | Reasonable Faith