Evolutionary news

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:56 pm

why
you don't think he'd be interested to know that Abraham and his son Ishmael both appear as verified kings
in the sumerian king list
about 1800bce not too far from the city of Ur
oh i see what you mean
he'd be upset that they weren't israelites, jews or hebrews who apparently preceeded everyone else when they got off of Noahs plank built ship in an age when everyone was using reed boats
the fact that they were born lived and died in Mesopotamia also raises a question doesnt it
and that Abraham wasn't particularly old when he snuffed it

when you remember that Methuseleh was apparently the oldest man in the bible and died at aged 16 what did you expect

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:56 pm

he'd be upset that they weren't israelites, jews or hebrews who apparently preceeded everyone else when they got off of Noahs plank built ship in an age when everyone was using reed boats

Now you've got it.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 4:59 pm

might take me a while but i always get there eventually

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:06 pm

Beagle wrote:http://www.hermetics.org/Abraham2.html

Well, just to add to the confusion - the link between Abraham and Brahma seems pretty obvious.

I think this got lost.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:51 pm

I think this got lost.

it didn't get lost, they just enjoy attacking me

The original story was sumerian as sumer preceded the israelites

didn't i just explain the coneecting timeline??/ i thought so...sumerians came after NOAH thus their story is the copy and not the original.

quite frankly thats crap

no the following is thus:

the fact that you think Hebrew which is a fully formed language preceeds Sumerian which is a primitive agglutinative language tells me that you

i did not say Hebrew preceded Sumerian and since we do not know the original language of earth, which was spoken from Adam to Noah, and beyond to Babel we can not say which one was first. for all we know the original languaage was also replaced at the time of Babel and all languages received the same start

in fact it actually proves that they are fictitious

you never provide links or quotes or sources to bring any crdibility to your staements, until you do you won't be listened to. (this goes for both posts)

i am surprised that minimalist would agree to such an unsubstantiated statement

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:53 pm

<sigh>

The Jews did not originate in India or Egypt or Sumeria or Brighton Beach for that matter.

They arose indigenously in Canaan. True, due to the proximity of the trade routes from Asia in the northern part of the region they would have been exposed to ideas travelling along it.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:57 pm

i am surprised that minimalist would agree to such an unsubstantiated statement

haven't you noticed he agrees with anything that supports his personal belief
as do you really
the fact that the language of Sumer which records their entire civilisation from its start to its finish and also records the flood in its entirety proves that it is earlier than the hebrew version
for you to prove the Hebrew version is the true account can you explain why it was the last written down and where the previous correct versions that you claim exist went

how do you know that the Hebrew versions previous versions werent the sumerian akkadian and babylonian ones that are verified as earlier both through science and linguistics
did god hide your evidence as a test of faith Arch

and how do you explain Noah using a wood plank ship when all the other earlier versions have a reed boat
youre being very irrational about this
if you can't actually supply some verified scientific evidence then its your posts that will be ignored in future, or do you think that scientific evidence is ungodly. didn't he invent science as well ?

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:57 pm

sumerians came after NOAH thus their story is the copy and not the original.

Dumb as a bag of hair!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:09 pm

the fact that the language of Sumer which records their entire civilisation from its start to its finish and also records the flood in its entirety proves that it is earlier than the hebrew version

that is just rubbish and poor logic.

and how do you explain Noah using a wood plank ship when all the other earlier versions have a reed boat
youre being very irrational about this

i already have but you obviously missed it when i said that the cultures that rose up, changed the story to fit their beliefs at the time. The Biblical account is the original and all other stories changed things to fit their understanding.

since they had no idea of a plank boat, they used a reed one to fit what they knew and understood.

for you to prove the Hebrew version is the true account can you explain why it was the last written down and where the previous correct versions that you claim exist went

you do not know if it was the last to be written down but here is something--if the sumerian was the original then you can explain why it was buried for 3500 years never seeing the light of day while the biblical account enjoyed exposure. most, if not all, flood myths do not get a high profile and remain buried, either in the dirt, memory of some native or iin a museum while the Biblical account gets known and has been known for millenia.

obviously the biblical account is the original and all others are copies.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:15 pm

can explain why it was buried for 3500 years never seeing the light of day

It was never buried
check your facts
it was handed down to first the akkadians and then the babylonians
you know the babylonians don't you Arch
they're in the bible
they also had the Hebrews as slaves at exactly the same time thatthe bible was written
the rest of what you said in your previous posts clearly says that either you don't know what youre talking about or once again you have been blinded by your faith

sad really
christianity has never heard the truth according to you
its funny how most biblical scholars who know more about the bible then either you or me completely disagree with you isnt it
they claim that the sumerian version is the original account
youre in a minority of 1

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:22 pm

its funny how most biblical scholars who know more about the bible then either you or me completely disagree with you isnt it

name them

It was never buried

prove it

unless you have credible quotes, i won't be listening

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:00 pm

thats fine
you are incapable of listening anyway
the fact of the matter is well known
in sumer it was called simply the flood story
in akkad it was called Atrahasis and appears in gilgamesh
in Babylon it was called Enuma Elish
all describe the flood
heres a side by side comaprison of gilgamesh compared to your acclaimed original biblical account

Gilgamesh: -
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.

Genesis 7
8 And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth

Gilgamesh
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.

Genesis 7
7 And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth

see it was never buried because Sumer wasn't destroyed. it just changed in time and the kingship moved to Akkad
maybe you could point me out to a reference in the bible where it says that sumer was destroyed and everything was buried in its remains or failing that a link to a website would be good, but you can't because its only your lack of understanding that makes you think it happened that way
if you think all the sumerian cities were destroyed with the fall of sumer then perhaps you can explain why the sumerian (originally) city of Ur was still around for Abraham when Babylon was in control of the city states
come to think of it perhaps while youre at it you caould explain why the bible claims Abraham came from Ur if the chaldees around 1800 bce when chaldea didnt exist until 1000bce
or how the words eden and adam are actually sumerian in origin
or why Sumer itself is the first nation ever to use serpent to describe an animal
and why SA.AN in sumerian means Adversary to god but is a phrase not the hebrew boogeyman SATAN

youre claiming that satan who was there right from the start became a phrase for over 2000 years until a bunch of red sea pedestrians reminded everyone that he actually had cloven hooves and lived in a magical land of flaming brimstone and treacle where he liked to dress in red and wave a pitchfork around

you know why Min says fairy tales don't you

and no Arch
i dont need to post links to this stuff
its all well known and considered general knowledge
perhaps you could provide links that refute anything i say as you seem to think its all bollox
until then
youre wrong
the bible is fiction
and you are a narrow minded man of faith
nothing more

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:46 pm

you know why Min says fairy tales don't you

Welll......I do it to annoy the shit out of him but that certainly doesn't change the ultimate fact that the whole thing was just made up.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:26 pm

your scholarship needs some work as your leaps to conclusions are not supported by the statements you give.

why am i even taking the time, that has got to be the worst point ever published.

and you are a narrow minded man of faith
nothing more

trhe fact that you dismiss the Bible makes you as narrow inded as you call me, so ...

I do it to annoy the shit out of him but that certainly doesn't change the ultimate fact that the whole thing was just made up

it doesn't annoy me, just tells me about you thats all.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:44 am

perhaps you could provide links that refute anything i say as you seem to think its all bollox
until then
youre wrong
the bible is fiction

your scholarship needs some work as your leaps to conclusions are not supported by the statements you give.
why am i even taking the time, that has got to be the worst point ever published.

see you couldn't do it Arch could you
the bible is compiled from older mesopotamian stories
it is not the original
it is a bad copy

end of conversation
end of the bible is true crap

lets face it you couldn't even provide a link to back just one of your assertions that what i said was wrong
you failed so completely didn't you
stick to having faith
let intelligent scholars allow you to keep it
keep pushing and i'll just have to destroy it