Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
nice leap to a conclusion, i didn't doit becuase i was so disgusted by your poor post. besides, the documentation i would provide wouldn't be accepted by you as it is too religious for you.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
your belief that the sumerians were first and originated the biblical stories cannot be substantiated by fact nor archaeological evidence so all you are left with is
http://www.eureka.edu/emp/Hemmenway/IDS ... Exodus.htmTraditionally, the Book of Genesis was believed to be one of five books written by Moses, but the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship is that the book came into existence over several centuries and resulted from the blending of several traditions. One of those traditions probably took written form around 950 BCE. Another tradition probably took written form about 100 years later and was joined to the first around 725 BCE. Other traditions were added and the final written form of Genesis probably came into existence around 450 BCE.
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/cendy/early388.docThe Epic of Gilgamesh
written around 2000 B.C.E. about a Mesopotamian king who lived around 2700 B.C.E.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.htmlBut the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
since i have posted a source for my point, this can be ignored.know what its talking about we'll just assume you don't know what youre talking about
again
this is mis-leadiong and is not factual as they are basing their statement only on a consensus not archaeological fact. they have no proof whatsoever that Genesis was written as they say.but the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship
still not older than Noah which places gilgamesh in the realm of myth and a poor copy. first written or first discovered does not mean original work.the epic of Gilgamesh is over 1000 years older than the book of Genesis
Polycarp and a few other church fathers would disagree with you there. along with the fact that catholicism did not arise till the 4th or 5th c. a.d. long after the christian church had been established and persecuted for its beliefs. also what was accepted as scripture was done long before the council of nicea.so you're a christian, you realise of course that your christian bible wouldn't exist without catholicism
and just look what they are saying about Genesis
In the Hebrew text, the first word of the book is “bereshit,” which means “in the beginning.” Hebrew bibles use that word as the title for this book. Our English bibles use a word from Greek, “Genesis,” which also refers to beginnings, as the title of the book. So this book is about “beginnings.”
To understand the evolving nature of the Old Testament notion of god, it is essential to look closely at the wider and more ancient field of Canaanite deities of Syria-Palestine, for in these, we will find, not only the "god behind God", the Ancient of Days worshipped by Abraham and Jacob and revived by Daniel and the apocalyptics, but also the continuing archetypes which take us all the way back to the primal fertility Gods and Goddesses from which our concepts of deity originally stem.
The Semites are broadly divided into the Eastern, represented by the Assyrians and Babylonians and the Western divided between the Southern in Arabia and Ethiopia and the Northern in Palestine and Syria. The term 'ca-na-na-um' was used by the inhabitants as early as 3500 BC (Aubet). The Hebrew "cana'ani" meant merchant, but the original meaning may have come from Akkadian kinahhu - red-colored wool, which may have in turn given their descendents the name Phoenician.
Central to the Semitic notion of deity is El, the old fatherly creator god and his consort, Athirat or Asherah. "Both were primordial beings, they had been there always." El, whose name simply meant 'god' was the creator and procreator, overseer of conception, who sired the gods, thus being also called 'Bull El' in continuity with the ancient bull god of fertility. Asherah and El thus form a creation hieros-gamos of male and female, representing the bull and the earth goddess we see emerging from the ancient continuum at Catal Huyuk. El is supposed to have gone out to sea and asked two Goddesses, one presumably being Athirat and the other possibly Anath to choose between being his spouses and being his daughters. They chose the former. Their offspring are Shaher and Shalem, the morning and evening stars, from which Lucifer, the light-bearer, takes his name.
Many of the archetypes we now perceive in Yahweh have their origin in El. He is an original creator god - the 'Creator of Created things', which definitely includes fertility, but may also include the creation of Heaven and Earth as with the Mesopotamian Marduk and Tiamat, whose own mythology may be partly derived from the older Canaanite myths. El was the proberbial old man who is both a father and judge. He was a kingly and kindly figure, benevolent but not uninvolved. He was the god of decrees and the father of the reigning king. "It was his responsibility to ensure that equilibrium was preserved among all the conflicting and competing powers within it." He thus was respected by the other Gods - "Your decree El is wise, your wisdom is everlasting." "It was not for nothing that El was called 'the kindly and compassionate' - a design strangely reminiscent of 'Allah the Merciful, the Compassionate' in Islam. Not that El was inccapable of anger: transgressions in the community ... could provoke him - and then he would prompt neighbouring powers to invade and conquer. To avert such calamities the king had to perform rites of expiation and offer sacrifices" (Cohn 1993 119)
Scientists find brain evolution gene
of course you know my normal objections to this article already but one question i have is; how do they know this gene didn't exist 300 million years ago?That one gene didn't exist until 300 million years ago and is present only in mammals and birds, not fish or animals without backbones. But then it didn't change much at all. There are only two differences in that one gene between a chimp and a chicken, Haussler said.
i think i need an explanation as to how they could come to this conclusion, considering that the ape (in general) even now gets out of trees and walks partially on two legs. so where is their improvement intheir brains?However, the gene changed so fast that Clark said that he has a hard time believing it unless something unusual happened in a mutation. It's not part of normal evolution, he said. Haussler attributed the dramatic change to the stress of man getting out of trees and walking on two feet
major problem there and no exlanation as to how it evolved an on/off switch let alone picking that particular time period tofunction.The scientists still don't know specifically what the gene does. But they know that this same gene turns on in human fetuses at seven weeks after conception and then shuts down at 19 weeks, Haussler said
