Page 13 of 48

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:26 pm
by Guest
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
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.

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-----faith.

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:36 pm
by Frank Harrist
Oh I betcha he's got more than that, arch.

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:19 pm
by marduk
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
Traditionally, 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.eureka.edu/emp/Hemmenway/IDS ... Exodus.htm
The Epic of Gilgamesh
written around 2000 B.C.E. about a Mesopotamian king who lived around 2700 B.C.E.)
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/cendy/early388.doc

ooh look
the epic of Gilgamesh is over 1000 years older than the book of Genesis

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
But 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”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 32,00.html

now as you like proper links would you like to provide a better source than two .edu sites and the Timesonline that claim the book of Genesis is older than Gilgamesh and that the Catholic church doesn't know what its talking about we'll just assume you don't know what youre talking about
again
ok
:lol:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:16 pm
by Guest
know what its talking about we'll just assume you don't know what youre talking about
again
since i have posted a source for my point, this can be ignored.
but the consensus of contemporary biblical scholarship
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.
the epic of Gilgamesh is over 1000 years older than the book of Genesis
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.
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
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.

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:19 pm
by marduk
as you have completely failed to post any links that back your assertions as per your claims and your continuous assertion that you have them I and everybody else who reads your last post will just assume it is a complete fabrication on your part
you lose
:lol:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:32 pm
by Minimalist
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.”

How fortunate for us that Greek prevailed.

Otherwise, think of all the bear shit these bible-thumpers would be spouting.

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:06 pm
by Guest
how can i lose...i am not playing your game.

when you can present a logical response without your usual inflamnatory statements then maybe you will lose your troll status and gain some credibility but as it stands you do nothing but try and cause trouble.

evidence: all the posters you get into fights with and refuse to backup your statements with facts, links and source material.

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:28 pm
by marduk
so apart from the usual personal attack nonsense what you are saying is that you don't have any links whatsoever that back any of your assertions
yep
thats what I thought
:lol:

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:12 pm
by Minimalist
So, can I post one....because I have no inherent objection to posting links.


http://www.dhushara.com/book/god/canaan.htm
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)

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:17 am
by Guest
as much as i would like to debate what this topic has turned into, i saw somwthing today in the news which would make all evolutionists happy and to get this thread back on track, i have POSTED THE LINK:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_ ... _evolution
Scientists find brain evolution gene
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.
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?

i have my answer but i would like to hear from the 'experts' on this first.

but the real mystery is: will i get a logical, concise and credible answer? we shall see.... more later

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:42 am
by marduk
so now youre trying to change the subject because you can't provide any links to back up your personal fantasy ?
what a surprise
:lol:

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:27 am
by Beagle
Yeah, I saw that article yesterday Arch. It is interesting despite this argument here.

Thanks.

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:41 am
by Guest
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
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?
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
major problem there and no exlanation as to how it evolved an on/off switch let alone picking that particular time period tofunction.

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:44 am
by ReneDescartes
Perhaps I can help shed some light on part of the subject.Not on the biochemical part of it .Bu first I must correct a basic misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of darwinian evolution .The difference between an ape walking on his legs occasionaly and a human being doing it permanently is crucial to the understanding of the mechanism of evolution .
I thought this little difference would not have escaped Arch 's attention .
I hope untill now no sources need to be provided ,it is common knowledge that we dont walk on hands and feet unless of course leaving the local bar after consuming way too much alcohol .Apes do , I mean they walk on all four even without lifting their elbows at the counter of the local tarzan saloon .
In fact when our ancestors decided to leave the trees permanently they found out that there were no pockets in their fur to give them an intersting stance so they fumbled around with those two useless appendices,playing with stones ,sticks ,picking their noses probably too.
So they had to find good use of those two things other than the already mentionned games.Believe me or not but they discovered they could trow things at those annoying animals that were either above or under them in the foodchain .Bingo weapons were born euh airborne I mean .
A step in human evolution if ever such a thing existed .
Unfortunately I have no evidence to backit up for Arch as the ancestors had no pocket in their furs to put their pencils in . :wink:

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:07 am
by Frank Harrist
Pockets, our next evolutionary step. A place to put our appendages when we're not playing witn our other appendage. :lol: