Page 39 of 50
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:29 am
by Guest
see youre doing it again
the actual quote about your religion goes
and that stillfits evolution perfectly. since christianity doesn't believe in chance nor magic, it still does not qualify. but even the words irrationally or practice fits evolution also as so many scientists hold to it despite the inability to prove it true, even through multiple manipulations.
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:20 am
by marduk
so are you going to tell us how Sargon of Akkad is mentioned in the bible or are you just going to pretend that you didn't say this
sargon was an example, one that was dismissed as the only ancient source mentioning him was the Bible until they made a discovery. problem is, non-religious people don't learn from their mistakes here and they keep dismissing the Bible despite the many times it is proven to be an accurate record of what it discusses.
are you learning from your mistakes yet Arch
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:37 am
by Beagle
Marduk - a suggestion. Every since you started posting here you have been spouting off about knowing the secrets of the Sumerians.
OK - please start a topic thread on the Sumerians. We haven't had one here. I'll read it and support it by posting my thoughts.
I won't trash your topic thread - promise-that's for little people.
But be careful, you may not know everything.
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:47 am
by Essan
One thing I will say about Marduk - he does know his Sumerians
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:51 am
by marduk
Sargon of Akkad is not a sumerian Beagle
hes an Akkadian
and i have not been spouting off claiming that i know everything about the sumerians
i have just been providing mesopotamian answers to questions when they are relevant
Its Arch in his ignorance of the origins of the bible that keeps bringing it up
so if someone asks a question like
who had the first chariots
or
who invented the first writing
or
who invented astrology
or
who had the first standing army
or
who had the first ocean going boats
or
who originated Adam, eden and Satan
shall i shut up and let Arch claim that god did it
I won't trash your topic thread - promise-that's for little people.
But be careful, you may not know everything
from my first post here Beagle you claimed what i had to say was irrelevant because it didn't agree with your rose tinted view of G H' erroneous completely unsupported psuedoscience and because i just so happen to post at another forum that you aren't intelligent enough to see the value of...
and then since then you have personally attacked me for saying something to another poster when you didn't have the cognitive ability to see that you were misfiring because of your emotional state
so i think you can stick your suggestions where the sun doesn't shine if thats ok with you because youre not even in my league
now did you understand that or would you like me to put it into words of one syllable for you
and compared to your level of understanding I do know everything though admittedly because of the huge drag factor of your intellect thats not saying much is it
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:10 am
by Beagle
Marduk, I don't know why you're telling me about Sargon - but thanks.
Let me take something back also - it's become clear to me that, although you post at THOM, you are "out of the loop". I know you don't know what I'm talking about - and it's not important. You simply didn't read the first post I made in that thread, and you have no respect for the word "please".
And I'm interested in any Sumerian topic that you post. After all - I have a terrible intellectual drag.
Another forum calls for now - but I look forward to any conversation with you that doesn't involve your pre - occupation with God. This forum is really not the place to search for him, I don't think, but good luck.
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:08 am
by marduk
lol
i don't have a pre occupation with God
thats Arch youre thinking of
i was telling you about Sargon because he was mentioned in my previous post which you responded to with a comment about sumerians
although you post at THOM, you are "out of the loop". I know you don't know what I'm talking about
I know exactly what you are talking about as i have been the result of a institutionally sponsored flaming at THOM several times. But even that serves a purpose Beagle and although it is frustrating it teaches you to look for better evidence so that next time instead of going into a feeding frenzy the other posters say "hey he's right you know". that way everyone learns something and its part of a process called peer review which is essential if you ever expect to change anything about the way that the world views the past
theres no point searching for God anywhere Beagle
the one that 66% of the worlds population died a very long time ago
you have no respect for the word "please".
not when what follows it is a not too cleverly hidden insult
if you want to know something about the sumerians then start a topic yourself and start asking questions
i already know most of the answers that are relevant to my area of research and wouldn't use this forum to find them anyway as its not what you'd call a reliable source
thats why i won't open a sumerian topic
that and of course that i don't want to appear to be
spouting off about knowing the secrets of the Sumerians.
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:09 am
by marduk
Essan wrote:One thing I will say about Marduk - he does know his Sumerians
one thing that people keep missing
the more he studies them the more he despises them
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:41 pm
by Leona Conner
Poor Arch. He needs to take another break. He must be dizzy from going around in his Bible circles. According to him we so-called "evolutionists"
need to produce rock-solid archaeological evidence to prove our point. He needs no evidence because he has his Bible telling him what to believe and as long as he has that to back up his ignorance, he will never give us an intelligent answer to any of our questions. (Someday if I have the time I will count the number of statements he has ignored because he doesn't have an answer.) I've learned...that to ignore the facts does not change the facts, listening Arch.
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:55 pm
by Minimalist
You can't generate "intelligent answers" from bible fairy tales, Leona. Not humanly possible.
I watched a special on "The Antichrist" last night. If you think arch is bad you should see what some of those nutty evangelicals think.
Oh, that's right. I forgot. You live with them!
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:01 pm
by Guest
so are you going to tell us how Sargon of Akkad is mentioned in the bible or are you just going to pretend that you didn't say this
i amnot pretending anything, i made reference to the kind of blunders the secular world makes and you try to twist it into someting else.
you keep dismissing all the claims of the Bible because of the lackof evidence and sargon was one of those early dismissals. yet whenthe Bible was provento be true by MODERN archaeology, you all keep doing the same thing, denying and dismissing instead of listening and learning.
this is a continual habit with non-believing researchers, another prime example and an obvious one are the Hittites. only mentioned in the Bible until a discovery was finally made which proved the Bible to be accurate and true yet you continue to follow the same pattern.
ifi were you i would start to consider seriously the mistakes you make and not be so easily dismissive when it comes to the Biblical accounts.
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:18 pm
by Minimalist
I figured I'd give mardul a little help with his Sumerian dissertation.
Young-earth "proof" #29: The dates in the Bible add up to about 6000 years.
29. The biblical figure, unfortunately, is based on patriarchal life spans to which no right-thinking person could subscribe. You have to be pretty deep into biblical infallibility before you can make yourself believe that individuals once lived upwards of 900 years! Claims about the magical effects of vapor canopies and tropical living don't impress anyone who has the slightest understanding of the aging process.
More to the point, the patriarchal ages are nothing more than a modified version of an old Babylonian myth!
2. The Ages of the Patriarches ... are the modest Hebrew equivalents of the much longer life-spans attributed by the Babylonians to their antediluvian kings. The first five names will suffice as examples: Alulim reigned 28,800 years, Alamar 36,000, Enmenluanna 43,200, Enmenluanna 28,800, Dumuzi the Shepherd 36,000, etc. These Babylonian lists, a version of which is recorded also by Berosus, have one feature in common with the Biblical list of patriarches: they both attribute extremely long life-spans to the earliest figures, then shorter, but still unrealistically long, lives to the later ones, until the historical period is reached when both kings and patriarches are cut down to human size. In the ancient Near East, where longevity was considered man's greatest blessing, the quasi-divine character of early mythical kings and patriarches is indicated by a ten-fold, hundred-fold or thousand-fold multiplication of their reigns or ages.
(Graves and Patai, 1989, pp.132-133)
The source Lloyd Bailey uses (Text W-B 62, Sumerian King List) yields even higher ages for some of the pre-diluvian kings of Mesopotamia (Bailey, 1989, p.123). It is interesting to note that Genesis has the same number of antediluvian kings, namely tem. Bailey spends several pages examining the figures of Genesis and of the above text, often turning up interesting subleties and odd relationships which expose the artificial nature of the biblical ages assigned to the patriarches.
Thus, we see the true source of the great ages of those biblical patriarches. Their ages are simply a Hebrew version of an older Mesopotamian tradition, which is to say that they are historically fictitious, that they are endowed with symbolic meanings.
Therefore, the biblical age of the earth is a product of the literary reworking of a Mesopotamian tradition and not the result of a factual estimate. The patriarches' ages were selected with symbolic meanings in mind, and any attempt to turn them into an estimate of the earth's age would be most unwise.
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:27 pm
by marduk
actually Arch the first dates on the sumerian kings list all happen to be precessional numbers. do you even know what that is ?
the second set of dates (kings of kish onwards) where it claims some kings reigned for 1200 years are recorded in base 60 (what you didn't know the sumerians used base 60, look at your watch) in base 60, 1200 years is actually 20 years
and the last set of dates are well within the lengths of reigns for human kings and reflects the period from the rise of Akkad onwards when everyone was using semitic base 10
or didn't you know that Sargon the great was a semite (we've already established that you never heard of him because for some reason you are confusing him with the much later king of Assyria Sargon II (who did you think he named himself after
so once again you are proving my point for me
the ages of the biblical patriarchs being based on the ages of the sumerian kings of Kish are an error made by the Hebrews who didn't realise (like you) that the dates were in base 60 when they claimed that their holy men lived a long time
this means that the oldest Patriarch Methuseleh reached a grand old age of 16 when he died
read it and weep
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:42 pm
by Guest
actually Arch the first dates on the sumerian kings list all happen to be precessional numbers. do you even know what that is ?
your insolence is ignored as well as anything you post as you have no credibility with me.
this is an intelligent design topic, post soemthing credible and discussionable on that subject matter and go from there...
beagle was right, you should start a sumerian thread
Posted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:44 pm
by Minimalist
actually Arch the first dates on the sumerian kings list all happen to be precessional numbers. do you even know what that is ?
Hancock does.
