Archaeologica.org

Hebrew, Moslem and Christian basically all derive from Abraham's religion

Abraham was also a fictinal character
the claim that he was from Ur of the chaldees was 800 years early
chaldea didnt rise until 1000bce
and the fact that the ram in a thicket is a sumerian theme which predates Abraham by at least 600 years also shows that his story was based on older ones from a sumerian source
forum monk your claim that the bible is backed by archaeology is totally groundless
there are countless posts in this forum that prove that
the archaeology supports just the opposite
as does examination of the original Hebrew text
which at one point claims that the Israelites built the egyptian city of Heliopolis (which was On)
which existed in predynastic times, over a thousand years before the time of the start of the exodus captivity
when the hebrews were also illiterate at the time of the exodus
so those tablets must have been written in what language exactly

you have been blinded by your faith it seems
thats a shame because you were doing so well

hehehe

marduk wrote:Abraham was also a fictinal character

Ok - its complete. You have now destroyed three of the largest religions in the world with a sweep of your fingers across the keyboard.

Guess I should abandon my foolishness and seek to restore my good graces with Marduk while there is still time.

Ok - its complete. You have now destroyed three of the largest religions in the world with a sweep of your fingers across the keyboard

well lets face it if you left it up to them theyd destroy each other and then there would be no winners at all
at least this way we all still get to live

even if it is under my glorious leadership

marduk wrote:well lets face it if you left it up to them theyd destroy each other

now that's funny - but sadly its probably true.

If you accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis

That's a big "if" there, Monk.

If you accept that Moses wrote the book of Genesis

Marduk, I'm a little confused ... are we discussing Moses or Sargon? Or both?

well shhh but its a bit of a secret as you know

I am Sargon, the powerful king, the king of Akkad. My mother was an Enitu priestees, I did not know any father . . . . My mother conceived me and bore me in secret. She put me in a little box made of reeds, sealing its lid with pitch. She put me in the river. . . . The river carried me away and brought me to Akki the drawer of water. Akki the drawer of water adopted me and brought me up as his son. .

with real facts like that someones bound to pay attention
a lot of these biblical people don't even realise that Sargon is not mentioned anywhere in the bible
they get confused easily and think that he is and that it somehow supports something that happened in a fictional story much later
but you know these middle eastern cults are all crazy
hehe

Yeah, if the moderator would kindly endure a few 'off topic' excursions, I concede it is a big 'if' from an archaeological point of view. The text of the works themselves claim Moses as author, but that, in and of itself does not mean a clever author could not have contrived it (a sort of 4th century BCE DaVinci Code kinda thing). The earliest known manuscripts are a long time from the 1500bce (my best estimate) time frame (not 1200's as some maintain). One must consider the priestly and scribal traditions which preserved their integrity throughout the centuries. We get glimpses of this when we examine the dead sea scrolls and discover that NO SIGNIFICANT deviations exist in the text after more than two millenium.

I feel that Marduk missed the point a bit. If the Hebrew and Sumerian texts agree in all but the details can one begin to assert the each is an affirmation of the other? If I tell you a story and some one else comes along and tells you the same story you conclude either the story is true or at least they came from the same source. Now if you tend to think, yeah, they came from the same source, how can you conclude as Marduk does, that the second if totaly false without making the same assertion about the first? The entire thing may be fiction but now archaeology must do what it does and dig.

As for Moses? Don't reject him. Dig. Someone could become the hero of half the world!

how can you conclude as Marduk does, that the second if totaly false without making the same assertion about the first

because the first are not religious scripture
and the second are used in a book written to control people
the first also are not from a monothestic society
whereas the second have had all the other gods cut and the names changed to make them seem Hebrew
there is a word for this thesedays
its called plaguiarism
if you dont see it like this then you havent studied it from the facts FM
youve just used your faith to guide your way
the idea that you think the bible dates from 1200bce is laughable by the way
even genuine biblical scholars say 650 bce at the earliest
thats around the time that Hebrews got access to the library at Nineveh
the library didnt exist much before 750bce
and there is no other way that the Hebrew scribes could have got this information
because they didnt exist when the earlier texts were written
they were still skulking in canaan herding sheep
and you gotta wonder about this all powerful god of theirs
who apparently was that powerful he had the entire lot enslaved by the babylonians at the very weakest point of their empire
YHWH loves to have his followers as slaves
nothing changes does it

Perhaps I was not clear...I was dating Moses, not the extant manuscripts. As for the purpose of one vs the other...one is a simple list, the second is intended to serve as a moral guide. No worry though. It is not trying to assert control over you. Read it and draw your own conclusions, as apparently you already have done.

Read it and draw your own conclusions, as apparently you already have done

so if maybe i came up with something that would destroy islam and catholicism overnight
you dont think they'd try to control an aspect of my existence
like my ability to breathe
youre not that Naieve FM
you know i'm sure that since its inception christianity has accounted for 500,000,000 heretics
compare that to some other groups with scores as low as 6.000.000 and you will see the control very clearly

any religion that follows a god whos first act was to kill every living thing on earth (except ducks) is setting a terrible example to follow

Not everyone agrees that the corpus of work is all that close and the condition of many of the fragments makes reading them difficult.

http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/cont ... e/DSS.html

Since the discovery of the first seven scrolls, more than 800 additional scrolls or fragments of scrolls have been found, including enough fragments to form a nearly complete text of Isaiah, fragments of every book of the Old Testament except Esther (although some recent work identifies several of the fragments as possibly coming from a proto- or variant form of Esther), and many apocryphal and pseudepigraphic works. There are books, or references to books, which are not in our canon but were obviously honored by the sect. Some of the materials strongly indicate that the sect was schismatic or even heretical by Jewish standards of the time (although there is no record of such a declaration).

The majority of the fragments are in Hebrew, one sixth are in Aramaic, and a few are in Greek. Most of the fragments are in such poor condition that interpretation is exceedingly difficult. Because of the poor condition of the fragments, and in some cases the nearly illegible script, there is no single, authoritative translation.

The Isaiah fragments have many discrepancies with the Septuagint and the Masorah. Some of the discrepancies appear due to mistakes in reading the original, some may be more faithful to the original, and some may have been deliberate variants.

Whew...is it getting warm in here or it just me? Marduk, your point of 500M vs 6M is taken without comment. It is harsh but history is history and men do waht they think is right whether is based on any real moral foundation or not. It is tragic.

As for the scroll update - thanks for the info. it has been suggested in the past they were stored by a particular sect with its own agenda. now we are left to wonder which were closer to the original.

I didn't come into this with any agenda except to learn about the list which I have interest in. I merely laid out my Christian cards in the very begining because I didn't want any of you to feel I had a drum to beat. Read my opeing post again.

I merely laid out my Christian cards in the very begining because I didn't want any of you to feel I had a drum to beat

no ones blaming you for having faith
yours is much the same as any other as its your personal choice
but its best to rely on facts when discussing history
and the bible doesnt have any of those
it just has its agenda

this might be an unfortunate journey for you FM because the more you get into real history the more you will realise that you have been lied to and your faith will be tested
if you can handle that then thats cool
if you can't then you'll get very upset
this is always the way it goes
leave your faith at the door where it belongs is the best advice anyone can give you in here

its not valid to the discussion anyway

marduk wrote:this might be an unfortunate journey for you FM because the more you get into real history the more you will realise that you have been lied to and your faith will be tested
if you can handle that then thats cool
if you can't then you'll get very upset
this is always the way it goes
leave your faith at the door where it belongs is the best advice anyone can give you in here

its not valid to the discussion anyway

If you go back a page or so, it was you that brought the bible into it. In fact in your opeing post you referenced Abraham and Ishmael whom you assert as fictional.

Anyway I am willing to 'bear my cross' (hows that for a genuine Christian cliche?) for the sake of understanding these lists a little deeper. I feel that if my faith can be destroyed its built on faulty ground. Let the journey begin.