But you're not going to back up any of these "facts" with reasoning. :idunno:
Dinosaurs
- Thread starter Kdall
- Start date
But you're not going to back up any of these "facts" with reasoning. :idunno:
How about links with testimony from esteemed university professors and archeologists? Will that do?
Or even more simply, you can look up "Epic of Gilgamesh" and read a synopsis
It depends what they say. I'm not impressed by a list of credentials.
And I'm not going to read all your links and provide a point-by-point commentary on where they have gone wrong.
So how about you just give me your reasoning? It is us in the discussion, after all.
Reasoning on why Genesis is taken from older myths:
1. The other myths, which are remarkably similar (especially in reference to the flood), are older.
If you are a professor and your student turns in a paper that is the same as an essay by a colleague of yours, what are you going to determine? That the older paper by your colleague was copied from the student's that you just received? I don't think so
2. "El" and "Elohim", which as you know is one of God's names in the OT, comes from the Babylonian God, El. There are numerous passages in the OT that suggest some Jewush people believed in God and also in "lesser gods" or undercased "elohim." These lesser Gods are Baal and others from Babylonian theology.
3. As with flood myths, the oldest creation myths available to us are from Mesopatamia. The fall from grace is well documented as part of their creation story. We pilfered that, too
Now, why don't you use reason to tell me why I'm wrong?
Assertions are not evidence. I asked you to show us why they are older. Without reasoning, my counter-assertion is sufficient an answer.
:chuckle:
You are overstating your case. Genesis is in no way similar to the Babylonian or Sumerian accounts that can be used to determine heredity. There are a few superficial and general similarities (they both involve a flood and a boat), but nothing of their content demonstrates inheritance in the direction you assert.
Or the Babylonians got the name from the Hebrew histories. :idunno:
Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You have not shown evidence for why the non-Hebrew accounts are older.
First you have to show reason for why you are right. :chuckle:
Since your entire ideology seemingly rests on Genesis being older than Mesopatamian society, here you go: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_civilization
"Historically, the ancient city states of Mesopotamia in the fertile crescent are most cited by Western and Middle Eastern scholars as the cradle of civilization. The convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers produced rich fertile soil and a supply of water for irrigation. The civilizations that emerged around these rivers are among the earliest known non-nomadic agrarian societies. Because Ubaid, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylon civilizations all emerged around the Tigris-Euphrates, the theory that Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization is widely accepted.[23]
The Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer emerges in the Ubaid period (6500-3800 BC) and Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BC), culminating in the mid-3rd millennium before giving rise to the Akkadian Empire in the 24th century BC. This is often identified as the first empire in history."
Egypt was second. I predict you will not accept plain history
Not when it consists entirely of ideas that are "widely accepted" sans anything remotely resembling evidence. :idunno:
So what information from ancient Sumerian culture would you consider as acceptable evidence?
You want me to describe your evidence? :AMR:
No, I want to hear from you what type of evidence you personally will consider acceptable.
Any "evidence" that fits with Stripe's version of Genesis. Or that supports Walt Brown.
Nothing else matters to the Stripe-man. Anything else may lead to his damnation.
Any type would be a step up from nothing. :up:
I suspect as much. Which is why I asked him in the first place. He has a tendency to move the goal posts...
Stipe is the chorus in a Greek comedy.
:darwinsm:
Evolutionist makes an unsupported assertion as if it were evidence, but the YEC is in the wrong.
Darwinists are morons.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
We have some pictures that kind of sort of look like a sauropod (long-necked herbivores), but they also look like a turtle. Other than that, not really
Of course. He represents the Darwinist agenda: Dissemble and distract so that lots gets said but nothing gets resolved.
Case in point is your potential contribution here. Do you have any evidence that the Sumerian and Babylonian texts predate the Hebrew accounts, or are you just here to be a troll as well?
And you represent the creationist agenda: when under fire for being illogical, lash out and try to hurt the 'evolutionist' any way that you can, no matter how insignificant
I gave you a link and a quote from that link. If you're truly interested in whether Mesopotamia is older than Jewish tradition, then do your own research. Hell, go to a creationist site. I'm pretty sure even they admit that Mesopotamia was the first civilization