The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible. Which came first?

Maybe if the author is 12 years old, but if it was written by an adult then it is a very poorly written paperAs Jar has said, there is nothing of any real value in the entire paper, it is very poorly referenced, hardly anything is supported, and even the grammar is appalling.For example: This should be referenced, and/or some supporting evidence given. Who actually says it is the oldest written document, what does the author actually mean by 'document'? This type of error is repeated throughout, heavens the author makes claims about certain events and people in the Epic, yet he never gives verse references.As for the grammar, how is this wee beauty? Basic question?? There are two questions here Also, as far as grammar is concerned, why does the word 'Which' have a capital 'W'? It comes after a comma, not a full stop.I could go on, but this article is only good for one thing, i.e. demonstrating that fundies make very poor researchers.Brian.

Indeed it is, a point that the author of the article seems unaware of. We also know that there are older texts than the Epic of Gilgamesh, another fact that the author errs over. Does it really claim this Ray? Are there even any suggestions in the Hebrew Bible that Moses wrote the Pentateuch as so many fundies claim? Well, perhaps they are protected by their gods, after all, there is as much evidence for the existence of Yahweh as there is for the existence of any other god. This is an error. Similarities in varying ancient texts do not confirm any external event. These similarities only confirm that texts were either copied and edited, or became corrupt in some way, they do not confirm anything external. To confirm the Flood as an historical reality takes a lot more than a mention in various ancient texts, it requires external evidence to corroborate the textual claims. When considering external evidence and the Flood of Genesis, I doubt that any event in the entire Bible has been as decimated by concrete external evidence. The Flood is a myth, no big deal, we both know that myths are powerful stories and were used to explain ideas in a way that the audience could understand. So jealously controlled that no original texts exist, many variant conflicting copies are in circulation, and external evidence negates (or does not support) almost the entire Torah. How so?Are you saying that if two stories exist about an event then that event MUST have happened? The protected version is wrong then, there was no Flood. Can you elaborate a little? What does this mean? That God decided to start writing the Bible in the 15th century BCE? Pretty much a bare assertion here Ray, I could equally say that older texts and sources support the fact that the Israelite authors copied older ANE myths, which is more likely. So, the Egyptians were monotheists were they?Brian.

Yes, but only for an extremely short period of time and, of course, Akhenaten was Moses

The thing is, Mosaic authorship of the Torah would be at least plausible if anything in the text could be dated with any certainty to the period that the Bible claims that Moses liived. Of course, the Bible gives conflicting information about when Moses was supposed to have lived. 1 Kiings 6:1 suggests a 15th c bce date while other verses (e.g. Exodus 1:11) suggest a 13th century date. There are other chronology theories, but these two dates have been the most popular, with the 13th c. date being almost universally accepted as the most plausible date. Even conservative Christian scholars, such as Albright, Wright, and Bright, all accept that the 15th c. date should be abandoned.One of the main problems with dating the Pentateuch is that not a single character or event has ever identified in any extant external source. Another problem is that the Pentateuch allegedly covers a period of time far longer than the life time of Moses, so it makes it difficult to believe that Moses wrote the first five books. Probably more damning are the large amount of anachronisms in the Pentateuch. For example, the names in the Joseph saga belong to a period about 800 years after the time suggested by the Bible, the mention of Pithom belongs to the 7th century, and the mention of Israelite Kings obviously must be around the 10th century bce.So, we don't need the 'Torah in Moses' own handwriting', but it would be more plausible if the Pentateuch wasn't so obviously composed over a huge period of time. It would also be more plausible if some of the characters and events had some external evidence to support them, or even if the name of a pharoah was mentioned, what would also be nice to have would be the first half of Moses' name.Brian.

Hi Ray, Think he was in his early 40's when he wrote this, but he maintained the 13th c date until he died.He originally accepted the 15th century date based only on the biblical text, and interpreted all his early finds through the biblical texts rather than on their own, but all biblical archaeologists were taking this faulty appraoch back then. He stuck to the 15th c date for at least eleven years, before finally abandoning it as a useless cause.Albright originally went with the 15th century date, until he was forced to change to the 13th through what he saw as overwhelming evidence for the late date. He wrote an article in 1934, while excavating Bethel where he uncovered a 13th century destruction level, the article is: The Kyle Memorial Excavation at Bethel, BASOR 56, pp 2-15.I do have a photocopy of this article somewhere, but cannot for the life of me find it. However, I remembered that Bimson quotes from the article, so this is from J. J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, JSOT, Sheffield, 1978, p. 21."In reaching this obvious and inescapable conclusion, the writer abandons a position he has held for eleven years, and adopts the low date for the Israelite conquest of central Palestine" (1934: 10).Later, in 1939, Albright wrote:"The burden of proof is now entirely on those scholars who still wish to place the main phase of the Israelite conquest of Palestine before the 13th century B.C." (Albright W. F. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in Light of Archaeology, BASOR 74, pp 11-23, quote p.23)Since the 1930's, very few scholars have adhered to the 15th century date, as the evidence is hugely stacked against them. When people such as Albright and Nelson Glueck abandon the 15th century date, that should demonstrate how strong the contrary evidence is.Brian.BTW, the eyes are great, thanks for asking, everything went well, there is still a little swelling in the right eye so things a teensy bit out of focus, but overall I am well pleased. Isn't it great that mankind is now correcting some shoddy workmanship

Hey,Eyes are almost brand new!Still cannot see God though, maybe next time!Thanks for asking mate.Brian.

I think any text that mentions Kings Of Israel would need to be dated, at least the insertion would have to be dated, roughly to post 11th/10th c BCE, since there were no kings of Israel before that timeBrian.

Heaven knows You aren't seriously suggesting that Albright wasn't a Christian because he didn't accept a 15th century Exodus? One reason that I think he was a Christian is precisely because he went with the weight of the evidence. I wouldn't expect a Christian to lie to themselves, even if Albright was incorrect, he still sided with the evidence. He, of course, reinterpreted many passages to fit with his dating, but doesn't everyone do this? I think Hitler was a Christian. We are supposed to be made in the image of God, and as God is a bloodthirsty, racist, bigot, then it is obvious that Hitler was made in His image. Maybe believing that you are a Christian is enough, does it really matter if anyone else believes that you are? Does it matter to you that many people didnt think that Dr. Scott was a Christian? Did you know that he was also a religious bigot and a racist?I didn't know that he was a biological evolutionist, but he did write a book about how Christianity is the pinnacle about by the evolution of religion. So, you are saying that Albright wasn't a creationist, do you have a reference for that?Brian.