Not Influenced by Surrounding Nations

WARNING - what follows is a not particularly relevant nitpick. To Peg and ICANT; I'll get around to responding to you on sex and the forbidden fruit once I've got the time to craft a decent reply. The occult isn't a specific religion that need be capitalised - it just refers to all manner of supernatural jiggerypokery like astrology, witchcraft and numerology. 'Occult' comes from the Latin root 'occultus' meaning 'to conceal'; because it was used to refer to all kinds of secret knowledge and mysteries that mystics were purported to possess. It's still used in the sense of hiding something in the word 'occultation'; which is how astronomers say 'eclipse' when they want to pretend they're talking about something clever that laymen don't understand. It's not etymologically related to cult*, which comes from 'cultus' - 'to worship'.*The Latin roots might well be related, given how similar they look, but I mean that they're not related in the way they entered English.

Heh, yeah - I know what the occult is, I've even been involved in various occult practices before becoming an atheist: summoning forest spirits, spiritual healing, remote viewing, visiting the wise elders of the astral plane for advice, channelling the knowledge of Oghma and all the way 'up to' lesser and greater black magic.Peg was talking about something called the Occult which apparently involves worship of A deity. I assumed it was some kind of Pegcentric Christian conceptual idea far removed from what I would call the occult. Since Peg was talking about worshipping deities, I thought that maybe Peg was thinking of cultic practices so I tried answering the question with that assumption. I'll be blasted if I know what Peg meant though.But thanks for allowing me to clarify that point, however minor

Hahaha i LOL'dcaffines explanation was just what i had in mind, even if it didn't come out quite so eloquently

Nitpick upon nitpick: Occultations are solid objects getting in between your eye and the source of light - like the moon covering the sun or a star. Eclipses are one object casting its shadow on another object remote from your eye - lunar eclipses, whether of our moon or Jupiter's.
[/OT nitpick]

If one looks at where both of these stories originated, Mesopotamia, then it can be said that they have similar origins. One would assume that Abraham brought the story with him when he left Ur for Haran & later Canaan. The Gilgamesh story stayed in Mesopotamia. It would be over 1000 years before these stories were written down in their current fashion, and thus would be changed due to the evolution of each by the peoples who told them, each adding his own parts to the story.

yes i agree with you there.And i guess if we cant prove one way or another which story is the original, we can be sure of at least one thing...that the flood left a strong impression on many people for a very very long timeno one forgot it, even if they perhaps got their facts mixed up a little.

Is that your final answer? Or do you think it is likely you will go to go back to, "Therefore the genesis account cannot possibly be related to the gilgamesh account. "?

I knew I was right!Guards! Seize him!

do you really want me to answer that???ok,you win, they are related in that both contain an account about a flood.

Peg, don't take this personally, I'm sure you're a mighty fine person to know one-on-one, but this is a debate site so I'm compelled by the format to be something of a pain in the 'ass'.I appreciate that we can agree they are related in so far as they both contain references to a flood. Do you agree that the similarities that are apparently there, are so similar, that the one might be influenced by the other? Not just that Utnapishtim's tale may have been influenced by Noah's tale, but that Noah's tale may have been influenced by Utnapishtim's tale.

In Genesis 10:8-11 we note Nimrod established a kingdom. Therefore, we might expect to find a well-known tale, common in Sumerian literature, of a man who fits the description. Just as Mod is patiently presenting, we do - as there likely was. In addition to the Sumerians, the Babylonians wrote about this person; the Assyrians likewise; and the Hittites. Even in Palestine, tablets have been found with this man’s name on them.He was obviously the most popular hero in the Ancient Near East. What might make sense? Perhaps if Peg, and others, explored the abundance of potential evidence equating Nimrod to Gilgamesh, such discussion may seem less threatening to certain individuals. If such an assumption is at least humored, along with its prospective evidence, it may provide an avenue of hope and encouragement for this discussions progress.At the least, one can contemplate specific significant impacts ancient indigenous cultures may have provided one another, as well the distance superstition and idolic worship appear to swim through time. If we are not careful, Nimrodian origins of the winter solstices' decorated pine tree ritual observance, which Jeremiah sternly rebukes in chapter 10 of his book, may be revealed as well - complete with silver/gold ornaments and presents underneath.One Love

no i dont because what you are calling 'similarities' are completely contradictory rather then similar.for example Gilgamesh himself was a demi god who was being told about the flood, by a man who was immortal, some time after it happened.The genesis account describes a world full of demi gods (Nephilim) who all perished in the flood and no humans, not even noah, were immortal.You see how the Gilgamesh account contradicts the genesis account about the Nephilim and how they all perished in the flood.It also contradicts the genesis account about immortality...no humans were immortal in the genesis account.

this is just an interesting side point...The rabbinic writings derived the name 'Nimrod' from the Hebrew verb maradh′, meaning 'rebel' So it wasnt the mans actual name
they dont know the name of the one who founded the city of Babel. We know him as a rebel or 'nimrod', and that is all we know him as.he certainly was no hero. He is presented in a negative way in the Jewish Targums, the writings of the historian Josephus, and also the context of Genesis chapter 10 suggest that Nimrod was a mighty hunter in opposition to God.

I'm completely at a loss how you can hold this opinion and the opinion voiced in Message 51 at the same time. Could you explain? And what about the similarities that I actually called similarities, not the differences that I never disputed were differences?

because in Msg 51 I was replying to bluescat48 who said
'If one looks at where both of these stories originated, Mesopotamia, then it can be said that they have similar origins.'i agreed. They both originated in the same region, but thats to be expected seeing all ancient writings originated in the mesopotamia i agreed with you that there are similiarities though very minimalboth accounts speak of gods, both speak of a flood, both speak of demigodsthis does not mean that Moses copied or was influenced by the gilgamesh account though. Moses may never have even read the gilgamesh account.