|
Author
|
Topic: The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible. Which came first?
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 76 of 90 (269298)
12-14-2005 4:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
12-14-2005 11:39 AM
|
|
Re: Kings of Israel
That assumption has never seemed logical to me. Saying "In those days Israel did not have Kings" does not automatically place the origin in a period after a time when Israel did have Kings. that's not what it says, though. it say:
quote:
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
that implies there was a period after that in which a king or kings did reign over israel. doesn't it sound like someone explaining the past to you?
Would it not be reasonable for me to say today "In those days the US did not have a King"? it would be like our conversation about "the first president of the united states." we could say that we had presidents of the congress before we had presidents of the executive branch. doesn't that imply that we currently have presidents of the executive branch?
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by jar, posted 12-14-2005 11:39 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by jar, posted 12-14-2005 4:08 PM | | arachnophilia has replied |
|
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
Re: You need to be more critical Ray.
you mean the voices and the hallucinations or the being critical of moses?
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Kings of Israel
While I agree that is the most likely explanation, as I pointed out in a later post, I'm not sure it is necessarily so. It could simply be a statement of difference, made during a period when Israel was unique in not being ruled by a King. I don't think it is enough to firmly establish the later authorship or redaction standing alone. Only when combined with other indicators does it become significant IMHO.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 79 of 90 (269312)
12-14-2005 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
12-14-2005 4:08 PM
|
|
Re: Kings of Israel
It could simply be a statement of difference, made during a period when Israel was unique in not being ruled by a King. not if it says "before." "israel did not have kings" would be a statement of difference. "israel did not have kings in those days" would imply the story is about the past, and israel probably had kings when it was written (otherwise it wouldn't be an important difference to mention, everyone would know) "that was before israel had a king" means that it had to have been written with israel had had a king.
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 78 by jar, posted 12-14-2005 4:08 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: You need to be more critical Ray.
voices and hallucinations. don't make me hit you with the origin of conciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind.
אָרַח
|
macaroniandcheese
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
Re: You need to be more critical Ray.
i mean the voices and hallucinations your mom exhibits. that was the other option. good job reading comprehension.
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4015 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
Re: dating fictional accounts
my newest personal pet hypothesis is that the first half of exodus (the, uh, exodus part) wasn't actually about egypt at all. i'm thinking that the dates of the component documents in the torah indicate that it may have actually been written about the babylonian exile, in a "keep hope" kind of way, with "egypt" as a code-word for the other captors. When you get around to it, it`s all laid out for you by Salibi in Asir. :-p
|
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5213 days) Posts: 380 Joined: 05-30-2004
|
|
|
Message 83 of 90 (270241)
12-17-2005 1:05 AM
|
|
|
Wow, lots of responses since I posted this topic. Interesting to read the different reactions to David Deal's paper. I still personally feel David Deal raises a few good points, but that's just me. My primary purpose in opening this topic was merely on the premise of curiousity--to see everyone's intake on it. I'll keep my opinions to myself, as over the last few years, relish for debate has immensely depreciated. Even if those who feel the Bible is nothing but myth, I see really no purpose in their campaigns and agendas in convincing everyone to think as they do. There really is no saving of humanity in this. Might as well go enjoy a sun tan in Honolulu then try and convince the world the Bible is fake. This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 12-17-2005 01:08 AM
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
I still personally feel David Deal raises a few good points, but that's just me. i'm still pondering the mashu point at the end -- not even sure it has anything to do with gilgamesh. just seems to be selling a pet theory
אָרַח
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by Lysimachus, posted 12-17-2005 1:05 AM | | Lysimachus has not replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 85 of 90 (270358)
12-17-2005 3:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by Brian
12-13-2005 12:59 PM
|
|
Re: He realised early in his career
Hi Brian ! Quick review: Brian said Albright the christian concluded against the Biblical date of the Exodus (mid-15th century).
Think he was in his early 40's when he wrote this, but he maintained the 13th c date until he died. I know this is a thorny question but how is the christianity of a person determined ? How do we separate out persons making the claim who are not as such ? We know Hitler claimed to be a christian. Pat Robertson too. Darwin claimed to be a christian. Persons who reject the Resurrection of Christ claim to be a christian (imagine that !). Did you know Albright was an evolutionist ? We know the Bible does not teach Darwinian evolution by any objective rendering. Ray This message has been edited by Herepton, 12-17-2005 12:46 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Brian, posted 12-13-2005 12:59 PM | | Brian has replied |
|
Brian
Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: 10-22-2002
|
Re: He realised early in his career
I know this is a thorny question but how is the christianity of a person determined ? How do we separate out persons making the claim who are not as such ? 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?
We know Hitler claimed to be a christian. 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.
Pat Robertson too. Darwin claimed to be a christian. Persons who reject the Resurrection of Christ claim to be a christian (imagine that !). 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 Albright was an evolutionist ? 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.
We know the Bible does not teach Darwinian evolution by any objective rendering. So, you are saying that Albright wasn't a creationist, do you have a reference for that? Brian.
|
macaroniandcheese
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
|
|
Message 87 of 90 (270711)
12-19-2005 10:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
12-14-2005 3:03 PM
|
|
Re: Kings of Israel
but the addition of 'in those days,' which sounds to me like it describes a time in the not-to-recent past, seem like it places this telling closer to when israel had a king. merely speculation, but writers tend to use things like that on purpose. no one talks about the 60's by saying 'in those days,' but they might talk about the the 1860's or the colonial era by saying 'in those days.' it generally is going to define a significant difference between then and now: in those days black people were required to work for white people without pay. oh wait.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 73 by jar, posted 12-14-2005 3:03 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
macaroniandcheese
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: 05-24-2004
|
Re: He realised early in his career
the point is, we don't. we don't have a right to. remember how the bible says 'judge not' and the whole determination of the chosen is called 'day of judgement'? think about it. salvation is between a person and their god. it's none of your business.
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 89 of 90 (271201)
12-20-2005 8:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Brian
12-19-2005 6:32 AM
|
|
Re: He realised early in his career
You aren't seriously suggesting that Albright wasn't a Christian because he didn't accept a 15th century Exodus? It certainly is an indication.
One reason that I think he was a Christian is precisely because he went with the weight of the evidence. Then you are saying Christian disagrees with the Bible. Its the other way around. Christian agrees with Bible.
He, of course, reinterpreted many passages to fit with his dating, but doesn't everyone do this? Not me. We both know a mere 200 years is the variance of disagreement when dating the Exodus. If we account for the personal worldview bias of minis (13th century) all of the data fits the 15th century.
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. Anyone who actually believes Hitler's claim is obviously grinding an axe.
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? Fundies thought Dr. Scott was the devil incarnate. Imagine that; a Preacher who smoked a cigar and had a Ph.D. from Stanford ? Their disapproval proved his rightness. Over at the Talk Origins Usenet they think I am the devil incarnate. Imagine that - Darwinists think I am the devil ?
Did you know that he was also a religious bigot and a racist? No I did not. But since he was an evolutionist - we know Darwin sure was.
So, you are saying that Albright wasn't a creationist, do you have a reference for that? Coming right up.... Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Brian, posted 12-19-2005 6:32 AM | | Brian has not replied |
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 90 of 90 (271205)
12-20-2005 8:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Brian
12-19-2005 6:32 AM
|
|
Re: He realised early in his career
So, you are saying that Albright wasn't a creationist, do you have a reference for that? http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2020 As a rule, archaeologists endorse evolutionary assumptions that the Earth is ancient and that man developed gradually”both physically and intellectually”over millions of years. Kenyon attributed the development of the Jordan Valley to vast terrestrial movements two million years ago (Kenyon, 1957b, p. 23). Albright discussed in detail the “...artistic evolution of Homo sapiens,” which first began around 30,000 to 20,000 B.C. (1942, pp. 6-10). Allegedly, as man slowly “evolved,” he learned how to manufacture tools from stones, and gradually developed the ability to make pottery. With his discovery of fire, he learned to fashion tools from copper and iron. Thus, archaeologists assume that centuries transpired before man graduated from stone tools and weapons to metallic implements. Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Brian, posted 12-19-2005 6:32 AM | | Brian has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2