Origin of Gods word

Im currently reading on this summerian. And it says it dates 2300bc, But Genesis is yet before 2300bc. Also why is this refered to as mythology and the Bible as historical?. What did this religion do to prove its credentials. Did it fullfill prophecies?, send down a messiah that rose from the dead?, Does their religious book have the uniqueness of the Bible as i pointed out before. The person that claimed everyother book has the same properties has yet to provide.EDITED...BTW, I found this at AiG which says

quote:

---

Although this hypothesis cannot be proven at this time, it seem to afford a reasonable explanation of the similarities and differences between the two documents. The probability that the resemblance is fortuitous is very small in view of the fact that the two lists:

​

-mention the Flood;

​

-refer to the same (adjusted) number of personages;

​

-have totals that are made up of the same number of symbols for ten times the square of the base, the square of the base, and the next lower symbol of the two different numerical systems involved;

​

and, have their totals correspond to each other numerically.

​

On the other hand, it is highly unlikely that the biblical account was derived from the Sumerian because:

​

-the Genesis account has more numerical precision and more detailed information;

​

-the ages of the patriarchs are much more reasonable than the extremely long reigns of the kings of the Kings List, the account is much more realistic and true to life;

​

-and, the moral and spiritual qualities are immensely superior. For example, in the Sumerian account of the Flood (as given in the Gilgamesh epic) there is no reason given for the decision of the gods to destroy mankind. There are no allusions at all to a fault committed by man. The Flood appears as a capricious act of the gods rather than a divine punishment. In Genesis, however, God purposes to purge mankind because the thoughts and designs of men were continually evil, and the Earth was full of violence.

​

That the two documents are numerically related is strong evidence for the historicity of the book of Genesis. The fact that the Sumerian account shows up as a numerically rounded, incomplete version of the Genesis description, lacking the latter’s moral and spiritual depth, is a strong argument for the accuracy, superiority, and primacy of the biblical record. In addition, the parallels between the Sumerian and biblical antediluvian data open up the possibility of establishing chronological correlations between the rest of the Kings List and the book of Genesis.

---

The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List | Answers in Genesis This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-08-2004 12:23 AM

Only you call the Bible Historical and the Mythical. Did it fulfill prophecies? Probably as well as the Bible, but that's a pretty low hurdle to cross. And as I told you, check Inanna. Dead for three days and then rose from the dead.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree with this, but I don't think it addresses my point. I was objecting to the idea that the NT is about accepting Jesus while the OT is about obeying God at any cost. I don't think there's any indication the NT ever loses sight of obeying God at any cost.That was my only point.

sorry bout that.although, still, from someone out there, i'd like to hear someone who believes the bible to be a literal innerent document to answer that one.

i would say the "lose sight" and "change focus" have two different meanings.

almeyda: you do know the following three facts, right?1. ancient hebrew traditions were often derived from neighboring regions, with a moral spin.2. numbers bear more weigh symbolically in the torah than anything else, and often have no relation to factuality.3. the oldest claimed date for the torah is about 1400 bc by moses. this is assuming moses wrote the frist four books (deut had to be at least partially written by someone else). that puts gilgamesh a THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE genesis. it was an old story by the time of the babylonian captivity of the hebrews (600 bc?) which is where the would have picked it up.

Hopefully, this isn't a totally off topic point. Help me out here. Are you just saying this from what you've seen reading the NT writings, or are you reacting to what Christians have said about the NT.I think the OT writings and NT writings have two focuses. One is on there being a people for God, and the other is obeying God at all costs, as you aptly put it. I think both sets of writings maintain those focuses throughout pretty well.Admittedly, modern Christians, mostly since Luther, have changed the focus to accepting Jesus, but Christ's purpose, according to the NT writings, was to create a new people for God, and for that people to know and do his will.Do you see something different? Is there some point at stake for you in all this that I am missing?

well, i just mean that faith in god in the ot and faith in god in the nt seem to have different meanings.when it calls abraham faithful, it means that he was willing to kill his own son should god ask.belief in god doesn't seem to an issue much in the ot until like isaiah or so, with the three in furnace. in early parts, god hangs around a lot in person. the question isn't so much "do you believe that he exists" or "do you believe that jesus was the son of god" etc, it was "are you willing to follow?"just from what i've read.althought it is most certain that believers have changed the focus to faith in recent times. but the nt texts we have are biased heavily towards faith. there were supposedly nt texts biased towards works, but those were removed with the gnostic texts.

Hmm, I can't say I believe this. Do you have any references for such a thing?I've looked at almost all the Pseudipigrapha (sp?), and I don't think any of them were left out of the canon for an emphasis on works. Admittedly, I haven't read much from the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I understand those are likely Essene, not gnostic.The disagreements the churches had with the gnostics were not over works. In fact, some sects of gnosticism were much like modern Christianity, saying that works don't matter at all, although the reason those gnostics gave is that all material creation didn't matter (sheesh, I didn't mean to make a dumb pun there, I was purposely avoiding saying "all material creatian was immaterial"). Right, I agree with this. But the point is that the strenuous obedience to God required by the Old Covenant was beyond men, so faith is offered by the New Covenant as an entrance into a new life in the Spirit in which strenuous obedience to God can indeed be lived out.As the anonymous author of the Letter to Diognetus put it, "After giving us time to see that we were not able in our own power, he sent his Son to make us able."

Actually, it's talking about Nebuchadnezzar:

quote:

---

Isaiah 14:4 - "thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, ...

---

Do you have any evidence of this, other than the spin you put on verse 12? I am not seeing it. Perhaps you would like to elaborate? Please reveal chapter and verse where you find this theory in the Bible. Lucifer means 'light bearer' or 'torch bearer.' It was the Roman name for the 'morning star' (as the evening star they called it Venus). Planet Venus is the only heavenly body known as "the bright morning star." Many powerful gods and great leaders were compared with that 'star.' Jesus was yet another (Revelation 22:16).dbThis message has been edited by doctrbill, 07-25-2004 07:41 AM

How is that verse about Lucifer refering to Nebudchanezzar(probably spelled incorrectly). Oh, and i am new to this thread but the definition of inerrancy is the quality that the scriptures possess of being free from error. The definition for inspiration- the Holy Spirit superintending over the authors so that while writing in their own styles and personalities the result was a God's word written, authoritative, trustworthy, and completely harmonious.

Welcome to EvC jalajo.Please be sure to review the forum guidelines. Also when you are creating a post there is a tag "UBB Code is ON" on the left that tells you how to format your posts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jalajo

​

How is that verse about Lucifer refering to Nebudchanezzar(probably spelled incorrectly).

---

There are other candidates besides Nebuchadrezzar, but it was most certainly referring to a king of Babylon because verse 4 tells us so:

quote:

---

Isaiah 14:4

​

You shall take up this proverb against the king of Babylon . . .

---

That this king is a man is verified in verse 16:

quote:

---

Isaiah 14:16

​

. . . is this the man who made the earth tremble, shaking kingdoms . . .

---

P.S. As doctrbill mentioned, the Hebrew term used in Isaiah is "he'lel" - light bearer. This term, "he'lel", was translated as "eosphoros" in the Greek LXX and then as "lucifer" in the Latin texts. IOW, "lucifer" is not another name for "Satan".Welcome to the forum. I hope you will stay around awhile.AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 09-29-2004 07:19 PM

There was no mention at all in the bible of the reference being to Satan. However, when preparing the Latin Vulgate, they merged the words Lux (Light) and Ferre (To bring) into "Lucifer". Because it sounded somewhat similar to the apocryphal story of Satan being cast from the heavens, many people took it to be referring to Satan, and eventually, the word "Lucifer" came to mean "Satan".However, Jesus is referred to by the exact same words as were used to form "Lucifer". Furthermore, "Light bringer" would be a horrible choice of words to describe a being that the bible says dwells in darkness. Satan doesn't have a grave where he is buried. Etc. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar is temporarlly correct, the analogy is correct, etc.It is kind of funny how people take certain words like "Lucifer" to mean something because they think the bible says that they do, when it doesn't. Another good case is the word "Devil". One attempt that I read to trace back the root of the word traced it to the Persians. Where did they get it? They fought the Hindus; the Hindus believed in "Devi", the Great Goddess (the word litereally means "Goddess"). Naturally, since it was a good deity to their enemies, it was an evil one to the Persians.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Welcome Jalajo,We are a bunch of tough hombres but sincerely desire your participation. We may disagree with each other, so let's give peace a chance, ok? As I understand it, the claim is that "the original autographs" are free from error. Since the "original autographs" no longer exist, the matter cannot be proved one way or another.Manuscripts which do exist (copies of copies of the originals), do not always agree amongst themselves and it is impossible to say which, if any, contain the "true" version of "the Word."More Later.db