Summations Only

quote:

---

Yeah. Sumerian cuneiform predates the books of Moses. Secondly, if I write a novel and claim the characters lived 10,000 years ago, does that necessarily indicate its accuracy?

---

If you alsolist factors which are historically accurate to the period, and not seen previously [as with Mount Ararat and the listing of numerous nations] yes it means it is accurate. Yes there were older writings - but none which is older than 6000; and alphabetical books older than the Hebrew.

quote:

---

Genesis says the earth is billions of years old, but that human speech is 6000 years.

​

It says nothing of the sort. Please substantiate your assertion if you feel otherwise.

---

That Adam is the oldest speech endowened human/life form: The Hebrew calendar, 5772 years, the oldest active one we have.That the universe and the earth are billions of years old, and the first such claim made: the seperation actions listed in Genesis, prior to the advent of life forms. Namely, the seperation of light from darkness; day from night; water from land. These account for billions and millions of years.

quote:

---

And that does not tell us shit about where Mt Ararat is.
Where is Mt Ararat?

​

When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?

​

The issue is that so far you have not answered any of the questions asked.

---

I see it as the first historical/geographical description humanity possesses, akin to a modern day aerial photography time-line. And you do not have a similar writings anywhere. Produce one with such historical/geographical listings?!

I suspect you are after details of longtitude descriptions.

quote:

---

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.

---

That would make the text authentic of its period too. Whyn not ask for a wiki description also?

quote:

---

Neolithic writing was found on tortoise shells in China dating back to 8,600 years, which is almost 1,500 years before what you believe is the earliest known writing.

---

Every one of such claims have been found as bogus. Did you not wonder why no transit imprints between 8600 and 6000 are seen? If what you say is true, why do we not have alphabetical Chinese books listing 1000's of years of ancient history?

quote:

---

But even if writing dated back only 6,000 years ago, what exactly is the significance in that?

---

No buts here. The tangible signficance is that Adam is the first recorded name humanity possesses. Its big stuff.

quote:

---

That Adam is the oldest speech endowened human/life form: The Hebrew calendar, 5772 years, the oldest active one we have.

​

That's not true at all. In the Enuma Elish, the king's list go 20,000 years before the name of Adam. The implication of that is not only were those names listed long before Adam's name was, but it claims to be far older than Adam. Now, just because the claim says it goes back that far doesn't make it so... but the same goes for Adam.

---

You bring up a one only 'CONJURED" myth, yet dispute tangible evidenced writings with factually evidenced historical landmarks!? Note the terms conjured, perhaps, probably, etc. Note that this is listed as 18thC BCE:

quote:

---

Marduk (Sumerian spelling in Akkadian: AMAR.UTU ���� "solar calf"; perhaps from MERI.DUG; Biblical Hebrew מְרֹדַךְ Merodach; Greek Μαρδοχαῖος,[1] Mardochaios) was the Babylonian name of a late-generation god from ancient Mesopotamia and patron deity of the city of Babylon, who, when Babylon became the political center of the Euphrates valley in the time of Hammurabi (18th century BCE), started to slowly rise to the position of the head of the Babylonian pantheon, a position he fully acquired by the second half of the second millennium BCEAccording to The Ecyclopedia of Religion, the name Marduk was probably pronounced Marutuk. The etymology of the name Marduk is conjectured as derived from amar-Utu ("bull calf of the sun god Utu").

---

quote:

---

That the universe and the earth are billions of years old, and the first such claim made: the seperation actions listed in Genesis, prior to the advent of life forms. Namely, the seperation of light from darkness; day from night; water from land. These account for billions and millions of years.

​

Over and over again in the opening sequence of the Genesis account, the author goes out of his way to spell out lunar days, i.e. "it was day, it was night... the first day... the second day... the third day... etc.

---

Correction. Genesis does not list any 'first' day: it says DAY ONE [for the first], then goes on to say SECOND, THIRD, day, etc. This is astutely correct: a first means first of previous and other days!

quote:

---

This is merely your own invention based on scientific data after the fact. Nowhere in Genesis does it give a timeline for the universe or the earth. That's pure conjecture on your part.

---

The listing of the actions mentioned before life emerged do account for billions of years; it cannot be after the fact because the premise of billions was as yet not in the human vocab or mindset; this is in fact the first alluding to such a time scale of a finite universe's age, well before the term science was coined. It is said in a mode understandable by all generations of mankind, a feat in itself. It is not a superfluous verse: of note it is placed in the creation chapter - and it is an anticipatory action of forthcoming life. We now know that life could not/ would not have emegred but for such anticipatory actions.

There has never been confusion of the region's vicinity any place, including in all scholarly appraisals, and the text adequately confirms it.

The point is Mount Ararat shows the general vicinity of the flood - backed by listing of other nations and regions of its surrounds; it cannot be retrospective if it is the first such listing of that mount.

quote:

---

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.

---

And that would not become a proof this is not a contemporary writings - seeing that longitudes yet never existed in the human vocab? Would you also like a video recording?

Does everyone agree, at the very least, the Noah story stands up to historical scrutiny based on a regional flood?

quote:

---

As Tolkien wrote, "The tale grew in the telling."

---

It didn't grow; there is no imprints of it - it just emerged.

quote:

---

Any ark which was on the top of even a small mountain would require water levels worldwide thousands of feet higher than we know today.

---

Not so in a region where the rains fall more than it can be disposed into an ocean. In recent tsunamies we saw whole cities submerged.

quote:

---

Gathering all the animals just would not happen. Maybe some rancher gathered his personal animals and barged them somewhere, but that's about it.

---

Sure, but gathering only domestic animals of Noah's household [the texts] would not show such problems.

quote:

---

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.

---

The term 'or' is not credible here; more precise infrmation is already contained in the texts - namely surrounding nations.

quote:

---

If the Enuma Elish talks about Ur and Babylon (places known to exist) does that mean it's version of the Flood story is therefore necessarily accurate because of it?

---

If a report includes many factual stats it does not mean it is true of being contemporary; it can still be retrospective reporting. But if those stats are mentioned for the first time - the situation alters dramatically.

quote:

---

It's a fact that a big flood occured in that region, sure. That doesn't mean, however, there was a guy named Noah who built a wooden aircraft carrier full of every known species of animal on the planet, nor does it mean that only 7 people survived and then re-populated the earth.

---

What makes it a fact? Who says Noah's household [domestic animals] and a person by the name Noah, makes it non-factual?

quote:

---

I didn't say it was written in modern Chinese (lots of dialects, btw) I said it was found in China. Whatever the case, it completely debunks your claim. Either illustrate why it's false or concede.

---

It has no impact on the Noah story.

quote:

---

Factually evidenced historical landmarks mean what exactly? How is that relevant to the point where indisputable evidence exists of documents with names that predate Adam?

---

We have no older names than Adam; factual landmarks affirm historical credibility; your chinese writings does not show the same.Correction. Genesis does not list any 'first' day: it says DAY ONE [for the first], then goes on to say SECOND, THIRD, day, etc. This is astutely correct: a first means first of previous and other days!Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters. You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.

quote:

---

The listing of the actions mentioned before life emerged do account for billions of years; it cannot be after the fact because the premise of billions was as yet not in the human vocab or mindset; this is in fact the first alluding to such a time scale of a finite universe's age, well before the term science was coined.

​

It alludes to nothing of the such. It flat out gives literal days.

---

Do you understand that first is not one, but many others preceding it? Analogy: is the sprinter who comes first the first or one of many sprinters? Genesis is astutely correct - and its no typo! Of note, Genesis goes on to correctly state the following days as SECOND; THIRD; etc. Why so?

quote:

---

You are making the assumption based on what you have luxury of knowing -- that the universe is in fact billions of years old. But the bible is at odds with that fact.

---

I am making no assumptions; I am listing the text! The text does not have the luxury of knowing what we know today!

quote:

---

Wow, semantics much?!?! My translation says first, second, third, etc, not that it matters.

---

It does matter. You reading a European, Christian edition, which is hardly a credible source.

quote:

---

You said that Genesis indicates that the universe is millions of years old. I disputed that using the very source you claim corroborates your assertion. Explain why Moses' language explicitly denotes literal days and not long epochs of time if what you say is true.

---

Wrong again. The actions of depicting the universe's age is not in days because DAY and WEEK were introduced in Genesis; billions was not yet in the human vocab. This is the mark of authentic writings true to its time.