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

no. i gave up. it seems to work just as well and i lke html better than boardspeek.

good catch. i was too flabbergasted that he missed the el/bull connection. there might be a connection between that and this:

quote:

---

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone [was] thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

---

actually, he's using the word correctly. parable, used as an adjective, is "parabolic." (look it up)i was just making fun of the poor word choice. r35t4nc3 |5 fUt|13.

---

אָרַח

je suis intellegente.

---

i'm worldwide bitch, act like ya'll don't know.

nah, this works better. two extra letters. wow.and get online or something if you wanna go out tonight because i have to eat at some point before we go.

---

אָרַח

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

Come on people. This is NOT a chat room.

sorry. some of us have these crazy things called JOBS.

yes, i worked at mine today too, after staying up nearly all night working on a final.

---

אָרַח

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.

i think the best way to date exodus (at least i think it's exodus) is to take note of when it says 'in those days, israel had no king'. if they didn't know that israel was going to have a king, this would mean nothing. thus it must have been written after israel had a king.*edit* fatal error. i wrote before instead of after in the last sentence. oops.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-13-2005 01:21 PM

Hi, Brian, dunno if you mentioned it elsewhere, but how did the eye-op go?

Is it not true that the Albright source cite you rely on for this claim was early in his career ?Ray

well, that's genesis. "before any king ruled over israel."but if you believe that deuteronomy has mosaic authorship, they did know israel would have a king. although even ray doesn't believe that.

---

אָרַח

i'd say tentatively to go with the exodus date -- i've heard talk of some confusion regarding the length of time covered in judges, but i'm not particularly bored enough to try to make the math work out. it's possible that kings is just citing and innaccurate judges figure.

---

אָרַח

oh oops. whatever.