[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow?

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
Source: Answers In Genesis
URL Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove
Published: Feb 5, 2009
Author: Jason Lisle
Post Date: 2009-02-05 15:38:06 by Old Friend
Keywords: None
Views: 4212
Comments: 305

Critics of biblical creation sometimes use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. The argument goes something like this: (1) there are galaxies that are so far away, it would take light from their stars billions of years to get from there to here; (2) we can see these galaxies, so their starlight has already arrived here; and (3) the universe must be at least billions of years old—much older than the 6,000 or so years indicated in the Bible.

Many big bang supporters consider this to be an excellent argument against the biblical timescale. But when we examine this argument carefully, we will see that it does not work. The universe is very big and contains galaxies that are very far away, but that does not mean that the universe must be billions of years old.

The distant starlight question has caused some people to question cosmic distances. “Do we really know that galaxies are so far away? Perhaps they are much closer, so the light really doesn’t travel very far.”1 However, the techniques that astronomers use to measure cosmic distances are generally logical and scientifically sound. They do not rely on evolutionary assumptions about the past. Moreover, they are a part of observational science (as opposed to historical/origins science); they are testable and repeatable in the present. You could repeat the experiment to determine the distance to a star or galaxy, and you would get approximately the same answer. So we have good reason to believe that space really is very big. In fact, the amazing size of the universe brings glory to God (Psalm 19:1).

Some Christians have proposed that God created the beams of light from distant stars already on their way to the earth. After all, Adam didn’t need any time to grow from a baby because he was made as an adult. Likewise, it is argued that the universe was made mature, and so perhaps the light was created in-transit. Of course, the universe was indeed made to function right from the first week, and many aspects of it were indeed created “mature.” The only problem with assuming that the light was created in-transit is that we see things happen in space. For example, we see stars change brightness and move. Sometimes we see stars explode. We see these things because their light has reached us.

But if God created the light beams already on their way, then that means none of the events we see in space (beyond a distance of 6,000 light-years) actually happened. It would mean that those exploding stars never exploded or existed; God merely painted pictures of these fictional events. It seems uncharacteristic of God to make illusions like this. God made our eyes to accurately probe the real universe; so we can trust that the events that we see in space really happened. For this reason, most creation scientists believe that light created in-transit is not the best way to respond to the distant starlight argument. Let me suggest that the answer to distant starlight lies in some of the unstated assumptions that secular astronomers make. The Assumptions of Light Travel-time Arguments

Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable—any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let’s examine a few of these assumptions. The Constancy of the Speed of Light

It is usually assumed that the speed of light is constant with time.2 At today’s rate, it takes light (in a vacuum) about one year to cover a distance of 6 trillion miles. But has this always been so? If we incorrectly assume that the rate has always been today’s rate, we would end up estimating an age that is much older than the true age. But some people have proposed that light was much quicker in the past. If so, light could traverse the universe in only a fraction of the time it would take today. Some creation scientists believe that this is the answer to the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary” parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

This is a legitimate concern. The way in which the universal constants are connected is only partially understood. So, the impact of a changing speed of light on the universe and life on earth is not fully known. Some creation scientists are actively researching questions relating to the speed of light. Other creation scientists feel that the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light is probably reasonable and that the solution to distant starlight lies elsewhere. The Assumption of Rigidity of Time

Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale.

Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called “time-dilation.” So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn’t a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock’s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity.

It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that’s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth’s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks.

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea. Assumptions of Synchronization

Another way in which the relativity of time is important concerns the topic of synchronization: how clocks are set so that they read the same time at the same time.4 Relativity has shown that synchronization is not absolute. In other words, if one person measures two clocks to be synchronized, another person (moving at a different speed) would not necessarily measure those two clocks to be synchronized. As with time-dilation, this effect is counterintuitive because it is too small to measure in most of our everyday experience. Since there is no method by which two clocks (separated by a distance) can be synchronized in an absolute sense, such that all observers would agree regardless of motion, it follows that there is some flexibility in how we choose what constitutes synchronized clocks. The following analogy may be helpful.

Imagine that a plane leaves a certain city at 4:00 p.m. for a two-hour flight. However, when the plane lands, the time is still 4:00. Since the plane arrived at the same time it left, we might call this an instantaneous trip. How is this possible? The answer has to do with time zones. If the plane left Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. local time, it would arrive in Colorado at 4:00 p.m. local time. Of course, an observer on the plane would experience two hours of travel. So, the trip takes two hours as measured by universal time. However, as long as the plane is traveling west (and providing it travels fast enough), it will always naturally arrive at the same time it left as measured in local time.

There is a cosmic equivalent to local and universal time. Light traveling toward earth is like the plane traveling west; it always remains at the same cosmic local time. Although most astronomers today primarily use cosmic universal time (in which it takes light 100 years to travel 100 light-years), historically cosmic local time has been the standard. And so it may be that the Bible also uses cosmic local time when reporting events.

Since God created the stars on Day 4, their light would leave the star on Day 4 and reach earth on Day 4 cosmic local time. Light from all galaxies would reach earth on Day 4 if we measure it according to cosmic local time. Someone might object that the light itself would experience billions of years (as the passenger on the plane experiences the two hour trip). However, according to Einstein’s relativity, light does not experience the passage of time, so the trip would be instantaneous. Now, this idea may or may not be the reason that distant starlight is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale, but so far no one has been able to prove that the Bible does not use cosmic local time. So, it is an intriguing possibility.5 The Assumption of Naturalism

One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the Bible is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Proponents of naturalism assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This is not only a blind assumption, but it is also clearly antibiblical. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws (they are, after all, His laws). Of course God can use laws of nature to accomplish His will; and He usually does so. In fact, natural laws could be considered a description of the way in which God normally upholds the universe. But God is supernatural and is capable of acting outside natural law.

This would certainly have been the case during Creation Week. God created the universe supernaturally. He created it from nothing, not from previous material (Hebrews 11:3). Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars or new kinds of creatures. This is because God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. Today, God sustains the universe in a different way than how He created it. However, the naturalist erroneously assumes that the universe was created by the same processes by which it operates today. Of course it would be absurd to apply this assumption to most other things. A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process.

Since the stars were created during Creation Week and since God made them to give light upon the earth, the way in which distant starlight arrived on earth may have been supernatural. We cannot assume that past acts of God are necessarily understandable in terms of a current scientific mechanism, because science can only probe the way in which God sustains the universe today. It is irrational to argue that a supernatural act cannot be true on the basis that it cannot be explained by natural processes observed today.

It is perfectly acceptable for us to ask, “Did God use natural processes to get the starlight to earth in the biblical timescale? And if so, what is the mechanism?” But if no natural mechanism is apparent, this cannot be used as evidence against supernatural creation. So, the unbeliever is engaged in a subtle form of circular reasoning when he uses the assumption of naturalism to argue that distant starlight disproves the biblical timescale. Light Travel-Time: A Self-Refuting Argument

Many big bang supporters use the above assumptions to argue that the biblical timescale cannot be correct because of the light travel-time issue. But such an argument is self-refuting. It is fatally flawed because the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. In the big bang model, light is required to travel a distance much greater than should be possible within the big bang’s own timeframe of about 14 billion years. This serious difficulty for the big bang is called the “horizon problem.” 6 The following are the details. Figure 1 & 2

The Horizon Problem

In the big bang model, the universe begins in an infinitely small state called a singularity, which then rapidly expands. According to the big bang model, when the universe is still very small, it would develop different temperatures in different locations (Figure 1). Let’s suppose that point A is hot and point B is cold. Today, the universe has expanded (Figure 2), and points A and B are now widely separated.

However, the universe has an extremely uniform temperature at great distance— beyond the farthest known galaxies. In other words, points A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation coming from all directions in space in the form of microwaves. This is called the “cosmic microwave background” (CMB). The frequencies of radiation have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K (-455°F) and are extremely uniform in all directions. The temperature deviates by only one part in 105.

The problem is this: How did points A and B come to be the same temperature? They can do this only by exchanging energy. This happens in many systems: consider an ice cube placed in hot coffee. The ice heats up and the coffee cools down by exchanging energy. Likewise, point A can give energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light), which is the fastest way to transfer energy since nothing can travel faster than light. However, using the big bang supporters’ own assumptions, including uniformitarianism and naturalism, there has not been enough time in 14 billion years to get light from A to B; they are too far apart. This is a light travel-time problem—and a very serious one. After all, A and B have almost exactly the same temperature today, and so must have exchanged light multiple times.

Big bang supporters have proposed a number of conjectures which attempt to solve the big bang’s light travel-time problem. One of the most popular is called “inflation.” In “inflationary” models, the universe has two expansion rates: a normal rate and a fast inflation rate. The universe begins with the normal rate, which is actually quite rapid, but is slow by comparison to the next phase. Then it briefly enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much more rapidly. At a later time, the universe goes back to the normal rate. This all happens early on, long before stars and galaxies form.

The inflation model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first normal expansion) and to then be pushed apart during the inflation phase to the enormous distances at which they are located today. But the inflation model amounts to nothing more than storytelling with no supporting evidence at all. It is merely speculation designed to align the big bang to conflicting observations. Moreover, inflation adds an additional set of problems and difficulties to the big bang model, such as the cause of such inflation and a graceful way to turn it off. An increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting inflation for these reasons and others. Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang.

The critic may suggest that the big bang is a better explanation of origins than the Bible since biblical creation has a light travel-time problem—distant starlight. But such an argument is not rational since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. If both models have the same problem in essence7, then that problem cannot be used to support one model over the other. Therefore, distant starlight cannot be used to dismiss the Bible in favor of the big bang. Conclusions

So, we’ve seen that the critics of creation must use a number of assumptions in order to use distant starlight as an argument against a young universe. And many of these assumptions are questionable. Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way? Can we be certain that the Bible is using “cosmic universal time,” rather than the more common “cosmic local time” in which light reaches earth instantly?

We know that the rate at which time flows is not rigid. And although secular astronomers are well aware that time is relative, they assume that this effect is (and has always been) negligible, but can we be certain that this is so? And since stars were made during Creation Week when God was supernaturally creating, how do we know for certain that distant starlight has arrived on earth by entirely natural means? Furthermore, when big bang supporters use distant starlight to argue against biblical creation, they are using a self-refuting argument since the big bang has a light travel-time problem of its own. When we consider all of the above, we see that distant starlight has never been a legitimate argument against the biblical timescale of a few thousand years.

As creation scientists research possible solutions to the distant starlight problem, we should also remember the body of evidence that is consistent with the youth of the universe. We see rotating spiral galaxies that cannot last multiple billions of years because they would be twisted-up beyond recognition. We see multitudes of hot blue stars, which even secular astronomers would agree cannot last billions of years.8 In our own solar system we see disintegrating comets and decaying magnetic fields that cannot last billions of years; and there is evidence that other solar systems have these things as well. Of course, such arguments also involve assumptions about the past. That is why, ultimately, the only way to know about the past for certain is to have a reliable historic record written by an eyewitness. That is exactly what we have in the Bible.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Wha...huh?

Smeites and Assyrians and Hemites all allegedly descended from Noah...

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

war  posted on  2009-02-19   20:52:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

Maybe that is true in your little head. But according to encyclopedia Britannica you are WRONG WRONG WRONG!

http://www.answers.com/topic/sumer

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians, who drained the marshes for agriculture and developed trade. The Sumerians, who spoke a Semitic language that came to dominate the region, arrived c. 3300 BC and established the world's first known cities. These polities evolved into city-states, which eventually developed monarchical systems that later came to be loosely united under a single city, beginning with Kish c. 2800 BC. Thereafter, Kish, Erech, Ur, and Lagash vied for ascendancy for centuries; Nippur emerged as a religous centre. The area came under the control of dynasties from outside the region, beginning with Elam (c. 2530 – 2450 BC) and later Akkad, led by the Akkadian king Sargon (r. 2334 – 2279 BC). After the Akkadian dynasty collapsed, the city-states were largely independent until they were reunified under the 3rd dynasty of Ur (22nd – 21st century BC). That final Sumerian dynasty declined after being weakened by foreign invasions, and the Sumerians as a distinct political entity disappeared, becoming part of Babylonia in the 18th century BC. The Sumerian legacy includes a number of technological and cultural innovations, including the first known wheeled vehicles, the potter's wheel, a system of writing (cuneiform), and written codes of law.

For more information on Sumer, visit Britannica.com.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   20:56:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

Any secret masonic information would have to had come from the ancients.

The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer

Dakmar  posted on  2009-02-19   20:57:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Sumerians culture arose in Iraq 20,000 years before Noah allegedly lived...

That's pretty old. I am unaware of any ME "culture" meaning small villages, neo lithic communities before about 8500 BC.

Or Thereabouts.

As Noah is guessed to have been extent 2500bc??? loose, that puts the Sumerians at 23,000 bc, and as far as I know that is a time frame that does not allow for any identification of a human culture.

Some burnt bones etc, but the Sumerian culture is not attested until about 3200 bc, IIRC.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:01:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So now you admit that there was a flood. The Sumerians passed down a version of that orally.

I never said there wasn'ta flood, in fact I've already spoken to you on that topic.

For your information, the Sumerians didn't pass the story orally, they read from an ancient text called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which doesn't mention anything at all about Noah, but instead speaks about their hero-king Gilgamesh.

The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing of the Genesis.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:03:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

HA and no internet mineing for me.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:03:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you know who supposedly wrote Genesis, according to your own legends?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:04:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing of the Genesis.

There's another one for your reading list OF.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:04:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

For your information, the Sumerians didn't pass the story orally, they read from an ancient text called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which doesn't mention anything at all about Noah, but instead speaks about their hero-king Gilgamesh.

The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing of the Genesis.

They passed it down orally. Then wrote it in a book dork.

The epic of gilgamesh doesn't predate Genesis.

Genesis is the beginning.

Why does your essence cult call Christ a liar. Aren't they supposed to follow him? Don't bother answering your answer will be BS.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:07:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yeah it was likely Moses.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:08:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians, who drained the marshes for agriculture and developed trade. The Sumerians, who spoke a Semitic language that came to dominate the region, arrived c. 3300 BC and established the world's first known cities. These polities evolved into city-states, which eventually developed monarchical systems that later came to be loosely united under a single city, beginning with Kish c. 2800 BC.

Now show us where it mentions any of that history in the Bible.

BTW, who wrote Genesis?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:09:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If you are wise you will read this. If you want to stay stupid then ignore it.

Anyway, all of my adult life I have seen this type of a gaseous fog emanating from some academic forum or another on this topic and a number of others. That is why I generally call academicians the wise guys. If they are so smart why do they so regularly and speciously spew forth such vapid and empty-headed nonsense? Especially now when some people will actually take the time to look and see if what is offered has any merit. I think that it must pay very well.

If they told us the moon was blue, some would no doubt take it at face value. Yet, why not just go outside at night and take a look? But some won’t look because the information comes to us well polished, decorated, and with an air of academic credence, and we are such trusting souls. The modern magician with his sleight-of-hand and magnificent disappearing acts comes with a similar bag of tricks, planning on the same outcome. The Ponzi schemer or con artist also uses the same techniques.

P. T. Barnum said, “There’s a sucker born every second, and two to take him.” He was mostly counted in the second group, and seemed to know what he was talking about.

But don’t take my word for it. Is the Gilgamesh epic startlingly similar to the record of Genesis? Let’s play Fox News and you decide.

First, it is not news that these two records have been and are being compared and stated as being similar. This farce has been going on since the eleven tablets inscribed with the Gilgamesh “Epic” were first found nearly three centuries ago. There have been claims made along the way that a record of the flood as described in Genesis has been found in many ancient cultures and this is the sterling example poised in support.

Second, the records are all translated and available for reading and inspection. I downloaded the translated versions so that I could accurately quote them and present them here.

What then would stop us from making a cursory examination of the premise that these two records are so similar? What would stop us from examining whether or not the Chaldean records are the oldest form of storytelling records of this kind?

The answer is that nothing can stop us now.

Let’s take the second point first: that these tablets contain the oldest known writing, story, and records of historical import. Unfortunately there is nothing in the Gilgamesh tablets that suggests they are historical documents at all other than a few of the names also appear in some other ancient records. That however, doesn’t even slow these things down. Historians date these records and the fragments found at Kish, Me-tura and Urhu from about 2,600 years before Christ. That roughly corresponds to the time of the building of the first pyramids in Egypt.

Aside from that, none of these tablets actually pre-dates the templates or the events in the writings of Moses, or more correctly, that of the story of Abraham, let alone Noah and the rest going right back to Adam. Abraham’s saga may be contemporaneous to these things, if they can be said to be contemporary. Yet in all that it appears that Gilgamesh could not predate the Bible, that is unless you discount that Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

By the way, this is exactly where this premise gets its legs, when you scrape away the nonsense and get down to the roots. You must accept that the writings of Moses are fraudulent and come along after this Chaldean record or any of the others containing similar stuff. Babylon was likely not much of a mud brick town when Abraham was living, and may not have existed at all during Noah’s day. But to buy into this, you must accept Moses did not write the first books of the Bible and that they are later productions simply filled with myths.

And if you believe that Moses did not write Genesis, why believe that he wrote anything at all? You also act to make Jesus out a liar, because he plainly stated that the writer of the first five books of the Old Testament was Moses. Then you end up with another set of problems to explain away, and the only way to do that is to say Jesus was not the Son of God, who he said he was, equal with God Almighty both omniscient and omnipresent, but was mistaken, or, better yet, was a fraud. As with many other things, you just can’t have it both ways.

Along with that the Jews should be up for the grand prize as the most easily duped people in all of history, supposing that Moses did not write what was in all times attributed to him, and that all of it was created and supplied sometime after the rule of David (nearly a full millennia later) during the rule of Josiah or thereabouts, that is, if David and the rest actually ever existed. But that is the theory, and you have to buy that to make the other work. Wow. This is like buying in on the JFK theory for the shooter on that grassy knoll – you must suspend the facts, toss the records, physics, along with good sense and reason out just to get there. It makes me winded just thinking about it.

In short you have to accept that everything in the Hebrew culture was a full-blown fabrication, and not a simple one, but the most elaborate kind, one that lasted for a few thousand years. Can you imagine how hard it would be to line up the conspirators over time? You must accept that although they were the greatest and most accurate recorders of all time. But to be true to this they had to be conniving recorders of fairy tales who made up stories that they then attributed as being their own, in place of what must have been a more failed history. Once that one settled in then they sold it to each successive generation – sold it to several million other unsuspecting dolts. To work, it had to all be a most elaborate myth and conspiracy, in the same fashion as the many conspiracy theories currently in vogue concerning Jesus. After all, history is a pack of lies told on the dead (a remark once attributed appropriately to the atheist Voltaire and then bandied about by many others since - who are each certainly in a position to know lies when they should hear them).

Just the presentation of that heap of empty nonsense stinks to high heaven. It does have its use though – it presents me with an opportunity to poke a little fun at some seriously bad scholarship.

What actually applies is that Noah’s ordeal predates the Akkadian, Sumerian, Chaldean, or any other story like it by at least a millenium. The order that the scholars have it in is just opposite of the chronology and the facts. The details in Gilgamesh and the others is sifted from the biblical record, not the other way around. That is the only plausible explanation, and the one that actually fits both dates and data. Of course, to get here you have to accept the only reasonable explanation of how the information got out in the first place. That is that Moses was the writer/recorder of the five books which bear his historical imprint, the ones attributed to his hand by all ancient and modern histories.

When you come to examining the translations of Gilgamesh, you will find mention of a flood in just a handful of places where occurrences of the English word are found in the documents. Most of these are found in the ninth and eleventh tablets and when they are taken in what little context there is, most of these details bear no resemblance to anything in the narrative of Noah.

A flood is also mentioned in some of the other tablets, by example (the breaks are where an unknown number of lines are missing or are not readable or where the record is simply incomplete): “…… having traveled all the roads that there are, having fetched …… from its ……, having killed ……, you set up …… for future days ……. Having founded ……, you reached ……. Having brought down the old …… forgotten forever and ……, he (?) carried out correctly ……. …… the flood …… the settlements of the Land.”

Scholars may be able to load up their pipes light them and dream in the night to make something of that, but less sensible and less educated folks might read it and think the whole section is good for nothing at all.

The body is certainly an epic though not a poem in the sense of say Coleridge’s “The Rhyme of The Ancient Mariner”. The English translation is barely coherent, while the ancient translated text of the Old Testament is fluent, and though antiquated, quite readable and understandable in comparison.

Now let’s get to the single section that might be said to parallel the Noah account. Whoops, I let the proverbial cat out of the bag! It is perhaps two or three pages in length, or about three times the length of the story of Noah. See if you can find all the parallels and similarities that are crammed in here that the scholars see, or perhaps just the single glaring one that I tripped over. (You can find the English text at this link although we will not link to it here http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Tablet_IX)

Gilgamesh or Utanapishtim (it is impossible for me to tell which) was told to tear down a place called the Reed House at the Euphrates and build a boat out of its materials. (Now that’s a similarity: there is a boat in both stories.) For this story, however, the boat, though 10 times 12 cubits high and as large as a “field,” took just a week to construct.

“The boat was finished by sunset. The launching was very difficult. They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back, until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?). Whatever I had I loaded on it: whatever silver I had I loaded on it, whatever gold I had I loaded on it. All the living beings that I had I loaded on it, I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up. Shamash had set a stated time: ‘In the morning I will let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat! Go inside the boat, seal the entry!’ That stated time had arrived. In the morning he let loaves of bread shower down, and in the evening a rain of wheat. I watched the appearance of the weather– the weather was frightful to behold! I went into the boat and sealed the entry. For the caulking of the boat, to Puzuramurri, the boatman, I gave the palace together with its contents. Just as dawn began to glow there arose from the horizon a black cloud. Adad rumbled inside of it, before him went Shullat and Hanish, heralds going over mountain and land. Erragal pulled out the mooring poles, forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow. The Anunnaki lifted up the torches, setting the land ablaze with their flare. Stunned shock over Adad’s deeds overtook the heavens, and turned to blackness all that had been light. The… land shattered like a… pot. All day long the South Wind blew …, blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water, overwhelming the people like an attack. No one could see his fellow, they could not recognize each other in the torrent. The gods were frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall. Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth, the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed.”

I would think that a shower of bread followed by a rain of wheat might preclude the need for bringing on a flood. As getting chonked on the head by a loaf would probably get most peoples attention, if they survived. To be fair, it seems the food is for the boat people, although why they needed a sky full is not broached. There is really nothing to compare this to in the Noah story.

There is apparently a fire going on preceeding, or (how can it be?) during the flood in this tale, along with a few other related catastrophes, as if the flood just wasn’t bad enough. And a mountain they came across in the very abbreviated journey was submerged with the folks on the summit in the water and not doing well. Three birds were released at the end (a dove, sparrow - both returned, and then a raven) and following that everything was let go, so that’s a similarity of sorts.

The boatman came out of this better than most, as he received a palace from Gilgamesh for just caulking everything up. Not a bad deal if you can get it. But then what good is a submerged palace full of stuff.

There were animals aboard (though it says nothing of how many) so that’s certainly a similarity, and there was a crowd of people, a lot more than a mere eight souls (both “kith and kin,” which I had always thought was a Scottish phrase, and other assorted hanger’s on). Gilgamesh apparently took all the cash he could get his hands on with him, not knowing what he might come across. It doesn’t state how many people were present or how much money was aboard either. But, I think the boat was loaded.

Apparently this “universal” flood covered only the Euphrates basin, lasted just one week, and didn’t get rid of everybody and everything.

“How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration? Charge the violation to the violator, charge the offense to the offender, but be compassionate lest (manknind) be cut off, be patient lest they be killed. Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a lion had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that a wolf had appeared to diminish the people! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that famine had occurred to slay the land! Instead of your bringing on the Flood, would that (Pestilent) Erra had appeared to ravage the land!”

The flood was pegged by Gilgamesh as an apparent inconsiderate act on behalf of the gods, and it’s too bad that he didn’t file the complaint prior to embarking. Noah’s God wasn’t concerned with such things, as his intent was to destroy everything and everybody excepting righteous Noah. And Noah didn’t whine about things, he simply did as he was instructed.

It appears that Gilgamesh or perhaps it’s Utanapishtim (it’s still difficult by reading to know who did what and Gil may have been just along for the ride) made it to the mouth of the rivers by the end of the week’s surge (it is unspecified as to which rivers it is talking about - but likely again, it’s the Tigris and Euphrates) and there he or they were allowed or were forced to disembark. Utanapishtim and his wife get a reward for suffering through this and are made gods. It then states that all the cities were still very much intact. This part is easily as entertaining as some of the descriptions found in the Book of Mormon.

This is the final paragraph of this portion. It is also one of the best parts. See how many parallels you can find.

“Urshanabi, this plant is a plant against decay(!) by which a man can attain his survival(!). I will bring it to Uruk-Haven, and have an old man eat the plant to test it. The plant’s name is ‘The Old Man Becomes a Young Man.’” Then I will eat it and return to the condition of my youth.” At twenty leagues they broke for some food, at thirty leagues they stopped for the night. Seeing a spring and how cool its waters were, Gilgamesh went down and was bathing in the water. A snake smelled the fragrance of the plant, silently came up and carried off the plant. While going back it sloughed off its casing.’ At that point Gilgamesh sat down, weeping, his tears streaming over the side of his nose. “Counsel me, O ferryman Urshanabi! For whom have my arms labored, Urshanabi! For whom has my heart’s blood roiled! I have not secured any good deed for myself, but done a good deed for the ‘lion of the ground’!” Now the high waters are coursing twenty leagues distant,’ as I was opening the conduit(?) I turned my equipment over into it (!). What can I find (to serve) as a marker(?) for me! I will turn back (from the journey by sea) and leave the boat by the shore!” At twenty leagues they broke for some food, at thirty leagues they stopped for the night. They arrived in Uruk-Haven. Gilgamesh said to Urshanabi, the ferryman: “Go up, Urshanabi, onto the wall of Uruk and walk around. Examine its foundation, inspect its brickwork thoroughly– is not (even the core of) the brick structure of kiln-fired brick, and did not the Seven Sages themselves lay out its plan! One league city, one league palm gardens, one league lowlands, the open area(?) of the Ishtar Temple, three leagues and the open area(?) of Uruk it encloses.”

(Retrieved from “http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Epic_of_Gilgamesh”)

This last bit comes from another of the earlier tablets although it too mentions a flood.

“Enlil’s advice was given to Enki. Enki answered An and Enlil: “In those days, in those distant days, in those nights, in those distant nights, in those years, in those distant years, after the assembly had made the Flood sweep over to destroy the seed of mankind, among us I was the only one who was for life (?), and so he remained alive (?) — Zi-ud-sura, although (?) a human being, remained alive (?). Then you made me swear by heaven and by earth, and … that no human will be allowed to live forever (?) any more. Now, as we look at Gilgamec, could not he escape because of his mother?’”

As I said, I came up with only one true similarity: it seems that a flood is mentioned, and it records a corresponding boat ride. Again, the other details and that one central similarity seem to be lifted from Noah, and not the other way around. This flood clearly was not universal, however.

As for other similarities there really aren’t many that I can find. But there are enough for the truly wise among us to able to probably identify how the parallels and common threads made their way from the Old Testament and into Gilgamesh. So, why is it that this (the clearly inferior record and later record) is thought to be the source, while the clearly superior and early one is deemed the copy? Go figure. To do that you must make the theory fit for your own use. If you don’t believe that the earliest complete record of antediluvian doings is the Bible then you must find a way to have other less valuable things to predate it. By ridding yourself of Moses you can accomplish what you seek. Only then will the pieces fit.

I do see a little divergence as with some of the items already mentioned (or a lot of that perhaps). Here no human is mentioned as afterward allowed to live forever, and that doesn’t parallel anything in the story of Noah in the Old Testament, as that notion was taken care of long before Noah had appeared.

Noah built the ark, but Gilgamesh hired it out. Noah used wood and Gilgamesh found reeds useful. But then, Gilgamesh, Utanapishtim and company weren’t floating around for nearly as long as Noah.

Last but not least, the gods are apparently in as big a mess throughout this whole episode as are the other characters, which is a sure sign of human invention and tinkering. “The gods were frightened by the flood and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. The gods were cowering like dogs.” You will never find anything even remotely similar to that in the whole of the Bible.

In the last bit of narrative, the character Enki (perhaps from the famous trio Enki, Dinki, Doo?) survived the flood, but it seems the writer indicates that good ole Gilgamesh didn’t make the final cut. I’m confused. Gilgamesh’s mother may possibly have had a hand in his undoing, too. That is, if in fact he was undone. There is no such ambiguity in the account of Noah as is found here and throughout this entire record.

Well, there you have my report of this rather grand work of antiguity. My one point worth pondering was made earlier and then repeated: this record does not predate the five books of Moses, and the story of Noah found there was the source for the “shared” details in this fable. To assign this as a fable (or is it art?) you need only to read this tablet or any of the earlier ones, and all of that will be crystal clear. You may read some of the Bible and think it full of fables too, but the stories there all end in a single central point. The details are less stupendous and contrived. The events always glorify the one and only God, and the details match from place to place, through superior writing and in careful relating of the narrative. But that is really for you to decide.

So, we reported and we’ll let you decide. Of course, you couldn’t get hurt by going on-line and reading some more of this seriously empty stuff for yourself. It works better and faster than any over-the-counter sleeping potion. Perhaps you’ll find it readable and uplifting and not at all as I found it — unable to float.

In another essay on another day, I’ll take a look at the Babylonian “creation” epic that is similarly said to “closely follow the biblical account.”

http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/noah-versus-gilgamesh/

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:16:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Now show us where it mentions any of that history in the Bible.

BTW, who wrote Genesis?

It doesn't have to mention the Bible. Tell me why it must. Genesis predates Gilgamesh.

Moses

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yeah it was likely Moses.

Ok, so now that we've got that cleared up, how do you know it was Moses?

Here's some info for you about the Book of Genesis...

Book of Genesis

Advanced Information

Modern analysis indicates that the book of Genesis (and the other four Books of the Pentateuch) were written by a number of authors who assembled material from three traditions:

• "J", named for the Yahwist tradition who referred to God as Yahweh (translated "the Lord" in English). (The J comes from Yahweh sometimes being referred to as Jehovah.)

  J seems to be a writer who focuses on humanity in his writing. His writing shows much greater sensitivity towards women than does E. He regularly used "Yahweh" as God's name. He describes God in anthropomorphic terms: God forms Adam from clay; he waked and talked with Adam and Eve in the garden; he spoke to Moses.

  J lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, during an early period of Israel's history when many followed a nature/fertility religion. He may have been a member of the Judean court. He wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from a Judean perspective. J was probably written between 848 BC (when King Jehoram gained power in Judah) and 722 BC when the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom Israel and took its people into exile. Some scholars date J to the 10th century BC.

• "E", named for the Elohist tradition who referred to God as Elohim, which was derived from the name of the Canaanite God El (translated as "God" in English)

  E was a writer who writes about religious and moralistic concerns. He consistently used "Elohim" as God's name. He lived in the northern kingdom of Israel. He wrote a more or less complete story of the history of the Israelites from the perspective of the northern kingdom. E probably wrote between 922 and 722 BC. He may have been a priest from Shiloh who viewed Moses as his spiritual ancestor.

• "P", named for the Priestly class who were primarily concerned with history, genealogies, etc.

  P was a writer who focused his writings on God. He added material from a priestly perspective. It discusses priests' lives, religious rituals, dates, measurements, chronologies, genealogies, worship and law. He was a priest who identified Aaron as his spiritual ancestor. He views God as a distant, transcendent deity, less personal than in J and E. P is sometimes harsh and critical. The words "mercy," "grace" and "repentance" do not appear in his writing; they appear about 70 times in J, E, and D. P was displeased with the work of J and E and wrote P as an alternative history.

  P rejected the concepts of angels, dreams and talking animals that are seen in J and E. He believed that only Levites who were descended from Aaron could be priests. He lived after J, E and D because he was aware of the books of the Prophets which were unknown to the others. Lived when the country's religion reached a priestly/legal stage, before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. He patterned his writing after the topics in J and E.

Two of the additional authors are:

• "D", the author of the book of Deuteronomy.

  D was a writer who lived well after J and E, because he was familiar with later developments in Israel's history. He lived at a time when the religion of ancient Israel was in its spiritual/ethical stage, about 622 BC. He wrote almost all of the Book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. A second writer edited the original text after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC. This writer added the last two chapters to 2 Kings and inserted short passages elsewhere to reflect the change in circumstances brought about by the Babylonian attack.

  D lived in Judah - probably in Jerusalem. He was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah.

• "R", was a redactor who was an Aaronid priest. He joined the writings of J, E, P and D together into the present Pentateuch.

R.E. Friedman suggests that when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom in 722 BC, many refugees streamed south into Judea, bringing their sacred writing "E" with them. Subsequently, E and J were combined into a single document, referred to as "JE."

D was written perhaps a century later. It was conveniently "discovered" in the temple by the priest Hilkiah in 622 BC, shortly after it was written. D was then joined with JE.

P was written before the death of King Josiah in 609 BCE, probably during the reign of King Hezekiah. It was written as an alternate to JE.

R combined J, E, P and other documents together into the first four books of the Hebrew Scriptures. To this, he added D's writings, the book of Deuteronomy, to complete the Pentateuch. By the time that he did the editing, the JE, D and P documents were in wide circulation. Each was supported by various factions. R saw his task as attempting to join these sources together into a more or less cohesive, single document. Friedmann suspects that Ezra was the redactor.

During the 18th Century, three investigators (Witter, Astruc and Eichhorn) independently concluded that doublets in the Torah were written by two different authors. A doublet is a story that is described twice, as in:

• the two creation stories in Genesis
• two descriptions of the covenant between God and Abraham
• two stories about the naming of Isaac
• two stories about the renaming of Jacob
• two versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5)
• two accounts of Moses' striking the rock at Meribah

These doublets sometimes appear to contradict each other. In most cases, one referred to God as Yahweh while the other used the term Elohim.

During the 19th Century, scholars noticed that there were a few triplets in the Torah. This indicated that a third author was involved. Then, they determined that the book of Deuteronomy was written in a different language style from the remaining 4 books in the Pentateuch (implying a fourth author). Finally, by the end of the 19th Century, liberal scholars reached a consensus that 4 authors and one redactor (editor) had been actively involved in the writing of the Pentateuch.

During the 20th Century, academics identified which verses (and parts of verses) were authored by the various writers. They have also attempted to uncover the names of the authors. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu in which he urged academics to study the sources of Biblical texts. Recent archeological discoveries and new linguistic analysis tools have facilitated the research.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you know who supposedly wrote Genesis, according to your own legends?

No one knows, but maybe O Friend.

The Semitic language is part of the Afro- Asiatic Language Group, so it is resonable to assume that the legends and moral stories and the nation building myths and legends of the oral historical/moral tradition of this group flow from that common human experience.

Job is thought by many specialists to be the oldest book. Genesis, as noted by some before, is of Sumerian/ Akkadian origans, dating to something like 2300bc, in the written testement, the oral tradition is of course much older.

As linguists tell me, the spoken language came in to furititon about 100,000 YO, and the essentials that we might recognize about 20,000 YO.

IOW, if you were to be transported to the Arabaia 20,000 YO after maybe six months, you would recognize the English language that you spoke as being a relative, strange in many respects, to the Arabic language spoken then.

And this would be the percursor of Hebrew. As well as the Northern African Languages as Dinka, Massai, and the rest, as opposed to Bantu, the southern sahra languages that are of a totally different group.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:29:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your post is nonsense. It is just someones opinion. Not even your original thoughts. Besides there are a lot of "probably" "likely" "perhaps" "suggests"

Lame

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:29:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your post is nonsense. It is just someones opinion.

It is not.

It appears to me to be from the book, well repsepected, "Who Wrote the Bible".

And as far as you go "It is just someones opinion."

That's all you are - a babbling brook of uninformed babbalage.

With hateful rightfulness added to the fascist mix. OF Ignorance only is bliss in the short term.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:39:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That's pretty old. I am unaware of any ME "culture" meaning small villages, neo lithic communities before about 8500 BC.

Sumerians are rooted in pre history Ubaidic and Urukian culture.

war  posted on  2009-02-19   21:40:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Genesis predates Gilgamesh.

Wrong. The Hebrew people left Egypt around 1200 BC, many centuries after the fall of the Sumerian civilization (1940 BC), and the language of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh predates the language of the Hebrew texts. The language of the earliest known tablet containing the Epic of Gilgamesh is from before 2000 BC.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:43:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

With hateful rightfulness added to the fascist mix. OF Ignorance only is bliss in the short term.

Facist. Me a facist. Now come on that is a stupid notion.

The book is opinion.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Wrong. The Hebrew people left Egypt around 1200 BC, many centuries after the fall of the Sumerian civilization (1940 BC), and the language of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh predates the language of the Hebrew texts. The language of the earliest known tablet containing the Epic of Gilgamesh is from before 2000 BC.

Your full of shit as usual. Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:43:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks for the heads up, war.

"Satan / Cheney in "08"

tom007  posted on  2009-02-19   21:44:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians

Ubaidians are the forebearers of Sumerians...the direct descendancy, IIRC, is Ubaid, Uruk, Eridu, Sumarian.

war  posted on  2009-02-19   21:44:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your not a reliable source. I believe Encyclopedia Britannica. It has already shown you to be wrong.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:45:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do not pass go. Do not collect shit. Go back and read post 185. Then research it. You are in error. Or worse deliberately lying.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   21:47:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It doesn't have to mention the Bible. Tell me why it must.

Because they are the earliest known people, so they had to be direct descendents of Adam and Eve somehow, right?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:54:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Do not pass go. Do not collect shit. Go back and read post 185.

You hate real history don't you, as you can't explain it in terms of the bible. You'll never get past go if you refuse to open your eyes, you'll crash into the first curve.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   21:55:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Region of southern Mesopotamia and site of the earliest known civilization. It was first settled c. 4500 – 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people called the Ubaidians, who drained the marshes for agriculture and developed trade.

BTW, your timeline of the Ubadians indicates that they created their civilization right at the time the Earth was created according to your beliefs. So where are they mentioned in the Bible?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:05:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

Use Google, since you don't believe anything other than what your pastor tells you anyways...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:07:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your post is nonsense. It is just someones opinion. Not even your original thoughts. Besides there are a lot of "probably" "likely" "perhaps" "suggests"

Prove that Moses wrote Genesis. Besides, don't you know that the Sumerians existed well before the Hebrews historically left Egypt? You have claimed that Genesis predates Gilgamesh, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that if Moses wrote Genesis, then it would have been impossible for him to have written it before an ancient Sumerian text was written, as the Sumerian civilization had already ceased to exist by that time.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:11:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Your full of shit as usual. Show me this text and prove it predates Genesis.

It's obvious who's full of shit here. Here's something for you to read. You'll probably ignore it, but putting it for others who are interested...

From Theology WebSite's Electronic Texts

Introduction to the Gilgamesh Epic
by Scott David Foutz

Sometime around 3500 BC the first cities appeared along the banks of the lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers. (The Tigris and Euphrates, as well as the Pishon and Havilah rivers are mentioned as flowing through Eden in Genesis 2:10ff.) These two rivers run a generally parallel course for about 600 miles from their source in the Persian Gulf. The plain between the Tigris and Euphrates is historically known as Mesopotamia (meaning: "between rivers") and is generally deemed by contemporary archaeology to be the "cradle of civilization". This region is located in the heartland of modern day Iraq.

Some time after 3500 BC a people called the Sumerians occupied the southern portion of this plain, nearest to the Persian Gulf. There is no evidence regarding the origin of the Sumerians, but they most likely came as conquerers (rather than passive settlers) from central Asia. They settled a number of agricultural communities, perhaps most notably one at Ur (on the Euphrates). Biblical students will recognize Ur as the hometown of the biblical Abraham about 1500 years later (see Gen 11:31). For over a thousand years these remarkable Sumerians controlled the southern portion of the Mesopotamian Valley and shaped many of the basic institutions and ideas governing later models of civilization throughout the Middle East and later, Europe.

Many scholars believe that the Sumerians invented writing since no earlier archaeological evidence of writing has been found than the written language of the Sumerians dating back to approximately 3200 BC. Initially the Sumerian written language consisted of pictograms (graphic representations of objects) which eventually evolved into a mixed system of simplified drawings, ideograms (symbols for ideas and abstracts such as "power"), and phonograms (symbols for the sounds of words or syllables). The Epic itself refers to "those who first cut into clay his bird-like words". (Tablet 1)

Wedge-shaped marks were used in making each symbol. The term "cuneiform" (from the Latin cuneus for "wedge") was later used to designate this type of writing. This practice of writing apparently proved so practically valuable that other peoples of the ancient Middle East later borrowed cuneiform symbols and adapted them to the sounds of their own languages.

The most impressive surviving literature of the Sumerians are their epic poems recorded on clay tablets concerning the career and discoveries of a legendary king named Gilgamesh. Although Gilgamesh is a semi-divine person in the epic, his principal quest, a quest for immortality, ends in failure. Thus the Epic of Gilgamesh has been said by some to embody the values and aspitrations of the Sumerian people.

The Gilgamesh Epic first became known to 19th century scholars through copies from the library of Ashurbanipal of the 7th century BC. Since that time, considerable archaeological evidence suggests that Gilgamesh did exist. Two historiographic texts of the 21st or 20th centuries BC mention Gilgamesh as a king of the city of Uruk (biblical Erech, see Genesis 10:10) during the Second Early Dynastic Period of Sumer (ca. 2700-2500 BC). According to the same texts, Gilgamesh is a contemporary of two other Sumerian kings, Enmebaragesi of Kish and Mesannepadda of Ur. Separate inscriptions of both of these kings as well as two sons of Mesannepadda have now been discovered, confirming their existence and thus greatly enhancing the likelihood that Gilgamesh was also an historical person.

The value of the Gilgamesh Epic for students of the Bible is truly substantial and multifaceted. Among these facets are the following:

1. The Epic is significantly older than the Old Testament and thus provides us with unparalleled insight into the ancient Near East. The most conservative traditional views of biblical authorship attribute the book of Genesis to Moses and thus require a (conservative) date of approximately 1440 BC, whereas the earliest written stage of portions of the Epic are presumed to date from the Ur III period, approximately 2000 BC.

2. The Epic contains a Flood Story strikingly similar to that of Genesis 6-9 (see Tablet 12). As mentioned previously, conservative views attribute the commitment of the biblical flood acount to written text (as opposed to oral tradition) approximately 1440 BC with Moses. Thus the textual account of the Flood in the Epic significantly precedes the account in Genesis. (Scholars generally recognize this precedence of the Sumerian flood account based on references to the Flood oon the Old Babylonian versions of the Epic (2000-1600 BC) and the complete flood account's appearance in the older Atrahasis Epic which we know precedes the Old Babylonian version of the Epic.)

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:21:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

In another essay on another day, I’ll take a look at the Babylonian “creation” epic that is similarly said to “closely follow the biblical account.”

http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/noah-versus-gilgamesh/

You take the words of a deranged blogger over that of historical fact that any knowledgeable scholar would acknowledge.

Ignorance is bliss for you isn't it, and knowledge is evil. How are you different from the fanatical Muslims that wish to live as if they were still in the 4th century?

Your little friend apparently has a serious problem with any legitimate knowledge, and finds anything other than his wild assed delusions to be a lie.

Is he your mentor?

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Go back and read post 185.

BTW genius, I WROTE post 185.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:43:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Because they are the earliest known people, so they had to be direct descendents of Adam and Eve somehow, right?

Adam and Eve are the earliest people. They don't have to be direct descendants. They are indirect descendants. But just because they are indirect descendants doesn't mean they have to mention the Bible in their writings. They lost that history.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:44:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You hate real history don't you, as you can't explain it in terms of the bible. You'll never get past go if you refuse to open your eyes, you'll crash into the first curve.

I am not following you to hell.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:48:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You hate real history don't you

The Bible is real history. Sorry you want to live with your sin and reject Christ. Your problem not histories.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:48:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Ubadians

You talk a lot of shit. But you have yet to prove anything that you say. Go on prove it. Don't just say it.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:50:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Prove that Moses wrote Genesis. Besides, don't you know that the Sumerians existed well before the Hebrews historically left Egypt? You have claimed that Genesis predates Gilgamesh, but are apparently oblivious to the fact that if Moses wrote Genesis, then it would have been impossible for him to have written it before an ancient Sumerian text was written, as the Sumerian civilization had already ceased to exist by that time.

Jesus said Moses wrote it.

God told him what to write obviously when he was alone with him at Mt Sinai.

Gilgamesh doesn't predate Genesis. You can keep saying that all you want but it doesn't make it true.

Old Friend  posted on  2009-02-19   22:52:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Why does your essence cult call Christ a liar. Aren't they supposed to follow him?

A) What the hell is an "essence cult"?

B) Are you now trying to say that Jesus wrote the Old Testament?

C) Follow WHO?

Oh, you misspelled ESSENES, and don't know enough about ancient history to know that it wasn't a cult, it was a JEWISH SECT, just as the Pharasees were a JEWISH SECT.

So where have you read anything about the Essenes calling Jesus a liar? That you side with those who KILLED Jesus, and believe their words shows whose side YOU are on...

The true gospels of the apostles (who were ESSENES) were burned by the likes of Romans and Pauline "christians", led by Paul in order to sqaush the true teachings of Jesus, which were unacceptable to Rome.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-02-19   22:56:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (220 - 305) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]