is this true?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
nonsense. the associations are clear and concise. either you have not read the links or you simple ignore the evidence stacked up against you. there is nothing speculative about the existence of enuma elish and zoroastrian writings.

they exist, they predate genesis and genesis mirrors concepts found in the previous and in the case of enuma elish, ge ...[text shortened]... y.

the verdict is in and you're left behind; genesis authors copied from previous religions.

again unworthy of serious comment, waste someone else's time. They pre-date the Genesis account, evidence nil, indeed,

Zoroastrianism /(or Mazdaism) is a religion and philosophy
based on the teachings of prophet Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra, in
Avestan) and was formerly among the world's largest religions.[1] It was probably
founded some time before the 6th century BCE in Greater Iran.

The lost portions are known of only through references and brief quotations in the
later works, primarily from the 9th to 11th centuries.

Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system
dating back to the early 2nd millennium BCE

Although older, Zoroastrianism only enters recorded history in the mid-5th century
BCE

Genesis writing completed: 1513 B.C.E.

shall i paste excepts from the enuma to demonstrate how ludicrous your claims are?
Gods with human attributes, uttering curses, giving vent to anger, being in confusion,
shall I? Mirrors in every way? It is to laugh.



the http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again unworthy of serious comment, waste someone else's time. They pre-date the Genesis account, evidence nil, indeed,

Zoroastrianism /(or Mazdaism) is a religion and philosophy
based on the teachings of prophet Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra, in
Avestan) and was formerly among the world's largest religions.[1] It was probably
founde ...[text shortened]... enters recorded history in the mid-5th century
BCE

Genesis writing completed: 1513 B.C.E.

you are simply arguing against history. more conservative authorship of the bible is dated around the babylonian exile around 550-600bce which is where the hebrews picked up most of their early religion. but recent evidence suggests newer editing perhaps around 450bce.

while the origins of zoroaster shares about the same time period-slightly older, the enuma elish far exceeds the bible's origin since it was created before the hebrews were even around. the sumerian version dates back 1800-2000bce. there is no scholarly evidence that suggests the bible is earlier than the sumerian/babylonian accounts.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you are simply arguing against history. more conservative authorship of the bible is dated around the babylonian exile around 550-600bce which is where the hebrews picked up most of their early religion. but recent evidence suggests newer editing perhaps around 450bce.

while the origins of zoroaster shares about the same time period-slightly older, t no scholarly evidence that suggests the bible is earlier than the sumerian/babylonian accounts.

sure spanky, you keep telling yourself conjecture is fact, conservative estimates are
more than mere opinion and that the scant evidence you base your claims on is
scholarly, jeez we've gone from the cat basing his arguments on technicalities
(desperate i know) and now you proffering evidence which you cannot date with any
certainty and which is fragmentary at best, which hardly even gets a mention until
Herodotus does so in passing and which upon examination bears no resemblance
whatsoever to the Genesis account, and then to audaciously attempt to erect a
pretence of fact around it, plueeeze spare me.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure spanky, you keep telling yourself conjecture is fact, conservative estimates are
more than mere opinion and that the scant evidence you base your claims on is
scholarly, jeez we've gone from the cat basing his arguments on technicalities
(desperate i know) and now you proffering evidence which you cannot date with any
certainty and which ...[text shortened]... nt, and then to audaciously attempt to erect a
pretence of fact around it, plueeeze spare me.

the only thing you base your absurd claim on is tradition. there is no scholarly study that dates the bible back further than the babylonian exile.

even if you go with your arsed traditional view, you're still centuries behind the original sumerian version from which the first of the two genesis creation accounts was copied.

you can deny this, you can lie to yourself and even eventually believe in your own lies, but it won't make an iota of difference to reality. you and i both know you're wrong.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the only thing you base your absurd claim on is tradition. there is no scholarly study that dates the bible back further than the babylonian exile.

even if you go with your arsed traditional view, you're still centuries behind the original sumerian version from which the first of the two genesis creation accounts was copied.

you can deny this, you ...[text shortened]... lies, but it won't make an iota of difference to reality. you and i both know you're wrong.

your claims are simply absurd and ludicrous and unworthy of any serious attention, sure continue to palm us off with nothing but conjecture
as proof, hypothesis as fact, but dont expect any serious Biblical scholar to buy into it, you simply dont know anything for certain. I will waste my time
remonstrating with you no further, a truly futile exercise, nor will i stoop to terms like liar, for i realise that all you have is what you have
taken upon trust from third party sources, you have originated nothing, examined nothing independently and as a consequence are naught but a sock puppet.

Eridu Genesis, apparently from which the book of Genesis was copied, lets examine
its contents and see if we can find a similarity, shall we.

[81'] That day, Nintur wept over her creatures
and holy Inanna was fill of grief over her people;
but Enki took counsel with his own heart.[1]
An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursaga
had the gods of heaven and earth swear by the names of An and Enlil.
Ziusudra's Vision
[86] At that time Ziusudra was king and lustration priest.
He fashioned, being a seer, [a statue of] the god of giddiness
and stood in awe beside it, wording his wishes humbly.
As he stood there regularly day after day
[90'] something that was not a dream was appearing: conversation,
a swearing of oaths by heaven and earth, a touching of throats,[2]
and the gods bringing their thwarts up to Kiur.
Enki's advice
And as Ziusudra stood there beside it, he went on hearing:
"Step up to the wall to my left and listen!
Let me speak a word to you at the wall and may you grasp what I say,
may you heed my advice! By our hand a flood will sweep over
the cities of the half-bushel baskets, and the country;
the decision, that mankind is to be destroyed, has been made.
A verdict, a command of the assembly, can not be revoked,
[100'] no order of An and Enlil is known to have been countermanded,
their kingship, their term, has been uprooted; they must bethink themselves ...
Now ...
What I have to say to you ..."

[Lacuna; Enki orders Ziusudra to build the ark and load it with pairs of animals.]
The Flood
[132'] All the evil winds, all stormy winds gathered into
one and with them, the Flood was sweeping
over the cities of the half-bushel baskets,
for seven days and seven nights.
After the flood had swept over the country,
after the evil wind had tossed the big boat about on the great waters,
the sun came out spreading light over heaven and earth.
Ziusudra's sacrifice
Ziusudra then drilled an opening in the big boat
and the gallant Utu sent his light into the interior of the big boat.
[140'] Ziusudra, being the king,
stepped up before Utu kissing the ground before him.
The king was butchering oxen, was being lavish with the sheep,
barley cakes, crescents together with ...
... he was crumbling for him
...
juniper, the pure plant of the mountains he filled on the fire
and with a ... clasped to
the breast he ...

[Lacuna; Enlil is angry at finding survivors, but Enki explains himself]
End of Enki's speech
[175'] "You here have sworn by the life's breath of heaven,
the life's breath of earth that he verily is allied with you yourself;
you there, An and Enlil, have sworn by the life's breath of heaven,
the life's breath of earth, that he is allies with all of you.
He will disembark the small animals that come up from the earth!"
Reward of Ziusudra
Ziusudra, being king, stepped up before An and Enlil, kissing the ground,
and An and Enlil after honoring him
[180'] were granting life like a god's,
were making lasting breath of life, like a god's, descend into him.
That day they made Ziusudra, preserver, as king,
of the small animals and the seed of mankind,
live toward the east over the mountains of Dilmun.[3]


Note 1:
These gods had been involved in creating Man.

Note 2:
Ziusudra witnesses in a vision how the gods are discussing the fate of humanity. The touching of throats is a gesture to indicate that if someone breaks his oath, he allows himself to be beheaded. The Kiur mentioned in the next line was a part of the temple of Enlil in Nippur.

yes its almost word for word! an uncanny resemblance.

the creation account again note the similarities,

In the first days when everything needed was brought into being,
In the first days when everything needed was properly nourished,
When bread was baked in the shrines of the land,
And bread was tasted in the homes of the land,
When heaven had moved away from the earth,
And earth had separated from heaven,
And the name of man was fixed;
When the Sky God, An, had carried off the heavens,
And the Air God, Enlil, had carried off the earth . .

The Creation of Humans

This poem begins with a description of how the gods had to work for their bread by digging out irrigation canals:

The gods were dredging the rivers,
were piling up their silt
on projecting bends--
and the gods lugging the clay
began complaining (Jacobsen, Harps 154)

Nammu, who is either the sea or the goddess of the riverbed, goes to her son Enki,
who is asleep in the deep (the Apsu) and entreats him to rise from his bed and
"fashion servants of the gods" (Kramer, History Begins 109). Enki, who after all is
the god of wisdom, thinks of the germinating powers of the clay and water of the
abyss, and he tells Nammu to have some womb-goddesses pinch off this clay and
have some "princely fashioners" thicken it, so she can mold it or give birth to it:

Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
Ninmah will bind upon it the image (?) of the gods,
It is man . . . . (Kramer, History Begins 109)

Gods digging ditches, complaining, yeah the similarities are obvious, Neeeeext!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have the power to change myself through the application of Biblical principles and
putting on what the Bible terms, the new personality, resulting in a complete
metamorphosis of personality, over time. I have the power to impart this knowledge to
others so that they too may be transformed through an inner struggle against
selfishness and egotism. I do not have the power to change the Biblical text nor any
depictions of it.

Obviously we have different conceptions on time,biblical principles and a few other things.

With our thoughts we create the world , literally .
There is the her and now and there is the Now.

the 10 000 good things we do to change the world are not as nearly as good as the one good thing we can do to change the world.

do you know what I mean? or does it have o be biblically sanctified before it has any purchase with you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
unworthy of serious comment.

seemed serious enough for me. I dont blame him if he dont answer you

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because lets face it, seeing millions of persons having their eyeballs and entrails eaten
up by crows and seagulls is hardly a positive scenario, is it.

oh and btw ,why cant you answer my question?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Obviously we have different conceptions on time,biblical principles and a few other things.

With our thoughts we create the world , literally .
There is the her and now and there is the Now.

the 10 000 good things we do to change the world are not as nearly as good as the one good thing we can do to change the world.

do you know what I mean? or does it have o be biblically sanctified before it has any purchase with you?

its simply another form of meism, 'with or thoughts we change the world' ???, 1 million
people marched against the Irag war in London alone, how many of their thoughts
managed to change the course of events, nil, when one realises that there are greater
forces than oneself at play then one comes to realise the fallacious nature of the
statement, 'we create the world', we do nothing of the sort! Its simply a kind or airy
fairy esoteric assertion with no practical basis in reality, all you can hope to achieve is
to change yourself and those who may listen to you, but even then, they must be self
motivated, nothing more.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
oh and btw ,why cant you answer my question?

I have answered your question, i have no power to change any of the watchtower
publications nor depictions of Biblical events, i will not answer it again.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
seemed serious enough for me. I dont blame him if he dont answer you

then perhaps you would like to point out the similarities after having examined the
extensive texts that i have pasted, or, you can stop pretending you know anything
about it, your choice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is also border line, find proof that invalidates my faith? i have actually provided
ample evidence of inspiration, your objections amounted to pedantry of the most
absurd kind, based upon semantic argument of words that do not even exist in the
original languages, gulping down camels and straining out gnats is not good for putty
cats, a ...[text shortened]... gravity and centrifugal force, that the earth is not an oblate spheroid
with flattened poles?

Oh dear. Well Robbie, I gave you ample chance to withdraw from this discussion but you chose to stick stubbornly to your incorrect views. I suppose then, I have no option but to shoot you down in flames.

In fact, there is a word in ancient Hebrew which translates to 'ball' or 'sphere'. You will find it used in the bible in Isiah 22:18. Now, what do you think looks most like a sphere? A ball (or sphere) or a circle, which even in ancient Hebrew times related to a two-dimensional shape? Furthermore, if you wish to be scientifically accurate, the earth only looks circular when your viewpoint is directly above one or other pole. Are you implying that that's where your now strangely not omnipresent deity lives?

In regard to your other point, even a basic grasp of physics is enough to allow one to determine that the earth is not in any way 'suspended' by gravity and/or centrifugal force.

This is not pedantry Robbie. If you wish to claim something as 'scientifically accurate', you should ensure that it is, and neither of your examples could be considered so by anybody who has a reasonable grasp of the meaning of the phrase 'scientifically accurate'.

Finally, your persistent use of unfounded accusations of 'pedantry' is a textbook example of the ad-hominem technique of 'argument'. Frankly, in view of our past discussions, I expected better from you. I have, of course, now adjusted my expectations in this regard.