Originally posted by frogstompI didn't think the reference was all that obscure, nor was it a stab at "changing the subject." In fact, it addresses the main gist of what you are zealously trying to prove. Namely, finding a source (the clay tablets) that predates an already-recognized source (the Bible), does not--- in anyway, shape or form--- 'prove' that the latter was informed by the former.
Stop changing the subject , if you want to talk about the 1960's go to the debates forum and talk there.
Unless you can find some sources to post , try and apply your "logic" to yourself.
My sources have been posted where the hell are yours?
As is well-known, oral tradition/histories far outdate any known written specimens. Which is to be trusted more?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOral traditions are used by existing people, the israelite's clearly didn't exist ,as your own bible says, before Abram and he was born in a city that already had the stories written.
I didn't think the reference was all that obscure, nor was it a stab at "changing the subject." In fact, it addresses the main gist of what you are zealously trying to prove. Namely, finding a source (the clay tablets) that predates an already-recognized source (the Bible), does not--- in anyway, shape or form--- 'prove' that the latter was informed by t ...[text shortened]... tradition/histories far outdate any known written specimens. Which is to be trusted more?
Originally posted by frogstompThat there was a lineage of believers from Adam onward cannot be negated with Abram's decision to heed God's call and become the spiritual father of a new species. Nonetheless...
Oral traditions are used by existing people, the israelite's clearly didn't exist ,as your own bible says, before Abram and he was born in a city that already had the stories written.
What do you make of Genesis 5:1, exactly?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHthis:
That there was a lineage of believers from Adam onward cannot be negated with Abram's decision to heed God's call and become the spiritual father of a new species. Nonetheless...
What do you make of Genesis 5:1, exactly?
The Midrash regards Terah as wicked. (E.g., Numbers Rabbah 19:1; 19:33.) Rabbi Hiyya said that Terah manufactured idols and told the following account: Terah once went away and left Abraham to mind the store. A woman came with a plateful of flour and asked Abraham to offer it to the idols. Abraham took a stick, broke the idols, and put the stick in the largest idol’s hand. When Terah returned, he demanded that Abraham explain what he had done. Abraham told Terah that the idols fought among themselves and the largest broke the others with the stick. “Why do you make sport of me?” Terah cried, “Do they have any knowledge?” Abraham replied, “Listen to what you are saying!” Terah then delivered Abraham to King Nimrod for punishment. (Genesis Rabbah 38:13.) The Zohar says that when God saved Abraham from the furnace, Terah repented. (Zohar, Bereshit 1:77b.) Rabbi Abba b. Kahana said that God assured Abraham that his father Terah had a portion in the World to Come. (Genesis Rabbah 30:4; 30:12.)
and this from Joshua:
24:2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of
Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time,
even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they
served other gods.
24:3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood,
and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his
seed, and gave him Isaac.
Originally posted by frogstompPerhaps you misread the passage indication. I asked you to respond to Genesis 5:1, to wit:
this:
The Midrash regards Terah as wicked. (E.g., Numbers Rabbah 19:1; 19:33.) Rabbi Hiyya said that Terah manufactured idols and told the following account: Terah once went away and left Abraham to mind the store. A woman came with a plateful of flour and asked Abraham to offer it to the idols. Abraham took a stick, broke the idols, and put the stick in ...[text shortened]... d,
and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his
seed, and gave him Isaac.
"this scroll-of genealogical-annals-of Adam in-day to-create Elohim Adam in-likeness-of Elohim he-made him"
Specifically, I am wanting to get your take on genealogical-annals-of. To what do you think Moses was referring when using this phrase?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHGenesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Perhaps you misread the passage indication. I asked you to respond to Genesis 5:1, to wit:
"this scroll-of genealogical-annals-of Adam in-day to-create Elohim Adam in-likeness-of Elohim he-made him"
Specifically, I am wanting to get your take on genealogical-annals-of. To what do you think Moses was referring when using this phrase?
big deal . what else would you have expected them to have written?
However, that was written long after the Sumerians were gone.And they had other gods that supposedly created man.
like this :
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/sumer-enki-ninmah.htm
Originally posted by frogstompSo you take Moses to mean nothing more than what he is about to write, without reference to any type of already-established 'annal?'
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
big deal . what else would you have expected them to have written?
However, that was written long after the Sumerians were gone.And they had other gods that supposedly created man.
like this :
http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/sumer-enki-ninmah.htm
Originally posted by frogstompIn the first eleven chapters of Genesis, a "scroll," or sepher, is referenced six times for the construction of the genealogies or accounts that follow, not oral tradition.
I see you agree with me then , that Moses used Sumerian mythology when he fabricated the genesis account.
Given that the clay tablets you are quoting were buried, what other possible scrolls could Moses have been referencing?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe Akkadian ones.
In the first eleven chapters of Genesis, a "scroll," or sepher, is referenced six times for the construction of the genealogies or accounts that follow, not oral tradition.
Given that the clay tablets you are quoting were buried, what other possible scrolls could Moses have been referencing?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you go further back up the page a little, Freaky, you'll find a link (I think unattributed: I haven't checked) up at talk.origins (to a page that crops up frequently in various guises on sites that for a multitude of reasons are all concerned with the Deluge); I got their via an Amazon book review of some apologist for deluvian literalism. Chaos.
Not too busy for you, BDN, but I did miss your post on the bushmen of the Kalahari. What was the source you used which holds to their lack of a flood story?
On the way I found this: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF12-97Morton.html ,
which punts its own version of the account; the bit that interests me right focuses on eretz.
Does Genesis really teach a universal flood? While the interpretation of the Bible is far from my field of expertise, as an interested layperson, I am going to make a couple of observations about the interpretation of two critical phrases in the Bible. Throughout the English translations of Gen. 6-9, the Hebrew word eretzis translated "earth"." This is unfortunate since the connotation which the English word "earth" has may not be quite the same as the Hebrew connotation of eretz. Of the usages of eretz, it is translated "land" 1,458 times and "earth" 677 times. In at least 100 occurrences where it is translated earth, it could just as easily be translated "land."19
The extent of several events is determined by which English word is used as the Hebrew equivalent. In Gen. 12:10 there was a famine in the eretz. There are no contextual clues to the extent of this famine. All versions consulted translate this occurrence of eretz as "land" thus limiting the extent of the famine. How can we be sure that it was not a previously unrecognized worldwide famine? In Ex. 10:15 of the Authorized Version Bible, the King James, and the New American Standard, eretz is translated as earth, giving the impression that the plague covered the whole Earth, rather than just the land of Egypt. If it were not for verses 12 and 14, we would have no way of knowing that the most reasonable translation is "land" (used by the New International Version and the Revised Version). Again the choice of the English word would seem to determine the extent of the plague. If the verse is relating that locusts covered all the planet Earth in a previously unrecognized locust catastrophe of global extent, the first choice is correct.
1 Sam. 30:16 of the King James version has the Amalekites spread across all the Earth. Surely, the Amalekites were not in the New World. In Gen. 12:1, Abraham is told to get out of his eretz. Surely, God was not telling him to get off the planet Earth. In Gen. 41:57, the famine was said to have been severe in all the lands and people from all countries came to buy grain from Joseph. The American Indians certainly did not. In all these cases, the word eretz has the connotation of a limited area of the Earth.
The point of all this is that in the case of the Flood, it is the extent which is precisely what is at issue. Context is not very helpful in choosing how to translate the word eretz. Thus the extent of the Flood appears to the layperson to be determined by the belief of the translator.
Even the phrase "under the whole heaven" in Gen. 6:17 and 7:19 may not have universal implications. In Deut. 2:25, we are told that the fear of the Israelites was beginning to be upon all the nations "under the whole heaven." Again it is doubtful that British tribesmen in the second millennia B.C. were afraid of the Hebrews nor do primitive Papua New Guinea tribesmen fear them today. The same phrase occurs in Job 37:3. The Job 37:2-5 passage seems to be a clear reference to hearing the thunder from the lightning which in verse 2 had been unleashed beneath the whole heaven and sent to the ends of the earth. Since it is impossible to hear in Dallas, the thunder generated by a lightning strike in New York City, it would appear that the heaven in the phrase "beneath the whole heaven" is much more limited in connotation than it is usually interpreted in the Genesis passages. It appears to me that "under the whole heaven" refers to an area from horizon to horizon and not to the entire surface area of the Earth. Thus, from the textual evidence, imputing a universalist interpretation on the Gen. 6-9 flood may not be correct.