The Ox Goad god

Originally posted by frogstomp
[b]Genesis only makes sense as a collection of folklore, refurbished mythologys and cultural rules. Any reading of it as literally true is bound to be the genesis of error in doctrine.

This is quite an assumption. What do you base this on? Is it based on the assumption that the creation account seems to contradict evolutionary findings?

Originally posted by amannion
This almost presupposes a hierarchy of societies with hunter-gatherers down low and agricultural societies higher up - and the transition from one to the other pre-ordained to occur as human societies advance.

I'm not so sure that's necessarily the case.
Certainly in Australia, while there is evidence for the development of some farming skills, the indi ...[text shortened]... atherer lifestyle for around 40,000 years. This only changed quite recently - 200 years or so.

They are pre-ordained by history, that doesn't pressupose that it was the only way for societies to evolve. But definitely, the advent of agriculture allowed a populational boom and therefore it led to a predominance of agricultural societies.

Subsistence agriculture is probably an easier life than pure hunter gatherer. However once people settle down they start to aquire possesions and also to want more. So they end up having more and more and having to work harder to obtain that. Also due to the durability of cerials it becomes possible to trade. This makes specialization much more feasable where people do not do any food related tasks but provide services in return for food. The more settled nature also greatly encourages some form of government and organization which often enables agriculturalists to drive out or conquer hunter gatherers

Originally posted by whodey
This is quite an assumption. What do you base this on? Is it based on the assumption that the creation account seems to contradict evolutionary findings?

You can not escape the idea that the that the society, folklore and myths of the Sumerians and Akkadians had a heavy influence on the writers of Genesis.
A creation myth is still a myth even if you change the name of the creator to the name of the father bull god of the Canaanite civilizion.

That's El

Originally posted by frogstomp
You can not escape the idea that the that the society, folklore and myths of the Sumerians and Akkadians had a heavy influence on the writers of Genesis.
A creation myth is still a myth even if you change the name of the creator to the name of the father bull god of the Canaanite civilizion.

That's El

You assume that the myths of the Sumarian and Akkadians influenced the stories of the Bible and not vise versa. It is helpful to note that the stories of the ancient cultures such as the Sumarians and Akkadians and that of the writers of Genesis had similiar stories such as the creation account and the great flood ect. Through the various accounts we can see similair truths that ring true in each that should be used as evidence to help discern historical accuracy. As far as the Bible goes, however, it should be noted that it has demonstrated accuracy in regards to historical events. What other religous text has created a scientific discipline to follow it which is Biblical Archeology?

Originally posted by whodey
You assume that the myths of the Sumarian and Akkadians influenced the stories of the Bible and not vise versa. It is helpful to note that the stories of the ancient cultures such as the Sumarians and Akkadians and that of the writers of Genesis had similiar stories such as the creation account and the great flood ect. Through the various accounts we can se ...[text shortened]... her religous text has created a scientific discipline to follow it which is Biblical Archeology?

Good argument ,,except the Sumerian culture had been buried under the Akkadian culture long before Abram was born in Ur.
To answer your question is easy. the Sumerian culture had a religion, we call it myth, Abram and other's "borrowed\" it from the Akkadians
hence Ziusudra's flood became Noah flood. The code of hammurabi is the forerunner of the biblical laws, The Enuma Elish creates the seven day week with horns announcing the coming of the seventh day. No matter how you think you can spin it, the fact remains the Sumerian and Akkadian myths are what Abram learned. It was Abram or some other writer whose modifications of these myths and not god or any other "higher power" that put the "word" in the story of Genesis.

Originally posted by whodey
You assume that the myths of the Sumarian and Akkadians influenced the stories of the Bible and not vise versa. It is helpful to note that the stories of the ancient cultures such as the Sumarians and Akkadians and that of the writers of Genesis had similiar stories such as the creation account and the great flood ect. Through the various accounts we can se ...[text shortened]... her religous text has created a scientific discipline to follow it which is Biblical Archeology?

You really ought to give up on your revisions of history, maybe you should seek the message. I cannot be any more clear that that, since being cryptic is neccessary for reasons I can't reveal.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Good argument ,,except the Sumerian culture had been buried under the Akkadian culture long before Abram was born in Ur.
To answer your question is easy. the Sumerian culture had a religion, we call it myth, Abram and other's "borrowed\" it from the Akkadians
hence Ziusudra's flood became Noah flood. The code of hammurabi is the forerunner ...[text shortened]... and not god or any other "higher power" that put the "word" in the story of Genesis.

You have no idea what Abraham learned in terms of oral tradition. You assume once again that the author of Genesis took it upon himself to revise the assumed oral tradition given to Abraham that the Sumerians just happened to write down. You then further assume that because the code of hammurabi has similarities with the laws of Genesis like the "eye for an eye" concept, that the laws of Genesis were inspired by them. You also fail to take into account the notion that God's laws would have been known to the children of Adam and therefore, some of these laws probably influenced the future decendants like the Summerians, albeit they were not written down until the time of Moses.

Originally posted by whodey
You have no idea what Abraham learned in terms of oral tradition. You assume once again that the author of Genesis took it upon himself to revise the assumed oral tradition given to Abraham that the Sumerians just happened to write down. You then further assume that because the code of hammurabi has similarities with the laws of Genesis like the "eye for an re decendants like the Summerians, albeit they were not written down until the time of Moses.

What you don't seem to realize is that the Sumerians and the Akkafians did write down a lot of their mythology and this happened BEFORE Abram was born in the city of Ur , which was founded by the Sumerian about 2000 years before the time of Moses. Also while the Akkadians wrote a semetic language the Sumerian's did not. While I won't say that Abram et.al. copied directly from the Sumerians , they did copy from the Akkadians who in turn " borrowed from the Sumerians.

edited out unfinished sentence here.

Maybe you should learn a little about the archeological findings made during the last 150 years, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

BTW the god that influences Hammurabi was named Marduk. He also can be found in the 5th tablet of the Enuma Elish.

Originally posted by frogstomp
What you don't seem to realize is that the Sumerians and the Akkafians did write down a lot of their mythology and this happened BEFORE Abram was born in the city of Ur , which was founded by the Sumerian about 2000 years before the time of Moses. Also while the Akkadians wrote a semetic language the Sumerian's did not. While I won't say t ammurabi was named Marduk. He also can be found in the 5th tablet of the Enuma Elish.

Once again you assume that one group copied from another. Just because one group has shown, via archeology, to have certain laws and stories first does not mean they had them before the other. It only means they were written down and discovered via archeology before the other. The culture that Abraham sprang from could have known of Biblical counts and passed them down generation to generation until the time of Moses and could have differed somewhat from the Sumerian culture from which they sprang. This could have been done orally as where the Sumerian culture in which sprang from wrote their accounts down and were subsequently discovered. Other cultures could have also written them down as well but may have either been destroyed or left undiscovered. Secondly, you fail also to consider that according to the Bible all ancient cultures have similiar origins, namely Adam and Noah, hence, all ancient cultures should and do have similarities such as the flood account ect. Thirdly, you fail to consider the possibility that God may have given the accounts directly to Moses as the inspired word of God as he wrote the ten commandments himself. Of coarse this seems absurd to you because you do not believe that there is a God.

If you read the Bible you will see that God always had men who followed and served him. They were few and far between, however, and they extended from Adam to Abraham and then to Jacob. Through Jacob, who was later named Israel, a nation was started to someday produce the Messiah. This lineage was a tight lineage and interacted with God and followed his statutes. Assuming this is true, these men should have maintained the correct teachings and historical accounts all the way up until Moses, as where other civilizations went off in their own direction inching farther and farther from the truth. All that we know for sure and can agree on, however, is that these ancient cultures existed as did Abraham and had striking similarities that link them one to another.

Originally posted by whodey
Once again you assume that one group copied from another. Just because one group has shown, via archeology, to have certain laws and stories first does not mean they had them before the other. It only means they were written down and discovered via archeology before the other. The culture that Abraham sprang from could have known of Biblical counts and pas ...[text shortened]... nts himself. Of coarse this seems absurd to you because you do not believe that there is a God.

try and understand this, The city Ur was the city that the FIRST israelite was born in. and The Sumerians were all buried under the city before there was ONE single israelite.
Abram's father made statues of the Akkadian gods.
Stop making that ridiculous assumption that the long DEAD Sumerians stole the stories from the bible.

Originally posted by frogstomp
try and understand this, The city Ur was the city that the FIRST israelite was born in. and The Sumerians were all buried under the city before there was ONE single israelite.
Abram's father made statues of the Akkadian gods.
Stop making that ridiculous assumption that the long DEAD Sumerians stole the stories from the bible.

I do not deny that the Sumerians came before the Israelites. I do not deny that Abrahams father worshiped idols and neither does the Bible. It is evident via history that the Sumerians did not steal their accounts from the Bible because the Bible had not been written as of yet, but this does not mean that the Bible stole its accounts from the Sumerians either. Oral tradition was the early Bible. When this began is speculative. I don't see how this proves anything.

Originally posted by whodey
I do not deny that the Sumerians came before the Israelites. I do not deny that Abrahams father worshiped idols and neither does the Bible. I don't see how this proves anything.

The stories in Genesis up until Abram were stories from the mythology of the Sumerians and Akkadians like the god Enli who warned Ziusudra about the coming flood.

Originally posted by frogstomp
The stories in Genesis up until Abram were stories from the mythology of the Sumerians and Akkadians like the god Enli who warned Ziusudra about the coming flood.

As I stated before, there should be similarities as to the origins of man in regards to creation and the flood account. These accounts were shared by ALL ancient civilizations. Thus, you could say that they must be accurate to some degree. Man was created, and there was a great flood. The differences, however, should be looked at according to cultural and religious variations that occured after the time of the great flood and of Noah. After the great flood the differences between cultures increased exponentially.

Originally posted by whodey
As I stated before, there should be similarities as to the origins of man in regards to creation and the flood account. These accounts were shared by ALL ancient civilizations. Thus, you could say that they must be accurate to some degree. Man was created, and there was a great flood. The differences, however, should be looked at according to cultural and ...[text shortened]... he great flood. After the great flood the differences between cultures increased exponentially.

Listen, I haven't the time to waste explaining this to you ad-infinitum but Abram came thousands of years after the story of the flood was written and was born in a city where that part of the mythology was kept in a slightly different version it's only natural that the originator of the religion would modify what he thought was history into his own myths, changing it to suit his version of god.
The only thing that might be a shock is that the flood might not even have been water since we have a Sumerian text that speaks of an invasion from Elam in terms of a flood. Which gives a reason to why the semetic mercenaries from Ebla and Canaan would be in Sumer.