08 Jun 06
Sargon known as Sargon the Great.....his kingdom was known as Akkad and extended into Asia Minor....
Sargon remained as a legend....it was said that Sargon's mother had abandoned him in a cradle of reeds, that she had placed the cradle on one of Mesopotamia's great rivers and that Sargon had been found and adopted by Sumerians - a story similar to one which would emerge centuries later about a man called Moses.
gil
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch03.htm
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompJust the opposite is true, FS. There are certain 'scholars' with agendas who spend their efforts and energies contriving all types of silly stories in vain attempts to discredit what God has said. That's nothing new, and doesn't affect much of anything save temporary controversy.
You seem more worried about what the rest of the world thinks about your archaic god, than you are about the truth. All that I propose is backed by historical writing of the Sumerians and the Akkadians, all you got is Moses who is supposed to have received the word of god, Moses, I might add, who stole his baby-boat ride from Sargon, King of Akkad.
If you had a nickel for every flash-in-the-pan conjecture that came from the mouths of results-first scholars, you'd have enough nickels to buy yourself a clue.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNothing you have said can change the fact that the Sumerian stories are where the bible stories came from, at least up until Abram.
Just the opposite is true, FS. There are certain 'scholars' with agendas who spend their efforts and energies contriving all types of silly stories in vain attempts to discredit what God has said. That's nothing new, and doesn't affect much of anything save temporary controversy.
If you had a nickel for every flash-in-the-pan conjecture that came from the mouths of results-first scholars, you'd have enough nickels to buy yourself a clue.
No matter how many wisecracks you guys use in your juvenile attempt to disparage me, you won't change the truth , and that's the stories were borrowed from Sumerian mythology.
IF FACT, if you accept the flood story as truth then you really are worshiping Enli the Sumerian god and not El the Canaanite god.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompIf we are to use your logic, then whatever is written first is the truth. You have offered nothing in the way of proof which would substantiate 'your' premise that one borrowed from the other. Neither have you offered anything which would suggest that the histrocity of the flood is in question.
Nothing you have said can change the fact that the Sumerian stories are where the bible stories came from, at least up until Abram.
No matter how many wisecracks you guys use in your juvenile attempt to disparage me, you won't change the truth , and that's the stories were borrowed from Sumerian mythology.
IF FACT, if you accept the ...[text shortened]... uth then you really are worshiping Enli the Sumerian god and not El the Canaanite god.
We wisecrack because we love. Your attempts at refuting the cold hard facts that God has provided in the Bible are just silly. Give it up and put your efforts toward something more rewarding.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere's the whole special covenant-making, 'I will bless you and your descendants' thing, but you're right, there doesn't be to any explicit reference to 'stop worshipping other gods' or any similar command.
Where did you get this stuff from? The story as I know it is that God told Abram to go somewhere, and Abram went. No mention of idol worshipping at all.
08 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by orfeoAs far as I recall the covenant came about after Abram left Ur, hence the name change (from "high, exalted father"--bit retrospective don't you think?--to "father of a multitude" ). There is no indication as to why Abram was picked. Of course a chosen people must have a patriarch, and the Abram story fits that function perfectly.
There's the whole special covenant-making, 'I will bless you and your descendants' thing, but you're right, there doesn't be to any explicit reference to 'stop worshipping other gods' or any similar command.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou think because it was written later it's truthful? what I have shown you are texts written at least 1000 years before Moses in some cases and in others texts that were burried under the very city that father Abram was born in.
If we are to use your logic, then whatever is written first is the truth. You have offered nothing in the way of proof which would substantiate 'your' premise that one borrowed from the other. Neither have you offered anything which would suggest that the histrocity of the flood is in question.
We wisecrack because we love. Your attempts at refutin ...[text shortened]... in the Bible are just silly. Give it up and put your efforts toward something more rewarding.
The truth of the stories isn't what I'm pointing too, it's simply is a fact that they came before the israelites used the Sumerian stories in their bible, why they di it is probably for the same reason the RCC stole Easter from Ishtar.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHthe " cold hard facts" in truth is that God had nothing to do with writing the OT. period. Remember I 'm talking specificly about the bible up to Abram.
If we are to use your logic, then whatever is written first is the truth. You have offered nothing in the way of proof which would substantiate 'your' premise that one borrowed from the other. Neither have you offered anything which would suggest that the histrocity of the flood is in question.
We wisecrack because we love. Your attempts at refutin ...[text shortened]... in the Bible are just silly. Give it up and put your efforts toward something more rewarding.
Through Joshua it's a story about a ghastly god of landless xenophobites ( lol , at that thought), that murder people just because they had been living in the " promised land " even before there was a freaking " promise " . Don't try and and any time- spin on the sequence of events, because the Canaanites were settled there way before Abram.
Mass murder is genocide, was then ,is now and will alway be, and an evil is always an evil. So you follow an evil mass-murdering god.
08 Jun 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou wiscrack because you have no validity behind your argument.
If we are to use your logic, then whatever is written first is the truth. You have offered nothing in the way of proof which would substantiate 'your' premise that one borrowed from the other. Neither have you offered anything which would suggest that the histrocity of the flood is in question.
We wisecrack because we love. Your attempts at refutin ...[text shortened]... in the Bible are just silly. Give it up and put your efforts toward something more rewarding.
I don't have to make a case against the flood , all I needed to do was show it was written that Enli that saved the human race way before Abram lived , for the bible to fail.I acheived that so the bible fails.
Whether Enli actually did is preposterous, of course, but no less preposterous than your god doing it.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by frogstompCongradulations. You apparently have single handedly ended thousands of years of Christian history. It is something emporers and dictators and countless other religions have failed to do. Now what, Disney World?
, for the bible to fail.I acheived that so the bible fails.
.
09 Jun 06
Originally posted by whodeyThey didn't have the info we have discovered during the 19th and 20th centuries. None of your belittling attempts can change the facts.Which are as I have stated them to be.
Congradulations. You apparently have single handedly ended thousands of years of Christian history. It is something emporers and dictators and countless other religions have failed to do. Now what, Disney World?