Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 06-08-2013, 07:40 PM

You state your point with great conviction after I asked you how you empirically know that Gilgamesh story preceded that of Noah rather than vice versa. You did not explain to me the source of your knowledge of this. So I will add to that and ask how you empirically know that the Tanakh stories emerged in 1200 BCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that Gilgamesh emerged as Noah rather than the other way around?? Please explain.....

Because Noah is Israelite mythology, which factually formed after 1200 BC.

The oldest legend is Ziusudra which Gilgamesh borrowed from. Ziusudras flood time, is attested with a real devistating flood of the Euphrates in 2900 BC.

Israelites had to develop their own writing and this didnt start until 1000 BC almost 2000 years after the Levant flood mythology started by previous cultures.

Your barking up the wrong tree here, Sumerians and Mesopotamians had a wealth of writing for us to get accurate details we never could out of the later Israelite cultures.

outhouse · 06-08-2013, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

You state your point with great conviction after I asked you how you empirically know that Gilgamesh story preceded that of Noah rather than vice versa. You did not explain to me the source of your knowledge of this. So I will add to that and ask how you empirically know that the Tanakh stories emerged in 1200 BCE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Because Noah is Israelite mythology, which factually formed after 1200 BC.

The oldest legend is Ziusudra which Gilgamesh borrowed from. Ziusudras flood time, is attested with a real devistating flood of the Euphrates in 2900 BC.

Israelites had to develop their own writing and this didnt start until 1000 BC almost 2000 years after the Levant flood mythology started by previous cultures.

Your barking up the wrong tree here, Sumerians and Mesopotamians had a wealth of writing for us to get accurate details we never could out of the later Israelite cultures.

Finklestein states Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites, after 1200 BC and the biblical legends are factually the opposite of this.

Cuneiform dating is accurate to its time period long before Israelites developed their own writing that evolved factually from Canaanite writing, after 1000 BC.

Shaw, Ian (2002). "Israel, Israelites". In Jameson, Robert; Ian. A dictionary of archaeology. Wiley Blackwell.

Provide proof Israelites existed before 1200 BC, because at that time they were Proto-Israelites.

Also provide proof that Cuneiform of Gilgamesh is later.

I will not jump through your hoops because of your religious BIAS

arnoldo · 06-09-2013, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The Thundering Legion : Legio fulminata, not fulminatrix.

Emperor Marcus Aurelius commanded the XII Fulminata in his campaign in 174 against the Quadi, a people inhabiting an area now known as Slovakia in modern day Slovak Republic, between Poland and Hungary. His army, exhausted by thirst, was on the point of falling an easy prey to the enemy.

Christian version reported by Tertullian (c. 160 - c. 225) :

It was then that the soldiers of the Twelfth Legion, which was composed of Christians, prayed to their God for help. Forthwith a heavy thunderstorm arose, bringing the desired relief to the Romans, but terrifying and dispersing the barbarians. Hereupon the emperor issued a decree forbidding the persecution of the Christians and to the Twelfth Legion he gave the surname of fulminata, or fulminea, that is, "thundering."

The same episode reported by Cassius Dio (c. 150 - 235) refers of the presence of an Egyptian mage, Harnuphis, who evoked Mercury, obtaining the rain shower. See Cassius Dio, Roman History, lxxii.8-10

In another account of an attack by led by "barbarians" Augustine, in City of God, notes that the barbarian sparred the lives of christians (and some non-christians) who sought sanctuary in christian places of worship.

Quote:

Chapter I.-Of the Adversaries of the Name of Christ, Whom the Barbarians for Christ's Sake Spared When They Stormed the City.

For to this earthly city belong the enemies against whom I have to defend the city of God. Many of them, indeed, being reclaimed from their ungodly error, have become sufficiently creditable citizens of this city; but many are so inflamed with hatred against it, and are so ungrateful to its Redeemer for His signal benefits, as to forget that they would now be unable to utter a single word to its prejudice, had they not found in its sacred places, as they fled from the enemy's steel, that life in which they now boast themselves.6 Are not those very Romans, who were spared by the barbarians through their respect for Christ, become enemies to the name of Christ? The reliquaries of the martyrs and the churches of the apostles bear witness to this; for in the sack of the city they were open sanctuary for all who fled to them, whether Christian or Pagan. To their very threshold the blood-thirsty enemy raged; there his murderous fury owned a limit. Thither did such of the enemy as had any pity convey those to whom they had given quarter, lest any less mercifully disposed might fall upon them. And, indeed, when even those murderers who everywhere else showed themselves pitiless came to those spots where that was forbidden which the license of war permitted in every other place, their furious rage for slaughter was bridled, and their eagerness to take prisoners was quenched. Thus escaped multitudes who now reproach the Christian religion, and impute to Christ the ills that have befallen their city; but the preservation of their own life-a boon which they owe to the respect entertained for Christ by the barbarians-they attribute not to our Christ, but to their own good luck. They ought rather, had they any right perceptions, to attribute the severities and hardships inflicted by their enemies, to that divine providence which is wont to reform the depraved manners of men by chastisement, and which exercises with similar afflictions the righteous and praise worthy,-either translating them, when they have passed through the trial, to a better world, or detaining them still on earth for ulterior purposes. And they ought to attribute it to the spirit of these Christian times, that, contrary to the custom of war, these bloodthirsty barbarians spared them, and spared them for Christ's sake, whether this mercy was actually shown in promiscuous places, or in those places specially dedicated to Christ's name, and of which the very largest were selected as sanctuaries, that full scope might thus be given to the expansive compassion which desired that a large multitude might find shelter there. Therefore ought they to give God thanks, and with sincere confession flee for refuge to His name, that so they may escape the punishment of eternal fire-they who with lying lips took upon them this name, that they might escape the punishment of present destruction. For of those whom you see insolently and shamelessly insulting the servants of Christ, there are numbers who would not have escaped that destruction and slaughter had they not pretended that they themselves were Christ's servants. Yet now, in ungrateful pride and most impious madness, and at the risk of being punished in everlasting darkness, they perversely oppose that name under which they fraudulently protected themselves for the sake of enjoying the light of this brief life.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/N...htm#P152_33940

Augustine attributes this apparent act of benevolence to divine protection but is it possible these "barbarians" were already christians (Arians?) to begin with? Susan Bauer writes in her book,The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade, that the Visigoth who led sack of Rome was in fact led by an Arian christian general named Alaric. Bauer writes that Alaric gave orders before the sack of Rome to not destroy any Christian temples. If this is correct, then Augustine's argument of any direct divine providence involved during the sack of Rome is greatly weakened.

steve_bnk · 06-09-2013, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that Gilgamesh emerged as Noah rather than the other way around?? Please explain.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Good plots are hard too find.

Gilgamesh emerged as Noah.

When it come to myths why reinvent the wheel?

There are only so many natural events forwhich divine intervention an be attached. Floods, droughts, storms, earthquakes, plagues.

God is always on both sides, the winner claims divine support.

The earliest known roots of the Gilgamesh flood myth predate the earliest estimates of the biblical story writings.

Could it be the other way around? Sure, but the physical evidence of the stories does not support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Now please explain why you may think Noah true?

Duvduv · 06-09-2013, 06:00 PM

For the same reason you believe it isn't true: reliance on people other than ourselves for information and interpretation. Neither younor I can provide empirical proof for our positions on these and other matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

How do you know that Gilgamesh emerged as Noah rather than the other way around?? Please explain.....

The earliest known roots of the Gilgamesh flood myth predate the earliest estimates of the biblical story writings.

Could it be the other way around? Sure, but the physical evidence of the stories does not support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Now please explain why you may think Noah true?

outhouse · 06-09-2013, 08:26 PM

When someone throws out something so well known, for the sake of arguing or theological bias.

Is it ignore time?

This is a argument with the methodology exactly that of YEC. Is there really a place for this in biblical criticism?

Huon · 06-10-2013, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Augustine attributes this apparent act of benevolence to divine protection but is it possible these "barbarians" were already christians (Arians?) to begin with? Susan Bauer writes in her book,The History of the Medieval World: From the Conversion of Constantine to the First Crusade, that the Visigoth who led sack of Rome was in fact led by an Arian christian general named Alaric. Bauer writes that Alaric gave orders before the sack of Rome to not destroy any Christian temples. If this is correct, then Augustine's argument of any direct divine providence involved during the sack of Rome is greatly weakened.

The key name for this event is Ulfilas (ca. 310-383), arian bishop of the Visigots.

About Alaric, Wiki mentions that he was an Arian Christian. BTW, the french history knows of another Alaric, arian king of the Visigots in Gaul, Alaric II (484-507) who was defeated by Clovis I, king of the Franks, at Vouillé, near Poitiers. In 507, Clovis was still a pagan. But he had married a Catholic princess of Burgundy, Clotilde (Chlothild). A french joke says that after the battle, Clovis had "embraced the cult of Clotilde"? For a french speaker, culte (cult) can be heard as cul (=ass)... which can be also embraced.

You write that "Augustine's argument of any direct divine providence involved during the sack of Rome is greatly weakened". How can you ???
On the contrary, it was the divine providence who sent Ulfilas to the Visigots, leading to their conversion to Christianity. Yes, the divine providence made a small mistake about Arius, I must confess.

spin · 06-10-2013, 12:39 AM

I've been trying to track down XII Fulminata but the sources are not very helpful. I know for example that Josephus mentions the XIIth in BJ 2.500 without the cognomen "Fulminata". G.R. Watson (The Roman Soldier, Cornell, 1969, p.14) seems to think the Fulminata was mentioned in an inscription from the time of Antoninus Pius. H.D.M. Parker (The Roman Legions, B&N, 1993 [1928], p.269) indicates an inscription from Patrae in Achaea (CIL iii 7261) that uses the cognomen "Fulminata", which he places before the time the legion was sent to Egypt, then on to Syria. The first move would seem to be during the time of Nero.

steve_bnk · 06-10-2013, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

For the same reason you believe it isn't true: reliance on people other than ourselves for information and interpretation. Neither younor I can provide empirical proof for our positions on these and other matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The earliest known roots of the Gilgamesh flood myth predate the earliest estimates of the biblical story writings.

Could it be the other way around? Sure, but the physical evidence of the stories does not support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Now please explain why you may think Noah true?

So what you say in response after response is you ask for reasoning and get it, and then say there are other ways to determine truth but will not say what that its.

Unfortunately we know what that is, it is called religious faith. Don't be bashful, come right out and tell us you believe the in the bible as truth. As yiu say tgyer is noi empitraclp[roof, howeverhe LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF ofa position.

It seems pretty certain by a preponderance of the circumstantial evidence that the flood myths proceed what we generically call Jews. you will have to refute the actual dating of earliest flood myth recordings and the accepted time lines of the Jews and the Jewish writings.

But again you will respond with hand waving and diversion.

Again, do you believe in the literal Noah story?

Huon · 06-10-2013, 02:28 AM

steve_bnk and Duvduv
Could you open another thread, if you want to go on with Noah and Gilgamesh?
Thanks in advance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2013, 08:26 PM	#16
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	When someone throws out something so well known, for the sake of arguing or theological bias. Is it ignore time? This is a argument with the methodology exactly that of YEC. Is there really a place for this in biblical criticism?

06-10-2013, 12:39 AM	#18
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I've been trying to track down XII Fulminata but the sources are not very helpful. I know for example that Josephus mentions the XIIth in BJ 2.500 without the cognomen "Fulminata". G.R. Watson (The Roman Soldier, Cornell, 1969, p.14) seems to think the Fulminata was mentioned in an inscription from the time of Antoninus Pius. H.D.M. Parker (The Roman Legions, B&N, 1993 [1928], p.269) indicates an inscription from Patrae in Achaea (CIL iii 7261) that uses the cognomen "Fulminata", which he places before the time the legion was sent to Egypt, then on to Syria. The first move would seem to be during the time of Nero.

06-10-2013, 02:28 AM	#20
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	steve_bnk and Duvduv Could you open another thread, if you want to go on with Noah and Gilgamesh? Thanks in advance.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.