If God is God, Why. . . ?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

That is not how data (and that is all it is) works. The further from the source you go, the more noise you have.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Let's get this right! You're seriously trying to say that old stories some 1500 years older , such as the flood and virgin birth, son of God, miracles, walk on water, raised from the dead, crucified etc etc. From earlier belief systems got it wrong? They didn't actually say that or are you trying to say they prophesied future events. And that the events (exactly the same) in the bible are the true events, they must be true because it says so in the bible?

Brainwashed my friend as the quote says "it takes an open mind to see the truth" my continued communication with you is at an end. You remind me of a child who puts their fingers in their ears and goes la la la la. When they hear something they don't like. In fact I've a feeling you probably are a child. You created this thread to look like a debate but in reality you have a point of view that won't be changed and just try and force it on people.

As I said I'm glad your God is not my God

a reply to: redchad
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Let's get this right! You're seriously trying to say that old stories some 1500 years older , such as the flood and virgin birth, son of God, miracles, walk on water, raised from the dead, crucified etc etc. From earlier belief systems got it wrong? They didn't actually say that or are you trying to say they prophesied future events. And that the events (exactly the same) in the bible are the true events, they must be true because it says so in the bible? Brainwashed my friend as the quote says "it takes an open mind to see the truth" my continued communication with you is at an end. You remind me of a child who puts their fingers in their ears and goes la la la la. When they hear something they don't like. In fact I've a feeling you probably are a child. You created this thread to look like a debate but in reality you have a point of view that won't be changed and just try and force it on people. As I said I'm glad your God is not my God

Wow what a scolding. Of course that's just your opinion Right? Which of these old stories are from what earlier belief systems? I would love to read these older stories from which these old stories came from. Have you copies of the Manuscripts or cuneiform's of the older stories than those old stories?

By the way I have a question for you. I believe Chester mentioned that there were possible civilizations prior to this antediluvian civilization and in that thought why is it not possible that some of these old antediluvian stories were indeed similar to other civilizations that preceded this civilization? In other words the Sumerian Kings list [if true] is hundreds of thousands of years older than the creation of the Adamic civilization. Have you considered any of this?

Isn't it a much nicer question if we said: "God is God because God."

a reply to: redchad

We were talking about the "Epic of Gilgamesh" recording of the Flood and Adam sending his sons to get fruit from the tree of life because he didn't want to die. I don't remember in the copy I read of the Epic of Gilgamesh mentioning the virgin birth, Christ walking on water, or a Jewish Messiah doing miracles. If it does it was written in latter by someone and was not in the legends of the past of any nation.

My mind was as about as open as anyone could get but once you find the truth you never look back on those things. the Sumerian Kings list only supposedly goes back ten thousand years and that because they counted a life of one king to the next end to end. And as we see in the bible is that Adam just died within years of Noah birth, there could be a chance Great Great Great Great Grandpa saw the Birth of Noah.

Also we see that the person of Seth was king in Canaan as prophesied by Noah when he place a curse on Canaan because of the sin of Ham (he could not curse Ham because God had just blessed him). Seth was a king of Salem known by his priestly name Melchizedek.

I do have a point in this thread and that point is God caused everything and thereby was responsible personally and took it upon himself to remedy the situation by sending his own Son to die in place of all who would believe on him. God knowing the beginning from the end said in the 3r chapter of Genesis that a seed of a woman would crush the serpents head for what he did in the Garden. Seed of a woman was known to be a woman with no husband and in this case we learn later a Miraculous virgin conception and a very natural birth.

These records were passed down from one man to another, and you don't think that once the languages were changed that they also started to forget details and embellish added details. The problem is many like you will claim that is what Christians have done stole it all from others and embellished their ideas on to the stories. But they give total immunity to ancient dead societies and languages of sin-filled, faulty men after the flood from doing the exact thing they claimed happened to the Bible.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Except in the Epic of Gilgamesh the hero of the flood is Utnapishtim not Noah, and it was Enkidu not Adam who is created. Linguistically the Babylonian myths are far older than the Jewish. If anything the Old testament steals from Sumer (and Egypt).

So your preserved word of God is already corrupt.

a reply to: Noinden

yeah yeah I read all that false junk. I accept it where it supports the Bible and reject it where it does not. Because God's word is true, pure, preserved, inspired in English AKJV and all we need for life and godliness, and the final authority for all things.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ahh so you are cherry picking information, to support a preexisting theory you have? That is conformation bias, and a sign of a weak argument

Its not false, its factual.

Except in the Epic of Gilgamesh the hero of the flood is Utnapishtim not Noah, and it was Enkidu not Adam who is created. Linguistically the Babylonian myths are far older than the Jewish. If anything the Old testament steals from Sumer (and Egypt).

The epic of Gilgamesh is a polytheist fable of many gods and goddesses of unknown origin. By that I mean the poem's author is actually unknown and the origin or beginning of the tale has no actual factual science. There are actually three epics of Gilgamesh of which the Chaldean account is the most accepted.

But here is where many people get confused. The accounts are on engraved clay which cannot possibly be dated. Only the story can attribute to the date of the tablets by what is known as associated dating and not carbon dating. In other words the story goes back to a flood era and not to the creation of a monotheistic God. The best that can be said of the date of the tablets are at about 1650 BC to the beginning of the second millennium.

Whereas the biblical accounts can be verified with thousands of carbon dated MSS to about 1440 to 1480 BC concerning Moses and then Moses' accounts back to 2705 BC at the time of the flood and from that point back to 3760 BC which was the creation of Adam. As you can see it simply is not true that several Gilgamesh clay tablets that cannot even be confirmed with dating and which entail many god's of fantastic tales of even death among their own gods, could even begin to compete either literally or physically with verified Hebrew MSS numbering in the thousands. There is simply nothing to compare Gilgamesh with in the literary world. It would be like comparing a fairy story of dear old Ireland with the watchers of Enoch.

So what am I saying? I am saying that Gilgamesh XI was published by George Smith in 1872 with no confirmation of a date of the tablets. Confirmation is impossible and for all we know the tablets could have been penned in the 1800's. You nor I or anyone actually knows the age of the tablets and who wrote the tablets. Most who criticize the bible will insist that the account of Noah was taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh tablets without any source or reasoning whatsoever. I find it impossible to think that a monotheistic Moses would copy polytheistic clay tablets and put the account into Torah. That is beyond my imagination.

a reply to: Seede

Where did I say anything about radiometric dating? You can use the linguistics, and known history of the area. It is fairly certain that the Jews became monotheistic then monotheistic from being Polytheistic, and as such, it is not really that big a stretch to think that they copied from other nations near by. Just about every other culture did so.

a reply to: Noinden
a reply to: Seede

Where did I say anything about radiometric dating? You can use the linguistics, and known history of the area. It is fairly certain that the Jews became monotheistic then monotheistic from being Polytheistic, and as such, it is not really that big a stretch to think that they copied from other nations near by. Just about every other culture did so.

The reason I noted that carbon dating was useless was to emphasize the fact that other readers would realize that one cannot use direct dating on clay. Yes, that leaves trying to date the tablets by their contents which is not acceptable at all. What some people will do is to date Gilgamesh before the flood of Noah in order to establish that Gilgamesh was much older than Noah and that Noah copied from Gilgamesh.

But that is not true intent by any means. First of all how can you date a story by its contents unless the contents are historically accurate? Are you saying that a poem about a man called Gilgamesh on clay tablets is historically acceptable? Torah is historically accurate in hundreds of cases and is proven with new daily facts.

Could it be just as acceptable for me to claim that Noah's flood happened in the manner of which Torah records the event and then the Gilgamesh poem was written at a much later date? The reason I say this is that if Noah's flood was indeed the Gilgamesh flood then there was no Noah's flood and Torah is a lie. There is nothing to lead us to believe that there were two floods so in that understanding one is not true or in modern geology both are untrue. Modern geology claims there was no world flood whatsoever and in that finding both Noah and Gilgamesh did not happen.

So this leads some to favor a story of many gods and a world flood, some to favor one God and a world flood and some to favor no God/s and no flood. Chester favors Torah and a world flood, you favor Gilgamesh and a world flood, and I favor Torah and a world flood.

Now if you embrace the Gilgamesh story, then you must embrace the antediluvian Sumerian clay cuneiform Kings List because they are both connected by the same culture. Both teach of many gods who were actually angels that were cast from heaven to this earth, governed themselves with selected various leaders and cities which they built. This was the era in which Gilgamesh lived as he sought immortality. That is according to the epic of Gilgamesh.

a reply to: Noinden

That is correct, just like you do. I will use Greek and Hebew and myths of other civilizations that support the Bible and reject all that doesn't. You see it is exactly what you do, you select that which supports your view and reject all Biblical facts, so it is no different. Why is it wrong for me to do exactly what you are doing? Is not that Hypocrisy in the highest form?

I stated earlier that man went from Monotheistic before and just after the flood. By the time of Abraham we see their are Polytheistic men, and today it has migrated to Humanistic man, . . . ye shall be as gods. . . Gen 3:5c.

So historically, we can date the polytheistic conversion of man to the time of Abraham, if we trust the Torah/OT Bible to be correct. The proof lay in Abraham's nephews house under Laban had Idols or gods Gen 31:30, 32, he is the first recorded polytheist in the Bible after the Flood. Eve was the first recorded polytheist in Gen 3:1-5c . . . ye shall be as gods . . .. Later Eve repents and believes God that a seed will be born of a woman that will bruise the serpents head. The problem was she expected to be that woman and she was not.

We see later that Jacob's Children became polytheist and he had to convert them back to Monotheism when he went to Bethel to worship the God of his fathers. Gen 35:2, 4.

It is easier for us to date things historically as they are found in the Bible. But if you get rid of the Final Authority of the Bible, you get rid of any way of dating historical facts until some man can dig it up today and put his OPINION to it and claim that he is the higher Authority on which man is to trust. . . . ye will be as gods . . .Gen 3:5c

a reply to: Seede

So you are basically saying you don't understand linguistics? We can reconstruct stories and language, using the methods that linguists used.

Ever see a word like *ghosti? That is a reconstructed proto Indo-European word, which is used for the obligate relationship between hosts, guests, and strangers.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Oh what information do I use as a bias? I don't deny your faith, I just question its supremacy. If you don't get the difference, that explains a lot.

a reply to: Noinden

All your so called information/wisdom/knowledge, that you have used to make your decision, that your religion is superior to mine.

And if you don't get it, that explains a lot.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Ahh "so called" information. I've never said my religion is superior. If that is what you think I have been saying, you really do not understand polytheism at all

No deity is supreme.

What I've done is question and challenge your paradigm. that gets you angried up, and you make threats.

a reply to: Noinden

Sure you have, just by saying my religion is full of old story's and myths and had as much validity as yours. Wiht that you set up your belief system on equal wiht mine. But it is not on par it is below the bar, it is th eold lie of the devil, . . . ye shall be as gods . . . Gen 3:5c

The Polythiest prior to Mohammad's Day said that Allah was the most high god. Grecco and Roman Polytheism also have a most high god among their Polytheistic as did the Norse mythologies. So did the Polynesian Island folk. But then again you knew this before you posted but yet you want to say I don't understand Polytheism.

There is always a supreme god among polytheism.

No, what you have done is shown your own BIAS to make yourself the Final Authority for yourself is you, . . . ye shall be as gods. . . Genesis 3:5c. You are the highest god in your own private polythiestic view. There is none higher than you, you have shown that hand over and over in everyone of your anti-replies to my replies. I simply recognize there is a God higher than I and he is the Lord God Almighty, Jesus Christ who is the fullness of he godhead bodily. I am not a god in the sense of your's and other polytheistic views. However, you make yourself a god that is higher over me and others, every time you say, "your religion is not the only way, your religion is false, your religion is based on myth is of others more accurate religions". Thereby making yourself the Authority, with no submission to the One True God who has all Power and Authority who knows your going out and your coming in day by day.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

All religions are full of "old stories" or they at least claim to be.

Religion is faith, faith is not fact based. QED You are telling a story, to explain how you see the universe working. My faith is just the same.

You also don't understand the middle eastern polytheistic faiths ver well

So no, your God can not be proven to be the one true god. You can't PROVE it. You can only FEEL it. It works for you. But its not fact.

originally posted by: Seede

In other words the Sumerian Kings list [if true] is hundreds of thousands of years older than the creation of the Adamic civilization.

There are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026 B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation.

Wikipedia mentions on the page for "Sumerian King List":

Throughout its Bronze Age existence, the document evolved into a political tool. Its final and single attested version, dating to the Middle Bronze Age,...

The list blends prehistorical, presumably mythical predynastic rulers enjoying implausibly lengthy reigns with later, more plausibly historical dynasties. Although the primal kings are historically unattested,...
The earliest listed ruler whose historicity has been archaeologically verified is Enmebaragesi of Kish, c. 2600 BC. ... However, the fact that many of the dynasties listed reigned simultaneously from varying localities makes it difficult to reproduce a strict linear chronology.

I hope that helps in determining the correct answer to the "if true" remark you made (Bronze Age = c. 3300–1200 BC according to wiki; but I understand you weren't talking about the age of the "single attested version" of the Sumerian Kings list itself).

Later ChesterJohn said:

the Sumerian Kings list only supposedly goes back ten thousand years and that because they counted a life of one king to the next end to end.

Maybe I read that wrong but it seems somewhat inconsistent with what that wikipage mentions:

None of the following predynastic antediluvian rulers have been verified as historical by archaeological excavations, epigraphical inscriptions or otherwise. While there is no evidence they ever reigned as such, the Sumerians purported them to have lived ... before the great deluge.

Ruler: Length of Reign
Alulium: 8 sars (28,800 years)
....

The first ruler or king listed there already exceeds the "ten thousand years" ChesterJohn mentioned (so not sure what he was talking about there, can't have been about the ones we have archeological evidence for either, since the oldest one dates back to "2600 BC" according to wiki). Anyway, there's no evidence that this* is anything more than mythology and early political propaganda, a "political tool" as wikipedia calls it (nowadays, in politics or marketing a product, more modern is often perceived as better, back then, painting the dignity of old age on something was a better sales pitch). *: the stuff about "the primal kings".

“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. Adorned with its new philosophical finery, “Christian” thought now claimed the dignity of old age. The apologists pointed out that Christian books were far older than those of the Greeks and that the prophets of the Bible lived earlier than Greek philosophers. Certain apologists even concluded that the philosophers copied from the prophets. Plato was made out to be a disciple of Moses!

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. Comparisons were made between Greek gods and Bible characters. Jesus was compared to Perseus; and Mary’s conception to that of Perseus’ mother, Danaë, who was said to be also a virgin.

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma. [For more information see: The Paradox of Tertullian]

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?