Bible is a recent hack job mystery solved

Okay folks,

Let's all calm down and have a look at this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I highly suggest before anyone responds past this post that they read the above link.

We're all more than capable of discussing this politely.

Spiderj

Please, oh, please someone euthanize this thread.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Please, oh, please someone euthanize this thread.

I have been watching the drama on this thread for a while now, as you may have surmised.

You know uberarchanist, no one twisted your arm to be here. And when here, or any part of this board, the overall plan is to add value to it by contribution and discussion. There are a lot of people here that will listen to you and give your opinions consideration.

But you can't win friends and influence people by appointing yourself as a policeman to pass judgement on others. Actually that is not a democratic way of doing business, and when you try to enforce your opinions by passing judgement on others you will in reality distance them and loose any grounds for your argument regardless of whether you are right or not.

It is my opinion that you should rethink your strategy. Try making friends with someone you do not like today. Try finding a reason to understand another perspective even if it goes against every fiber of your being. Just as an experiment. You don't have to be successful at it, but you may take something with you from the experience.

Don't fool yourself, this thread is awful.

Irrelevant points vs. irrelevant points.

I don't like Marduk and I don't like most of the people who don't like him. I wish this thread would just die.

Yes thank you matyas but lets give uber the benefit of the doubt as they are fairly new.

Please uber read the link I posted directly above your's post.

And in the future one line posts tend to be frowned upon...actually when I say tend I mean always.

Here's a great link for new members:

handbook.abovetopsecret.com...

spiderj

Seriously read both links let's all try and keep an open mind and discuss things civilly.

If a thread is not to your liking don't participate. If a thread gets to out of hand the staff will take care of that as well.

SPiderj

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Spiderj]

Intrestingly enough i recently had a conversation with 2 born again christians about the flood and Noah.

Among the things i asked was how it could be that the Epos of Gilgamesh was written earlier then the Bible. Most Bible scholars say that the oldest part of the OT dates to around 950 BCE (plus minus some years). Now both stories have some amazing similarities invovled.

Both of those guys couldnt really answer me the question of which came first or that maybe the OT copied from the Gilgamesh Epos. They said that wasnt possible that the OT plagerized at all. The noah story just had to be older as we all came from Noah was their excuse and they quickly turned to other questions i was intrested in.

They also said that it wasnt important at all what historians say or find because when it comes to faith God is always right and everything else is just made up or lies.

It just goes to show that when discussing religious topics from a historical context, most religious people really do not want to hear those types of questions as it seems to shake their faith when they are made to think about such obvious irregularities. Instead they would rather stick their heads in the sand and ignore information from credible sources.


Here is an intresting webseite that raises a lot of questions concerning Bible irregularities and in particular the flood story


Checkout that site and then come back and tell me that none of those questions raised are true or that the bible is fail prove.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by Fett Pinkus]

Instead they would rather stick their heads in the sand and ignore information from credible sources.

Huh, kind of like how some atheists refuse to believe in the flood even when every culture has a flood story? Look, a prior story reinforces the Bible, if anything.

Sorry uberarcanist but you have to ask yourself: which story copied from the other one?

Just because an older story talks about the flood that doesnt mean it proves the bible, bit unlogical if you ask me

Originally posted by uberarcanist

Instead they would rather stick their heads in the sand and ignore information from credible sources.

Huh, kind of like how some atheists refuse to believe in the flood even when every culture has a flood story? Look, a prior story reinforces the Bible, if anything.

It doesn't. I just means all the cultures stem from a previous culture in some place in the world probably in the middle east that was subject to a flooding.

Or even less amazing : they copied the flood story along

[edit on 8-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Or, as is mentioned in Deutoronomy,
(does anyone read my posts besides Marduk? well, never mind that question lol
Does anyone actually read my posts? )

As mentioned in Deutoronomy, the biblical version of the story, was partially passed down via oral tradition. There were at the very least, 2 versions of the events transpiring from pre-Sumer to Babylon. One was the mainstream version, maintained by the scribes and priests of the royals of Sumer, Akkadia and Babylon. The other was the one maintained by the slaves and less important members of the society, the average men and women of their time. The biblical version is the one maintained by the slaves and average people, via oral tradition by those who couldn't afford to have scribes carve it into stone or impress it into cylinder seals.

Without the biblical version, we have no comparative study of the time frame. Analysis of both versions of the same events, lends a great deal of additional detail, provides insight into the political climate, shows how the royals tried to steal each other's exploits, adds additional insight into who and what they were, and what was transpiring, and provides alternative rationale as to why the royals may have done some of the things attributed to them in the mainstream version.



[edit on 8-4-2007 by undo]

Hey Marduk,

this will be short. I got to be honest, i could barrly get through the first few inches of your post it was quite borring. Having said that, I think that I can saely say that it is quite obvious that you have an agenda. May I also say that it is one that is based on one sided opinion and not historical facts, as you claim. suffice to say you are content to rant and not really learn. Hmm lets see how does that passage go? oh yah like this:

"Always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone." (2 Timothy 3:7-9)

On another note; I couldn't help but notice that you live in southern England. Over here we call them red necks! But seriously what is it like living in a police state any way? I suppose that it won't be long before tony's little cameras every where will be telling you to wash your hands when your done in the bathroom! your country as well as the rest of the world is heading toward global government just as the Bible fortold.

Infact world events are unfolding all around you just as the Bible says and yet you still remain content to simply rant and bash. im always amazed by people like you who focus so much hatred toward the Bible and Christianity in general; fueled by your reprobate lifestyle and the hardness of your own heart no doubt. Never the less your rants fulfill God's word to the letter. Let me show you how:

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." (2Peter 3:3-4)

This following passage sounds just like you if you ask me!

Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! (2Peter 2: 10-14)


The simple fact Marduk is instead of coming to God for forgiveness and regeneration, which are both free, you reject him in order to excuse your sin which will ultimately lead you to your death.

how many times have i got to point out that this thread is not about your personal deranged belief in a middle eastern cult religion which is based on the polytheistic religion of mesopotamia
its about the evidence. no amount of pretending by you that just because youre an evil ignorant person you have a get out clause in Jesus is going to change that
I don't need to be saved because I'm coming back
like duh

The simple fact Marduk is instead of coming to God for forgiveness and regeneration, which are both free, you reject him in order to excuse your sin which will ultimately lead you to your death.

oh yeah right, but if i repent just before I snuff it according to the get out clause I go to sit at gods right hand. you on the other hand for judging me are going straight to hell, do not pass go do not collect $200

potsed by ubercanist who doesn't know what he wrote
I don't like Marduk and I don't like most of the people who don't like him. I wish this thread would just die.

so you're saying that you do like the people who like me or are you claiming that you havent got any friends at all


can anyone tell me why it is that a belief in God also requires a total lack of intelligence and an ability to rationally discuss evidence

Beth
did you say something




[edit on 8-4-2007 by Marduk]

Originally posted by undo

As mentioned in Deutoronomy, the biblical version of the story, was partially passed down via oral tradition. There were at the very least, 2 versions of the events transpiring from pre-Sumer to Babylon. One was the mainstream version, maintained by the scribes and priests of the royals of Sumer, Akkadia and Babylon. The other was the one maintained by the slaves and less important members of the society, the average men and women of their time. The biblical version is the one maintained by the slaves and average people, via oral tradition by those who couldn't afford to have scribes carve it into stone or impress it into cylinder seals.


[edit on 8-4-2007 by undo]

Isnt that a bit contradictory? If both versions were passed down through oral tradion they would at the least both be talking about Noah and God. Why are those stories so different to each other then?

Wouldnt all people in the world where there are Flood tradions talk about noah? Why isnt this so? All the flood stories around the world vary quit a bit as to who was involved but if we all descend from Noah then Noah would surely be mentioned everywhere?

They aren't both passed down through oral tradition. The mainstream version was chiseled into stone, embedded into cylinder seals. It didn't have to be an oral tradition because they had the ability to record all of it - et.al the time and resources and influence.

The biblical version was the oral tradition of the common people, who worked as the slaves and so forth, of the "gods" and their hybrids (Gilgamesh was a hybrid, for example. He claimed 2/3rds god in his genetic lineage).

err yeah
thats because his mother was considered divine being a head priestess and his father was a king who was later made divine
less you can figure how someone can be 2/3 anything with two parents
hows your math ?

and your claim that the biblical one is the oral tradition means that the Mesopotamian one was written down earlier at whioch point it ceased to diverge
so either way the mesopotamian one is more correct
and it doesn't feature Hebrews who you know didn't exist in 2300bce
the people that they came from were still living in Canaan herding sheep and worshipping a load of other gods none of whom sent a flood
so
secret oral tradition was it

*ignoring Marduk cause he doesn't actually read my posts*

Anyway, as you can see by reading the Epic of Gilgamesh or any books written on the topic, the guy claimed divine right to impregnate any females in his kingdom, and was especially fond of getting them right before their weddings to their own husbands. then he could be assured his prodigy would be raised in a two parent family and that he'd have a full platter of potential candidates for various royal tasks and positions. his offspring thus born, were hybrids as well, all beholden to the same "god" figure (who i theorize were not gods but "sons of Anu" (Anunnaki), also known as angels and/or elohiym, in biblical texts).

The oral tradition version of this was:
Genesis 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
giants

(the word "Giants" in that verse is highly contested. it means fallen, to fall, and a few other things, so the assumption was that these particular offspring of the sons of God were from fallen sons of God (fallen angels, for example). The next question is, by fallen do they mean they descended down to earth and did the deed (alien abduction type of scenario) or does it mean they were just incredibly evil, or both or none of the above. The text seems to hint that their hybrid offspring were abnormally strong, large and adept at fighting (mighty). But I've seen cases where the hybrid seemed to be strong in other ways than braun.

Originally posted by undo
*ignoring Marduk cause he doesn't actually read my posts*

i'm probably one of the only ones who bothers

Originally posted by undo
Anyway, as you can see by reading the Epic of Gilgamesh or any books written on the topic, the guy claimed divine right to impregnate any females in his kingdom, and was especially fond of getting them right before their weddings to their own husbands. then he could be assured his prodigy would be raised in a two parent family and that he'd have a full platter of potential candidates for various royal tasks and positions. his offspring thus born, were hybrids as well, all beholden to the same "god" figure (who i theorize were not gods but "sons of Anu" (Anunnaki), also known as angels and/or elohiym, in biblical texts).

so you are ignoring the well known and established facts that neither of Gilgamesh's known parents were actually gods
and you are ignoring basic math

Originally posted by undo
The oral tradition version of this was:
Genesis 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
giants

how odd
in the original version it doesnt even mention giants

4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

www.mechon-mamre.org...
so once again it seems that you are cherry picking your evidence.
it was actually Josephus iirc who first linked Nephilim to giants
but as giants in his tongue meant simply "men of earth" it also doesnt support a single erroneous claim of yours for alien abductions
I am having trouble here actually keeping a straight face on that claim of yours

Originally posted by undo
(the word "Giants" in that verse is highly contested. it means fallen, to fall, and a few other things, so the assumption was that these particular offspring of the sons of God were from fallen sons of God (fallen angels, for example). The next question is, by fallen do they mean they descended down to earth and did the deed (alien abduction type of scenario) or does it mean they were just incredibly evil, or both or none of the above. The text seems to hint that their hybrid offspring were abnormally strong, large and adept at fighting (mighty). But I've seen cases where the hybrid seemed to be strong in other ways than braun.

well here once again your agenda is clearly showing isn't it
the fall of satan is strictly a common era tradition and didn't occour until way after the septuagint was written
iirc it was a catholic invention
you seem blissfully unaware that accroding to Hebrew tradition Satan hasn't fallen at all
he is in fact ordained by god to test mankind
he isn't even regarded as Evil
and really how is the modern alien abduction scenario which started incidentally after Betty and Barnie hill invented it connected with strong children
know some modern human alien hybrids that are large and adept at fighting do you

now like I've asked you several times
this rubbish is off topic
its science fiction
if you are incapable of starting your own threads to discuss your personal beliefs then thats fine
but please stop derailing mine with this obvious garbage
thanks

( In the Epic of Gilgamesh www.ancienttexts.org... , Gilgamesh claims the heritage of 2/3rds godhood. It's not been added by biblical redactors. It's a babylonian text, anyway, and not biblical text.

"Gilgamesh was believed to be two-thirds god, one-third human"
news.bbc.co.uk...

I theorize that he is the same individual as the biblical Nimrod, the akkadian Enmerkar and the Egyptian Narmer (while alive) and Osiris (after death) (see "The Giza Discovery" by Peter Goodgame for more info on this: www.redmoonrising.com... . You can read Gilgamesh as Enmerkar exploits in "Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata" doormann.tripod.com...

As Nimrod, he became a mighty one, meaning he was modified somehow after having been born. This is probably hinted at in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where we meet Enkidu, as Gilgamesh's cloned, but "uncivilized" carbon copy.



[edit on 8-4-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
( In the Epic of Gilgamesh www.ancienttexts.org... , Gilgamesh claims the heritage of 2/3rds godhood. It's not been added by biblical redactors. It's a babylonian text, anyway, and not biblical text.

its an akkadian text
the bible is babylonian

Originally posted by undo
"Gilgamesh was believed to be two-thirds god, one-third human"
news.bbc.co.uk...

the epic of gilgamesh is a story not a factual recording of events
the character Gilgamesh is based on the real king Gilgamesh who did not have gods as parents

Originally posted by undo
I theorize that he is the same individual as the biblical Nimrod, the akkadian Enmerkar and the Egyptian Osiris. You can read more of his exploits in "Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata" doormann.tripod.com...

I have already proven that idea to be totally false
for Nimrod to have been gilgamesh you have to explain why some of the cities he is claimed to have an affinity with in the bible didn't exist in the time of Gilgamesh
you couldn't explain that when i bought it up before and now like a good pseudohistorian you have decided to ignore it
this means that this particluar theory of yours is complete crap

Originally posted by undo
As Nimrod, he became a mighty one, meaning he was modified somehow after having been born. This is probably hinted at in the Epic of Gilgamesh, where we meet Enkidu, as Gilgamesh's cloned, but "uncivilized" carbon copy.

you have not succesfully linked nimrod to gilgamesh
you have not even linked nimrod or enmerkar to gilgamesh
therefore any claims that anyone was modified are rubbish
the bible is the only text that Nimrod appears in
would you claim that as little boy blue only appears in one nursery rhyme he is also humpty dumpty and mother goose
this is exactly what you are doing albeit in a sci fi and not a nursery rhyme context
but your theory does have something in common with nursery rhymes in that only people with the understanding of children would believe a word of it

once again you have ignored some facts posted to you

now like I've asked you several times
this rubbish is off topic
its science fiction
if you are incapable of starting your own threads to discuss your personal beliefs then thats fine
but please stop derailing mine with this obvious garbage
thanks

are you going to pay attention this time or am i going to have to ask a mod to step in and ask you not to derail threads with your alien agenda
youre not in the right thread for sci fi Beth
you're not even in the right forum
there is a forum set aside for sci fi and alien discussions where these types of posts would be welcomed and where I would not even interfere
here it is www.abovetopsecret.com...
use it
but as long as you are pretending that this stuff is factual in a forum that is set aside for factual information I will continue having to show everyone how you don't know the first thing about a culture that you profess to have studied
ok