Bible is a recent hack job mystery solved

Enki is the equivalent of the biblical Satan and "serpent" in the Garden. Even the sumerian texts (which were really akkadian and babylonian), call him the Tricky god, the crafty god. He was subtle, like the "serpent", wise but not to the benefit of humanity. When it was said he benefited humanity, the texts themselves are seen to be under his influence, either directly or indirectly through his hybrid offspring. When it is said he is tricky or crafty, the texts themselves are seen to not be under his influence.

The old testament biblical texts don't give homage to Enki and are therefore, not under his influence, that is, they don't portray him in a positive light and don't acknowledge that he did any of the things the Enki-influenced texts claim he did. Instead, it is said Jehovah /Yahweh did the deeds instead. Of course, it could be argued either way, but I'm not going there cause it would just be a useless circle of argument.

Is it possible that Sanskrit could have been known to Hebrews and is there any connection between these cultures at all which would account for the similiarites in the stories?
If you could help me out here, it would be great

Hi

Not just possible, but true! If you look up Sumeria and the hebrews as a search on your favourite engine, you will find that they are decended from there.

Could we take out a class action against the religions in question for plagiarism.

Nice work marduk.

There must've been some influence between the cultures of india and sumer, as Mt. Meru (also called Mt. Sumeru) was in fact a memory of Enki's E.ABZU and Enlil's E.KUR (i think, anyway).



[edit on 31-3-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by mcktj

Is it possible that Sanskrit could have been known to Hebrews and is there any connection between these cultures at all which would account for the similiarites in the stories?
If you could help me out here, it would be great

Hi

Not just possible, but true! If you look up Sumeria and the hebrews as a search on your favourite engine, you will find that they are decended from there.

sorry thats complete rubbish
not only do all three groups speak completely unrelated languages

Hebrew (עִבְרִית‎, ‘Ivrit) is a Semitic language of the Afro-Asiatic language family

en.wikipedia.org...

Sumerian is a language isolate,

en.wikipedia.org...

Dating back to as early as 1700 BC, Vedic Sanskrit is the earliest attested Indo-Aryan language, and one of the earliest attested members of the Indo-European language family.

en.wikipedia.org...


not only that but they don't have the same MTDNA either
in other words they arent inter-related through blood or by culture


Undo please try to refrain from turning this thread into one coloured by personal belief
thanks
thats the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve here


[edit on 31-3-2007 by Marduk]

Ok, just because the Bible is not the direct word of God doesn't mean the lessons it imparts are necessarily any less relevant. However a brilliant example of its ambiguities comes from an internet "Letter to Doctor Laura" that made the rounds a while back. I include it here, and a link to Snopes.

I hope ya'll enjoy it as much as I do.

www.snopes.com...

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
added 'ex' tags

Please read Posting work written by others

[edit on 31/3/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by Marduk...at this time Sumer (Not Sumaria) had not even formed as the land it is formed from was deposited later by silt run off from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers as they wound their wy down from the Caucasus to the persian Gulf

there was no coming together in Sumer of peoples
it was inhabited by the semitic Ubaidians until the Sumerians showed up around 5000BCE and started a civilisation there

Right. I didn't mean to imply Sumaria (or more accurately Sumer) existed at the same time as the younger Dryas. But the floods look to be around 8000 years ago which was the end of the younger Dryas. I think it could have taken at least a thousand years to end, so the global flood and the end of the younger Dryas has about a 1000 year rounding error. And you know that the people who would remember it the most would be the farmers in low lying fertile areas close to the Mediterranian where it was warmer and the sea faring people who also could carry the story far and wide.

And in every high civilization the story would be retold, each recording their version when the ability was there to do so. So we can expect to find strong similarities throughout the ancient world, and where one civilization did not conquer another or faded away from natural causes like the Akkadians or Mayans it is dubious those versions would be remembered.

Undo please try to refrain from turning this thread into one coloured by personal belief
thanks
thats the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve here

Ditto. You clearly have your own approach to the ancient texts, one that not everyone shares.

I think the only people who take this argument by Marduk seriously are dyed-in-the-wool atheists who just want some moral justification for refusing to follow any authority other than their own whim.

Look, ask a million different scholars when a certain book of the Bible was written, you'll get a million different answers.

Furthermore, dates of writing prove nothing about antecedent oral tradition.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I think the only people who take this argument by Marduk seriously are dyed-in-the-wool atheists who just want some moral justification for refusing to follow any authority other than their own whim.

Why are there as many people who believe in God cluttering our prisons as there are atheists.
Seems to me that people of all sorts of faiths follow their own morality system when it suits them, not just atheists.
Nice generalisation though.

In the end, or beginning is more appropriate for the topic, we have a bunch of silly stories made up about "man-'Gods'" who rule/d the Earth and imaginary fantasy lands with pearly gate entrances and Golden treasures. (not to mention extranious others)

Religion is no more and no less a belief in hell, satan, demons etc. than it is a belief in god, angels, and heaven.

In short: Any religion that believes in an evil entity is worshipping that evil entity the same as it is its "god".

Imagine a world without these silly figures, a world of free thinkers and abundant with creativity... an awareness of Perfection and lacking condemnation.

The Being is that which it fears.

Thank you for the great thread

[edit on 31-3-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

OK, in response to the guy who was directly responding to me-the fact that there are insincere theists in prisons does not justify the sincere rebellion of atheists.

In response to oneeternalvoice, first, respecting one's enemy (Satan) does not mean that one worships or otherwise adheres to it. Also, a society based off of an atheist conception of freethought would not be a utopia, as every society that has attempted to base itself off this kind of freethought has wound up as a socialist dictatorship.

Marduk states:

Undo please try to refrain from turning this thread into one coloured by personal belief
thanks
thats the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve here ..............

Marduk, I think it is very obvious to all what you are trying to do here. I will not attempt to call that into question. However, I will take exception to how you try to accomplish this. A short review:

1. You find a web site name Kevin W. Davison's home page that states he has consulted many manuscripts and sources to determine the dates various Bible books are published. You decide to cut and paste this en total with zero research as to who Kevin is or what his credentials are. There is no itemization or biblipgraphy on Kevin's site to remotely substantiate anything there.

2. You make excessive and almost exclusive use of Wikipedia as a source of absolute knowledge and validation for your points.

3. You state but do not itemize which religons attest that the Bible was written by one person (or provide) at one time. I am familiar with several Christian religons and know of none that make this claim.

3. You obviously have a serious "chip on you shoulder" attempting to mock any that "disagree" with your statements. Somewhat validation by intimidation.


Sorry Marduk but your approach to scholarship would receive a failing grade in any high school in the country. You would be asked to receive an incomplete in any college in the county when Wikipedia and a cut and paste from an unsubstantiated web site is your base material. Items posted in Wikipedia can be mere conjecture or lies. There is no review body or vetting proces other than edits by other readers. Wikipedia, by definition, is "an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone". This is a direct quote substantiating the fact that NO educational system or peer review committe would ever think to honor it as a reference source.

Nice try but I might suggest you re-take the term paper construction, validation, substantiation, etiquette and review course prior to attacking anyone's belief system. I find it curious that your expose titled in part "bible....hack job..." would display so many attributes usually reserved to discribe, well, "hack jobs".


I would welcome any serious research you have to offer but please refrain from the sloppy cut and paste, he said, she said approach to research followed by mockery and attempts at intimidation.

I agree with phoneguy; The next time I need to induce vomiting I'll take a look at Marduk's post.

You have voted Marduk for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Enjoyed it, thanks Marduk!

Keep up the research. Whether dates are spot on or not, it's obvious that religions plagiarize

Originally posted by uberarcanist
OK, in response to the guy who was directly responding to me-the fact that there are insincere theists in prisons does not justify the sincere rebellion of atheists.

What are atheists supposedly rebelling against. The belief of a fictional account written by man and hybridised from different cultures.
Guess i'm a rebel then, not sure of the cause though.

Plagiarize, or are all correct on certain points?

Atheists are rebelling against moral principles that the vast majority of mankind has agreed to accept. Yeah, I've heard the tired old atheist line of "we're not atheists because we don't like the rules, we're atheists because the truth is that there is no God." What a load of hooey. The only good reason to be an atheist is that one doesn't want to follow a religion's rules.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Atheists are rebelling against moral principles that the vast majority of mankind has agreed to accept. Yeah, I've heard the tired old atheist line of "we're not atheists because we don't like the rules, we're atheists because the truth is that there is no God." What a load of hooey. The only good reason to be an atheist is that one doesn't want to follow a religion's rules.

Well, would you follow the rules of something that is fake? Now that God is false why is religion still held on to? How can you trust the judgment of right and wrong from books that are plagiarized, cross cultured, and now becoming destructive to the inhabitants of the Earth. (and in truth, all ways were destructive)

I for one, don't follow any rules. The rule of Nothing is suffice for me. Let consequence be of the self and of the species and in taking on such a responsibility religion must be cast out for its evil deeds hidden under veils of the wrath of God and Satan. The people of Earth have done it all to themselves/ourselves, and we continue to.

Religions are littered with lettered contradictions.

Man's judgement through the words of "God"? What a bunch of hooey. A darn good way to get every one to follow you though. Don't diss obey because these are the rules of God! Now let us take over your world and turn you in to good little worker bees for the hive of selfish-self destruction.

Who would worship a man who came to bring the sword, to divide, and not to bring peace anyway? It takes a whole lot of ignorance.

Yet on the other hand he will save you of your sins and give you a peace full, loving life as long as you goto church and sing praises to him every sunday (or more). Ick.

Religious diss course is not some thing I enjoy to much, so I'll be leaving, but thank you for the conversation Have a beautiful weekend

[edit on 31-3-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Atheists are rebelling against moral principles that the vast majority of mankind has agreed to accept. Yeah, I've heard the tired old atheist line of "we're not atheists because we don't like the rules, we're atheists because the truth is that there is no God." What a load of hooey. The only good reason to be an atheist is that one doesn't want to follow a religion's rules.

I would like to point you to a quote from a remarkable man in recent times:

There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Basically from my point of view you do not have to believe in a God to have morals - also if you do believe in a God it doesn't mean you will automatically have morals. It is a human choice, no more. Sometimes scaremongering someone into doing something moral (in some cases religions) works, for others they freely choose to behave morally. Believing in a God is totally separate.

A religious law, like human law isn't always based on morals so why shouldn't people question a 'religion's rules'? I agree though it does give a lot more freedom for people to act without morals without so much of a guilty conscience.

And by the way, well researched, Marduk. I can see you spent a lot of time studying this.

Take care and peace,
- Naz