Originally posted by abstract_alao
check out thius website and scroll to where it talks about socities and then tell me what u think
Well, it's badly written for one thing... presents a topic as a "fiat accompli" and then runs to another idea without any support of the first.
His comments about Biblical translations are reasonably fair, but he's not aware that the original Bible documents are written in more than one
The Garden of Eden was located in Sumeria not in the King James translation or any other. Early biblical writings were borrowed from ancient
Sumerian clay tablets. If someone is ignorant of these ancient writings they will misinterpret the Book of Genesis entirely.
... is rather incoherent and not correct. Some of the tales are reworked Sumerian tales, but all the begats and begots and many of the other tales
are purely Jewish, as are the religious laws in those early books.
So it made me wonder if the writer actually read the Bible.
In addition to having a "if it's in the Bible, we can make it true" bias, he also gets a "D" in research and scholarship. Sumeria isn't the
oldest civilization, and in his "pick and choose" verses, the Exodus verses don't mention Satan as the "destroyer" (here the writer failed to
follow his own advice and check the concordances). He should probably read Revelation again and read some of the commentaries on it and a bit more
about the society and culture of the person who wrote it (here, again... he does not DO what he tells you to do.)
So he's got a very black-and-white viewpoint, feels that all men are born evil, he has no concept that something other than Christianity may hold
truth, is a Young Earth Creationist (believing that the Earth was created in the past 6,000 years (easily disproven), and then goes into wild and
unsupported speculation (humans as prostitutes for the gods. This is rather absurd, since the only god that ever had sex with humans in the Sumerian
pantheon is Ishtar (Gilgamesh mocks her for this) ... and the men she took as lovers were hardly prostitutes.)
Sso, bad research, incoherent writing... not much there.
Can I recommend Wikipedia on human history in lieu of the rambling pseudophilosophy of that site? Wikipedia's far more accurate and does not suffer
from the bias that one religion's origin story represents the full truth or the full evidence:
I'd also like to recommend that you study philosophy. These "impressive articles" are impressive only if you haven't read much philosophy. If
you've read some (even good Christian ones) you'll find out just how fluffy and lightweight those ideas are.
A good site to start with is:
For Christians (well, and everyone else, too) one of the best is C.S. Lewis (same guy who wrote the Narnia series)
...and a return to Wikipedia:
So... let me recommend those to you instead.