Escape from Eden.

[Quantum Quack]

When discussing the Christian Bible I am often amazed at the diversity of interpretations and beliefs based thereto.

If we look at the first book what do we take as literal and what do we take as symbolic or metaphorical?

It is said we are made in God's image both man and woman. That the world was created in 7 days. That Adam and Eve deicded to suicide and eat the fruit of the tree? ( were they not threatened with death)

May be some one reading this would like to indicate which parts of this crucial first book are to be taken literally and what isn't?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

"Beliefs based thereto"? Good grief! If you have a position, why not state it and defend it, instead of attempting this sophomoric fishing expedition?

 

[Quantum Quack]

"A sophomoric fishing expedition" Ha......maybe true at that...Actually I wanted to discuss the issue of interpretation and I thought I would concentrate on the very first aspects of this book. I do not presuppose anything about the response and am just genuinely interested in what people think about it all.
So often religious arguement relies on the interpretation of these primary events and I thought it would be beneficial to discuss it. And yes I do have views on the suibject but am not to keen on writing to myself.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

And yes I do have views on the suibject but am not to keen on writing to myself.

Nor, apparently, are you keen on sharing them with others. By the way, Genesis precedes the Christian Bible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

When discussing the Christian Bible I am often amazed at the diversity of interpretations and beliefs based thereto.

If we look at the first book what do we take as literal and what do we take as symbolic or metaphorical?

It is said we are made in God's image both man and woman. That the world was created in 7 days. That Adam and Eve deicded to suicide and eat the fruit of the tree? ( were they not threatened with death)

May be some one reading this would like to indicate which parts of this crucial first book are to be taken literally and what isn't?

All is to be taken literally unless otherwise indicated, i would have thought.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Greco]

That's the problem with the bible. It's illucive as an eel. Anyone can intepret the bible his way and they would all be correct. There's no obsolute intepreter of the bible and it becomes the intepretation of a group of people or a strong religious ruler's intepretation.

I have argued long ago if the bible was god inspired it would be a perfect book with no contradictions and clear as a bell with no room for intepretation.
It would be a magical book that would be written in a magical language that would be understood by anyone.

 

[spidergoat]

I have argued long ago if the bible was god inspired it would be a perfect book with no contradictions and clear as a bell with no room for intepretation.

And it would be short!

 

[SnakeLord]

Well the first 4 books are most certainly based upon Sumerian writings. (Enuma Elish/Epic of Gilgamesh) etc. As such if any of them had any accuracy, it would be the originals.

The sentence by god in the bible where he curses the serpent saying "..he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.", was first said by a different god - Marduk. He said that after he had killed Tiamat, (the mother of all gods), who was in the form of a giant serpent.

Eden itself comes from the Sumerian E-Din, which means 'house of purity'. Even in the bible, on the second page, it states the garden of eden was in Sumeria/mesopotamia - (by the Persian Gulf). Also, let us not forget Adamu, (the sumerian original).

The nephilim, (children of anak), are based upon the Sumerian Anunnaki.

Abraham was from Ur, Sumeria
The Noah story comes from the story of Utnapishtim.
Moses has striking resemblence to Sargon..

Of course unless asked, I wont write huge amounts of relevant text here. I'm sure if any religious person wanted to shown that a lot of the bible isn't quite what they thought it was, and has relevance to many other gods, they would have researched it for themselves. Unfortunately it seems many are just happy to pick up the first book they see and accept it as complete truth.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So snakelord are you suggesting that the bible is a rendition of early superstitious beliefs and is to be interpreted as such or do you go deeper than that?
Btw I found your comments most enlighteneing.

 

[SnakeLord]

Well Quantum Quack, regardless to how many ancient texts be found, we'll never really be in a position to dismiss the existence of a god/gods as fact. If we had the ability to scan all of space, many would say god exists out of space. If we could explore 'out of space', (wherever that might be), the thiests would come up with a new formula of belief. Of course, as you'll most likely know, many even refer to god as being part of everything, including us, and as such completely unobservable while being fully observable - if you get my meaning?

What we can do, is see how historical mythology/truth has adapted and progressed as man started to learn more about the world. We can also question modern day understandings and beliefs such as there being one god.

Imagine for a second you wish to learn everything you can about vampires. You go to the bookshop/video store and buy 'Interview with the vampire' by Anne Rice. After reading it you will have a certain image of vampire mythology, but without reading the originals - the origins of that belief, you'll never have an accurate perspective of these beings.

The same works in every similar instance, and I have very often stressed the importance of reading all ancient texts to other forum members here. Of course, most theists I have spoken to on the subject dismiss it instantly. I fail to see how anyone can pick up one book and call it absolute truth without reading everything else that came before it, (especially when the book they refer to has been taken from those older stories).

Of course, people put up an imaginary boundary and state god is pure fact, but dismiss many other things as pure myth. In the bible we don't only see god as a character, but Giants, dragons, strange wheel shaped machine beings, unicorns [in some translations] etc. Many who claim the bible is complete truth, will often label these particular entities as pure fiction- and even more bizarre than that - they will label other gods are mere mythology, while happily claiming their own to be fact. It is preposterous, dangerous to those we are responsible for teaching, and very misguided.

For now, any bible reader can agree that all life supposedly started in Sumeria. As such the overwhelming importance of reading Sumerian would seem apparent - would it not? Just to aid understanding of this, I will quote the passages:

Genesis 2:10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon etc etc... The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur, (or Assyria). And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

For you viewing pleasure here is a map:Map

The religious scholars of the world are in agreement that this was the birth place of humanity. It wouldn't be much of a surprise considering what we know of the Sumerians.

The main difference of course between texts is the god factor. The OT states there's only one god, whereas the Sumerians had many. The adapting of stories on this issue can be seen in Genesis, with:

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, our likeness"
Gen 11:7 "Come, let us go down and confuse their language.."
Gen 3:22 "And the lord god said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

The plurality remains, even though the idea is that only one god exists. All of these sentences have been said in one form or another by Sumerian Gods, (the texts of which predate biblical texts by 1000+ years). So, from what researchers can see, is that the different gods were assembled under one name, but kept the plurality in speech - because they were actually consulting with other gods. Here is the Sumerian Tower of Babel version:

"... Harmony-tongued Sumer... To Enlil in one tongue gave speech...” a few lines later "... Changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that had (until then) been one."

So now we have a reasonable debate to progress with: Upon research, it is quite easy to see the origins of the first parts of the bible. So.. how many gods are/were there? Just one, or hundreds? The typical christian response goes on about father, son and holy spirit, but lacks any real credit except as dismissive answer to a question that has been around for decades.

We could also argue about the stance that God is not detectable and has no form. When Genesis says "Let us make man in our image, our likeness," what is that actually referring to? Surely if we are made in god's image, he/they must look something like us, or think like we do, and so on.. Here is the Sumerian account of creation:

"... Let me put blood together and bones too, let me set up primeval man: Man shall be his name...", "... The work of the gods shall be imposed on him..." In Atra Hasis, "... Nintu mixed clay, with her flesh and blood, they heard the drumbeat forever after, a ghost (soul) came into existence from the god's flesh and she (Nintu) proclaimed it a living sign." Later on "... I myself created (it), my hands have made (it)..."

Marduk, (mankinds creator), used his own blood to make us. So, according to the Sumerians, we are literally made in the gods image.

We could talk about Sumerian artifacts depicting things that have later been 'translated' into the bible. These include statues of a ram caught in a thicket by it's horns, (currently in the museum of Philadelphia), which has relevance to Abraham in many ways:

A) Abraham sacrificed a ram caught in a thicket, instead of his son

B) Abraham was from Ur, Sumeria

C) The artifact was found in... you guessed it... Ur, Sumeria

Not only that, but artifacts showing images of a man and woman standing by a tree, (with serpent underneath). Does that ring any bells? All of this predates the bible by a good millennium or so.

In Sumerian texts though, there were not two trees but one with two fruits: the fruit of enlightenment, and the fruit of life. Does that ring any bells?

Even more can be added to that particular biblical account, in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh' best friend, Enkidu, dies and Gilgamesh becomes angry and scared. He never wants to die so he seeks out Utnapishtim who knows where the plant of eternal life resides. (Utnapishtim is quite clearly the origins of Noah -more on that later). Eventually he finds Utnapishtim who reluctantly tells him where this plant is. Gilgamesh finally gets the plant that gives eternal life but while swimming, a serpent sneaks on to his boat and eats it, thus inheriting eternal life instead of Gilgamesh.

The whole snake/eternal life story is widespread - which is quite understandable in a place on that side of the world. We don't have many snakes here in England, and as such don't really have any snake centered mythologies. However, the hotter climated countries of the world all have snake gods and snake stories.

I have debated with many religious folk, and asked for a show of evidence to support biblical claims. Many times people will state: "Well, archaeologists have shown these locations [such as Sodom] to exist, which surely shows the biblical accounts are true."

The way I see it, that's mere grasping for a thread, loosely dangling off the edge of a cliff. I've often retorted with my whole Anne Rice scenario. It shows vampires in Los Angeles, (or wherever). Because Los Angeles is a real place, does that mean vampires exist? Of course, people will try to point out some difference between the two situations - so it's time to go back a few Millennia:

Gilgamesh was a half-god, of sorts, who lived in a city called Erech.

Erech is also mentioned in Genesis 10, as being one kingdom of Nimrod. Of course, Gilgamesh takes precedence because he and that city were written about over 1000 years prior to the biblical accounts.

The city of Erech is well known to this day. and is marked by the vast ruins which the Arabs call "Warkah," or Al-Warkah. These lie in 31º 19' N. Lat. and 45º 40' E. Long., and are about four miles from the Euphrates, on the left or east bank of the river. Yes, in Sumeria/Mesopotamia.

Does this mean Gilgamesh was really there and was a real semi-god, who had a beast friend and killed a fire breathing ogre called Khumbaba? Of course not, and I usually sneer at any religious folk who tries to use excavated ruins as proof of god existence/god actions.

Of course, the Epic of Gilgamesh gives much greater detail about Erech, but that doesn't suggest reality to everything in the text.

I have written quite a lot, so will allow you to digest this before continuing with anything else. If you don't want me to, just say so.

What gets to me the most, is this: What we have here are some warranted concerns as to the validity and originality of the biblical texts. Many many questions need to be asked and researched by anyone who claims to be interested in truth. Instead all I see, are people who have settled on the first book they found/were taught about by their parents, and shout "This is complete truth."

I find it disgraceful that a human being in 2004 can act with such disregard for finding out the real truth, such self righteous ignorance. Sure, the truth might not be what we want to hear, but most seem to run and bury their heads in the sand to avoid having to be shown as wrong. Not even wrong perhaps, but to simply raise some questions over every little detail they have secured in their minds. They might aswell be rocks at the bottom of a quarry.

In London we have a place called 'speakers corner', which is a firm favourite of those wishing to sermon the whole planet to death. I stand there and laugh at the serious ineptitude and the garbage they waffle on about. I ask myself if these people have even heard of Sumeria, I ask how much they know about history. To these people it is simply 'irrelevant'.

I said to a religious man: So.. what happened to the dinosaurs? Did they ever exist? Did Noah put any on the boat? Did god place them to mislead humanity?

I was told this too, (along with a whole host of questions), was 'irrelevant'. "Jesus still died for our sins, and you will perish in hell fire unless you beg forgiveness.." yada yada yada.

The fact is, people can't even get past the first page of the bible without stumbling into a wall of questions the size of the galaxy. For some, who gives a fuck about the answers, but for many of us - these answers are paramount. I have never understood how someone can be happy with having no answers, except for the ones they give themselves. While I am sure it's a happier life to live in blissful ignorance of everything, it isn't what makes us human. These people might aswell rush off to their next life, because frankly they're not putting any worth into their lives on this planet. To quote an old religious principle:

"The pursuit of knowledge, unless sanctified by a holy mission, is a pagan act, and therefore vile." Saint Bernard of Clairvauz (1190-1153)

I apologise for diverting from the topic at hand, but sometimes these things need to be let out in the open. Keeping them in just makes a man constipated. Anyway, back to topic:

A) While no further in answering whether any godly beings exist/ed, we can go further into exactly what these beings are. Is it one god that exists outside our realm etc etc, or is it a multitude of gods who used their own blood to make us?

B) The blood itself leads to some more questions: Are these gods mortals? (according to the Sumerians: yes). [This can even be seen in the bible with "crying for Tammuz", which is about the Sumerian god Dumuzi. The people were crying because he died, and could not be revived.

Even Tiamat, (the mother of all gods), was killed.

C) We can look further into blatant origins- from the garden of eden, (In Sumerian the god's put mankind in the gardens of their 'houses of purity', to tend to it as gardeners. As I've explained 'house of purity' in Sumerian is E-Din), to Noah, Moses, Abraham etc. Through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deut etc.

D) Even ressurrections and 'miracles' such as walking on water, are present throughout Sumerian writings- and not unique to the bible.

E) Looking for other evidence to suggest older origins: such as Babylonian astrology beliefs which are ever present in the first parts of the bible.

Anyway, for now I will leave it here. If you're interested in continuing, let me know

Regards.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Whilst reading your interesting writings a thought or question came to mind.
You often state that Sumerian literature predates the bible by a millenia. The question is how do we know that the first entries of the bible have a date of origon? Could it be possible that the story of creation was a handed down unwritten story for thousands of years before some one put it into written form?
I am no historian and I would rely on your knowledge to accept of refute such a statement

I am suggesting that the first entries may very well originate thousands of years before the later entries.

It is interesting that Sumerian religious history is so similar to the bibles accounting.

Personally I find the bible to be an attempt by man to rationalise feelings about what they percieve as God or Godliness. These feeling still exist even today and so to does the desire to rationalise those feelings. I find discussion about the nature of God or Gods just as confused as they were thousands of years ago and wonder why all people seem caught up in the need to prove, rationalise, understand and obey this thing they "feel" called God.

We are trying to understand our feelings about feelings that exist despite our religious persuasion. A sense of God exists whether a person is atheist or other and it is those feelings that drive us "nuts" in trying to understand them.

 

[SnakeLord]

Could it be possible that the story of creation was a handed down unwritten story for thousands of years before some one put it into written form?

Questions, questions... Now hopefully everyone can see the importance of gathering evidence and facts, as opposed to simplistic belief.

To answer your question, we need to try and step back in time..

Mankind is created, (both Sumerian texts and the biblical accounts are in agreement as to where mankind is created). These 'Sumerian born humans' wrote their account 1000 years before the 'apparent' biblical author, Moses, started his version. It can only be said that the originals would be more accurate, if either of them are.

Humans are so subsceptible to 'chinese whispers', and that has shown itself to be the case as a constant rule of thumb throughout history. There is little to suggest that in 1000 years, a person will be able to give a better account of the events that happen today. If you were to pass down an experience from your life, to your children - who then did the same for the next millennium, you would end up with a story, so perverted from the original it would be almost unrecognisable, and would certainly change and adapt to fit the current cultural and environmental changes.

What you've asked is valid, but it can only really leave two following statements: A) They have both been corrupted by hand downs, or B) The original takes precedence.

The earlier written work would most certainly suffer from less 'corruption' to truth than any work that followed. While we could say the story had been handed down for thousands of years before being written, that would not only go against the belief of 'young earthers', but would do more damage to the biblical account than the Sumerian account.

Moses, (who is most likely actually Sargon), is accredited with writing the first parts of the bible. By researching the bible itself, we can gather a date for when Moses was apparently alive and writing. His experiences with the Egyptians, the family records from the bible etc.

Modern scholars believe that the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, was composed between 1000 to 400 BCE. They were obviously talking about events that had occured long before this time, but the Enuma Elish/Gilgamesh, and other Sumerian texts date up to 4000/3500 BCE and as such would naturally have more validity- being that much closer to the actual events.

I am suggesting that the first entries may very well originate thousands of years before the later entries.

I see where you're getting at.. Mankind was created in Sumeria, someone wrote the biblical account, and then the Sumerians copied/ammended the biblical account. Of course, this in itself leads us to question the validity of all related documents, and most certainly does not give us a definite final answer, (although many pretend it does). There are several factors that need to be taken into account - mainly, but not only the religious scholars understanding that the biblical accounts were written approx: 1000 BCE, which would make them far younger than the Sumerian texts.. The only way it could then be the original, was if it was a direct copy of an older original - if you get my meaning. We can discuss this further if there's need to. I kinda said the same thing three times, alas I haven't slept in a while, and I might not have explained it sufficiently. Let me know

It is interesting that Sumerian religious history is so similar to the bibles accounting.

Well we need to look at cultural behaviour, (if we can ever get an accurate view).

For now even the bible agrees that mankind were created in Sumeria/southern Mesopotamia. If you consult the map again, you'll see it's right by the Persian Gulf. The natural way humans/animals operate is to spread out to new areas over time. As a population increases, this becomes unavoidable - and man would inevitably move north, (unless they intended to live in the sea). This is consistent with historical understanding: From Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Canaan, Israel etc...

Along their way, they would undoubtedly take their experiences, stories and beliefs - Over time, separation of these people would lead to new cultures based on a huge variety of environmental issues ranging from landscapes, weather patterns to things like mineral deposits and animal populations. Stories would be ammended, changed, (they would evolve to suit the culture). While we would nowadays take such things for granted, back then even the simplest things could lead to change. The bible itself will show you just how important minerals, (gold, onyx, topaz) etc were, and even something as simple as this could change systems of government, belief and the very nature of a group of people. Hell, I live a short 7 hour drive from Wales, and yet the Welsh people differ from us Londoners enormously.

There was no media - only word of mouth, which would contribute to mass changes in stories. Let's say you make a 'scientific discovery', much like the Babylonian understanding of astrology. The details would filter down through the populous, and eventually spread to neighbouring regions. Chinese whispers would have been more of an epidemic to people with no access to countrywide/worldwide media.

Give it a millennium or two, and the stories - while sharing the same basic theme, would suffer from a complete script change. So for instance:

The story of Ziusudra/Utnapishtim - which involved a man on a barge, heading to market with some animals when the Euphrates blew its banks and caused him to float off into the persian gulf. Stranded in the middle of a 'sea', his perspective showed all land to be under water.

1000 years later:

All of mankind were nasty bastards, so a man gets on a boat, takes 2 of every animal on the planet onboard and god floods the entire world.

It is the natural evolution of a story.

and wonder why all people seem caught up in the need to prove, rationalise, understand and obey this thing they "feel" called God.

My daughter was a few months old. She picked up one of those 'baby blocks' and stared at it for a while. She tried to eat it, she threw it at the pet dog, she shook it about for a while. Once she'd done all that she then proceeded to turn it over, feeling its texture and trying - with some baby brain - to figure out what it was.

We, as parents instruct and teach our children. What has been a part of human life for thousands of years is 'belief'. Man knew nothing other than his belief in a powerful, world creating entity and taught that in schools. These children then grew up and taught their children the same thing. This went on and on through the ages - some people again diverting from the original versions - which in turn leads to all different kinds of religions with different core beliefs. Unfortunately we continue to teach our children in this manner - from general lies such as the existence of Father Christmas to school systems telling kids about heaven and hell. Both of these would have been alien concepts to the man of several thousand years ago - but they are introduced to us as cultures change and adapt, and become a part of society.

However, what would you rather do? Ask the questions or tell yourself the answer? We have the ability to question our surroundings, question our past, our present and our future. We have the ability to evolve not only mentally, but technologically. Isn't that life of exploration worth 100000 times more than having the answer drop out of the sky? Of course though - the answer doesn't drop out of the sky - it comes from a book with questionable historical accuracy. While that is enough for some people, it classes as nothing more than self delusion.

A sense of God exists whether a person is atheist or other and it is those feelings that drive us "nuts" in trying to understand them.

I disagree somewhat. Admittedly at night, when I gaze through my telescope into the skies above, I do wonder if there is other life, (not the god kind). The billions upon billions of stars, and other planets that are out there, make it somewhat pertinent to say there must be life out there. However, until such time where that becomes a reality, can we really just say "there is", and be done with it? Of course we are all in the same situation where we can't say "there isn't" either. If this world was full of agnostics, it would be the most logical position.

However, I also recognise that there is no evidence to suggest existence of god/s except if we put our 'faith' in the hands of ancient people we will never know. People who didn't know too much about this planet. Their value as credible witnesses is somewhat limited by that. Also the ever-questionable paradoxes that leave nothing but questions nobody can answer show we as humans are not in a position to be stating what is and what isn't fact regarding the existence of god/s.

An example: Everything must have had a creator, so god created the universe and everything in it.

Q: Who created god?

While many a religious man will attempt to dismiss this out of hand, they don't fully understand the importance of such a question. They say "He's always existed", which leaves the simple retort of "The universe has always existed." It is a question and answer that leaves us no closer to a truth, and while it might seem futile to even raise the question, it most certainly leaves none of us in a position to say we know the truth.

Anyway, I've probably bored you to death, so I'll go for now

Regards.

 

[SnakeLord]

Apologies in advance, but I have nothing else to do right now, and as such I shall continue boring everyone

In relation to Marduk using his blood to make mankind, there are some questions that need to be asked...

If man was created using god dna, that would imply that life devolves rather than evolves. Our dna is 98.4% identical to chimpanzees, and a good 70% identical to mice. Ok, we could assume Marduk took his blood and 'lowered' his dna for the sake of monkeys, mice and every other creature on the planet - but that is not consistent with the texts, nor does it sound very logical. What is more logical to state, especially with the openly available evidence we have, is that we have all come from one original source of dna, one basic lifeform- that has eventually adapted and changed due to environmental conditions. This lowers the validity of ancient texts a great deal, and thus sheds some doubt on the biblical texts aswell if they are handed down versions of the same story.

One good thing to come from the Sumerian account is this inclusion of blood. In the biblical account, we were made from the dust of the ground. Any college graduate will tell you dust does not make dna. god then 'breathed' life into man's nostrils. What we must ask is what was contained in that breath? Undoubtedly that means a part of what/who he is.. We must also ask just how 'personal' this breathing of his was. Was it a big blow of wind from the god realm outside of space time, or did he actually do some first aid to Adam and Eve? This might not seem relevant to anything, but my opinion differs. Everything is of importance. Truth is the only reason anything has value.

So let's quickly look at the possibility that the biblical god is as physical a being as the Sumerian gods, and indeed as physical as we are..

Gen 3:8 'Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the lord god as he was walking in the cool of the day, and they hid from the lord god among the trees of the garden. But the lord god called to the man, "where are you?"

Here we see this god having a walk through the garden, just as any human would do. He also shows signs of not 'knowing everything', by his question - which some would argue is pure rhetoric on god's behalf, but is hardly the statement of an all knowing, non physical entity.

We could also go on about Gen 32:22 onwards where Jacob wrestles with god, who touched him on the hip, before renaming him to Israel.

Gen 35:13 Then god went up from him at the place where he had talked with him.

Here we see god has 'come down' from 'up there' to speak with Jacob. After doing so, he went back.. 'up'.

Exodus 4:24 At a lodging place on the way, the lord met [moses] and was about to kill him....

This is an intriguing passage, Moses being saved by having his foreskin chopped off. Again however, it shows signs of physical nature.

We can then go on to describe the rest of Exodus and Leviticus.. with his appearing as a burning bush, the words of god saying only moses can approach him, (whereas an omnipresent god isn't approachable - because he's everywhere). We could even quote

Exodus 24:12 The Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commands I have written for their instruction."

This could most certainly imply that god has hands. This is emulated further on in Exodus 34: The Lord said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."

Exodus 34:4 So Moses chiselled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the Lord had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands. Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him.."

So, here we've gone from possible physical entity to possible raincloud with feet. Although made in his image, I don't resemble a cloud whatsoever.

Numbers 12:5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam..

god goes on to explain that when he talks to people he does so in visions and dreams but not with Moses. According to god:

"But this is not true of Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles. He sees the form of the Lord"

god then buggered off back in to the sky in his 'cloud' shape, but has clearly stated that he does indeed 'have form'.

While we can argue that all the instances of 'he' and 'him' are merely cultural ways of giving explanation to a god being, many people believe the bible is 100% accurate word of god - in which case we have now also established god as having a sex - which again would describe a visible physical entity.

He writes, he talks to certain people 'face to face', he wrestles with others and he is a man.

I wont quote any more for now, it's rather long.

Suffice it to say, the evidence to suggest physical attributes of this particular version of god is there for all to see. Furthermore, his 'emotions' and moods are continually apparent throughout the bible, such as:

Exodus 34:14 Do not worship any other god, for the lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous god.

He even suffers from guilty conscience:

Gen 18:17 Then the lord said:, "Shall i hide from abraham what i am about to do?"

In essence the biblical texts show the same fallible entity present within Sumerian and other ancient texts. A being that seems somewhat more like a Ferengi, than an all powerful, all knowing, all over the place god.

The good thing with the Sumerian texts, is the gods haven't been placed so highly as to cause paradox problems, and unanswerable conundrums. We could even say, neither has the OT, but the NT is like a sudden reversal with a whole new set of 'truths' and circumstances.

One such instance is how much god resents disease in the OT. He wont let anyone with diseases/illnesses or bruised testicles near him, yet in the NT, the 'new' god hugs and heals them. That is just one instance out of hundreds where a pure reversal of attitude can be witnessed.

Whereas the OT is quite clearly a descendant of older Sumerian texts about physical, mortal gods, the NT has turned it all into a mass 'fairy tale' of sorts- with miracles, daemon slaying and flying dragons. I am somewhat surprised it doesn't mention minotaurs.

Some might find it boring and irrelevant. I on the other hand find it intriguing. I want to know about history, about men living in an age without science, without understanding of the world. I want to ask questions and seek answers... Alas, many do not

Whenever I see a young-earther, I want to raise points about dinosaurs and meteor impact craters but It's always the same reply... "It's irrelevant. god created everything because the bible says so." It isn't an answer, it's a cop-out.

Anyway, I'm off again no doubt i'll start ranting again in an hour... just ignore me if you wish to do so

 

[Mithadon]

I have no time right now, but

1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

has, in no way, anything relevant in it, heh. In other words Jesus comes in a world where people already believe in multiple gods, and expects them all to instantly convert into believing in him?

 

[SnakeLord]

(Please note: This long post was left in response to comments made by TheVisitor. He has since edited his post, and as such it has appeared *below* this one. You might want to read the one first, in order to understand what this one is about).

Unfortunately, it is fanatics like yourself, who lower everything from "let's see what evidence there is", to "this is true because I say so". However, for the sake of boredom, I will indulge you..

There's where much of your problem lies with understanding the truth in the bible, S.L.

Oh.. what 'truth' is that exactly? There is no defined truth, only evidence to support a claim. What is your evidence that serves as rebuttal? Your constant talk of daemon possession? Because Branham said so? Because you have a "feeling" or "tingling" sensation?

The Sumerian texts are not the basis for the Old Testament, merly because they depict some similar events.

By using several dating processes on the Sumerian texts and biblical texts, we can see that the Sumerian texts predate the biblical texts by a good millennium or so. as such, your next quote of:

The events in the Sumarian are told from the perspective of the "enemies" of the God of the Bible

Is instant worm food. The Sumerians had no knowledge of the biblical god, because he hadn't even been invented then. It isn't a case of "similar events", and to even state such a thing shows you have done NO research into the evidence. It is waiting for you.. and is advisable to read before you think you're in a position to claim what is or isn't concerning the issue. You can't just dismiss everything as being work of the devil - well, you can, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

However, all that aside, I can't really give you an answer you want unless you go in to further details, such as:

A) How/why were the Sumerians "enemies of the biblical god". Please cite any and all evidence to suggest this 'truth' of yours.

B) How does it "make the god of the bible look bad, while making their gods look good"? The biblical god seems to manage to make himself look bad without the help of the Sumerians. god of the bible speaks of killing all of mankind, closing womens wombs, causing plagues, making a bunch of jews choke on quail, bombarding a city or two with sulphur, turning a man's wife into salt, killing a guy for dropping sperm on the floor, not allowing anyone with bruised testicles to worship him and so on. Although I'm sure you will try to justify all of these points, there is little need. The point is simply to show the Sumerians would have had no need to make god seem any worse than that.

Of course you also imply that the Sumerians would make their own gods seem 'good'. This is far from the truth if you'd bother to read any of the texts. The gods lied to Adamu, and as such he didn't inherit eternal life, they turned humanity into their servants, they waged wars among each other, and while there was a compassionate side, saying they wrote the texts to make the god's look good, is worthless and misguided.

Is that so hard to see?

Nothing is hard to see, if that's what you want to see. However, just because that's what you want to see doesn't make it true. As such, we rely on the evidence to support the opinions. Where is your evidence? Please supply any and all evidence to suggest the Sumerians 'set out' to make the biblical god look bad.

This is exactly what satanic groups do today, isn't it?... but then you probably already knew that.

What are you trying to imply? While you might very well see the devil's hoofprints on every street corner, I have little-to-no interest in modern day satanic belief. Of course, it's no surprise you'd bring satan into the equation. I remember telling you a long while back, that you need to calm down on the whole 'satan' issue. If you only see 'evil' whenever anyone challenges your set-in-stone beliefs, you'll never progress and never learn. Ok, It's apparent you have no interest in learning, or progressing - but you can't expect the same from the rest of humanity.

The Sons of God were the true desendants of Adam and Eve, it's that simple

The only way it could be "that simple", is if you were personally there to see it. We're all working from ancient words, written by people we'll never know, people we will never be able to question, speak to, or see. By the way, do you mean Adam or Adamu?

they inhiereted the same love and respect for God and His Word thier parents had, even though they had "fallen" from perfection.

What is this garbage in aid of? I don't need a sermon. If you have something to back it up, present it. If not... why bother in the first place? I have read the bible, several times thank you. How many times have you read Sumerian texts?

But while we're on the subject, let's raise a few points/questions:

A) your god created the universe, world and everything on it. At this same time he created man and as such mankind must have shared this planet with exceptionally large sized dinosaurs. While it mentions livestock and birds, it fails to mention T-Rex or Archaeopteryx. Is there any answer as to why these creatures were excluded from being mentioned? For now you can forget the evidence to suggest they're 65million years+ old. Let's just 'assume' they were made right alongside mankind. I have always wondered if Velociraptor was kosher.

B) The indisputable fact that there are massive meteor craters on this planet. According to creation, these massive meteors must have crash landed while mankind was walking the earth. Not only would many of these meteorites have completely obliterated mankind from existence, but they are also not mentioned in the bible - in fact, no meteor impacts are. For now you can forget the evidence that suggests they're millions of years old.

C) The account of Noah is physically impossible. With the 'boat' specifications, there is no way two of every animal could have fit on board. Forget that there's no compelling evidence to support the claim of a global flood for now. If Noah had have only taken mammals and birds, he still would have had to acquire 80,000+ animals - including polar bears, european skunk, south american porcupine, australian platypus and so on. You could argue that these animals didn't exist back then - but then you have to accept and agree with evolution- something a creationist does not agree with. The only way this would work in a creationists eyes is if every single animal that exists today, existed back then. Yes, we've all heard the argument: "one animal doesn't turn into another animal". I can only imagine the hard time Noah had trying to stop the Siberian tiger from eating the cow.

The Sumerian 'original', or 'earlier version' if you prefer that term - was strikingly similar, but remained within the realms of possibility, whereas the Noah story is quite clearly a joke of astounding proportions.

D) Let's talk about 'falling from perfection'. Adam and Eve do not know what 'good' and 'evil' are. As such, they have no way of distinguishing god from the serpent. They're both irrelevant technically. Until they ate from the... wait for it... "Tree of knowledge of good and evil". How the fuck would they know who they're supposed to listen to if they cannot distinguish between good and evil? Adam might aswell have just dropped his pants and farted in gods non-existant face and it would have left no impact of guilt on his shoulders.

god testifies to this after, when he says: "Mankind has now become like one of us, [?], knowing good and evil."

In god's own words, man wasn't like [them] UNTIL he had eaten the fruit - and thus inherited the knowledge of good and evil.

So, let's step back in time... Mr. I have no knowledge of good or evil, Adam.. would walk around the garden of eden without the slightest care or concern in the world. A serpent spoke to him, and Adam, having no knowledge of good or evil, decided to listen to the serpent - without any consequence because he could not determine the difference between good and evil. As such - eating an apple can't be considered as an 'evil' thing to do. The serpent hadn't even lied to Adam.. he had told the truth to him: ".. when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like god, knowing good and evil."

god proved what the serpent had said. Once more for prosperity:

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

As you can see, the serpent was telling the truth on both counts. In essence, the serpent simply helped god, by allowing man to realise god was the 'good' guy, and the serpent was the 'bad' guy. Without eating the apple, god would remain completely worthless in the eyes of man.

Thousands of years later, you can thank your love for god on the serpent. He gave you that ability. Without his intervention, you'd be nothing more than a walking turnip, with no respect for anyone or anything, and no understanding of good or bad.. In essence, Hitler wouldn't be considered 'evil'. Neither would Saddam or Osama - because we wouldn't know what 'evil' was. In essence, Mother Theresa wouldn't be considered 'good'. Neither would god or jesus - because we wouldn't know what 'good' was.

The desendants of Cain were liars, murders, and infidels just like their father Cain was.

Ok, by now you can blame Cain - after all, Adam had eaten the fruit and inherited knowledge of good and evil, so Cain has little excuse. What we should do, is look at the reasons he did what he did.

If you read the bible in full, several times.. you will notice a distinct point, (also mentioned in detail in Sumerian texts). That is:

god's love for meat, (especially when it's burning), and god's apparent hatred for fruit. While I can't see why a god of this calibre would give a shit about sacrifices or burning meat, we will explore the angle nonetheless..

Abel kept the flocks, Cain was more of a fruit man, tending the soil so trees could grow. Abel kills a few animals then presents them to the Lord.

"The Lord looked with favour on Abel and his offering."

Cain, who worked just as hard as his brother, presented fruit to the Lord. What a nice gesture.. Ok, he hadn't gutted any cows, but he still made the presentation to god.

"But on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour."

Shame.. god doesn't like bananas. god then proceeds to 'have a go' at Cain, who did nothing worse than offer fruit to the lord.

'Then the lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door.."

Whoops, offering fruit to the lord is a sin. I guess Cain chose the wrong profession. At least I know if god ever tries to strike me down with lightning, I can get even by throwing plums at him.

Imagine you have a brother, and it's christmas. Your brother gives your father a present and your father smiles.."what a nice present, thank you so much". You then step up and give him a present too.."Wtf? Get out of my house you sinning pig, I don't want this."

Although we might have the ability to control our emotions, and only beat our brother to a pulp instead of killing him, Cain's emotions obviously got the better of him. While I don't excuse murder for someone who knows what good and evil are, looking at the motivation is certainly a large factor in the issue. Technically speaking, god made Cain kill his brother because he's too stuck up to say thanks for a pomegranate.

and disrespect of God's required sacrifice

Maybe I'm reading a different book, but can you kindly point out where it says anything about "required sacrifice". Are you adding erroneous text that doesn't actually exist in this book of yours? Sure, I'm in agreement that he lied to god, and did kill his brother - but god, knowing everything, could have avoided the whole issue by not being so 'nancy' over a presentation from one of his 'children'. What difference does an apple or a lamb steak make to an all powerful, all loving god?

His children would be like him and were more than likley the people found in Sumeria who wrote those texts

You use the term 'more than likely'. This implies you have a supply of evidence in support of the claim. I'm eagerly waiting to see it.

Also why do you seem to have so much trouble with "God in human flesh", talking with Adam in the garden ect.

I don't have a problem with it, but it certainly questions those of faith who believe god is an entity that is not of form.

As for Melchizedek... jesus overtook him in 'office', aswell as the "many others" who had come before, because jesus had eternal life. He wasn't promoted to secondary-godling, but was, on oath of god, made into a priest. This in itself throws doubts about jesus being god.

"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: 'You are a priest forever'"

The problem this raises is with Melchizedek... for a guy with 'no beginning and no end', he was superceded by jesus on the basis that jesus had an 'indestructable life' - he superceded Melchizedek because he lived forever - but then didn't Melchizedek, seeings as he had 'no beginnings and no end'?

From what I have researched, the typical christian scholar belief is that the 'no beginnings no end' simply means the there was no written data regarding Melchizedek's heritage/ ancestry..

However, the debate over whether jesus was a god/a part of god, or not, is far from achieving an answer. The belief that jesus is one part of a godly threesome is without basis, without evidence and without worth. In essence, jesus is no different to David Koresh, William Branham and the whole multitude of would-be-gods that have risen upon this world. His only saving grace, of course, is these supposed miracles. The fact that nobody has the slightest incling of evidence to suggest the plausability of these events, makes a final conclusion impossible to achieve. What you're doing, is using an ancient bit of text to try and prove that ancient bit of text - while at the same time, denying every other ancient text - regarding that as 'devil inspired'. That is what I refer to as 'tragic ignorance'.

God is a Spirit, omnipotent ect... He can manifest in flesh to be seen and handled..........a feat the false religions of old had a hard time impersonating

Who had a hard time? The gods of the Sumerians were pretty much all flesh based, and as such, one can hardly say they had a 'tough time'. Furthermore, what evidence, what position of authority do you have to say other religions are "false"? Let me ask you to present just one credible piece of evidence to belittle other religions before your own. Do you have any? Are your 'assumptions' based on any evidence, or merely opinionated emotion?

A smart man will research them all. He wont sit there and claim other religions to be 'false', when he doesn't even know the first thing about them. That is the attitude of idiots, and you most certainly qualify. Everything you have said, has no evidential basis in reality. It is mere speculation and personal assumption. Frankly, I'd expect to get a more 'sound' argument from the teletubbies. I am quite simply astounded by your ineptitude, but if you feel you can make a worthwhile response based on something other than supposition and assumption, then please do.

An open mind will see these things

That is without doubt the funniest sentence I've read this decade.

 

[SnakeLord]

Arggg... I see you have edited your post while I was in the process of responding. I will comment on any added/ammended parts and then edit this post to incorporate them.

Arggggg.... Now you've removed it completely.. (Time for the punctuations): ?!?!?!?!

Arggg * 3

 

[TheVisitor]

(This was posted above - I was still editing it so now it's below...sorry)

Whereas the OT is quite clearly a descendant of older Sumerian texts about physical, mortal gods,.......

"Well the first 4 books are most certainly based upon Sumerian writings. (Enuma Elish/Epic of Gilgamesh) etc. As such if any of them had any accuracy, it would be the originals".

-----------------------

There's where much of your problem lies with understanding the Bible, S.L.
The Sumerian texts are not "clearly" the basis for the Old Testament, because they depict some similar events.
The events in the Sumarian are told from the perspective of the "enemies" of the God of the Bible. Everything is turned around to make the God of the "bible" look bad, and thier "Gods" seem to look good.......Is that so hard to see?
This is exactly what satanic groups do today, to turn it around....
The Sons of God were the true desendants of Adam and Eve, it's that simple, they inhiereted the same love and respect for God and His Word thier parents had, even though they had "fallen" from perfection.
The desendants of Cain were liars, murders, and infidels just like their father Cain was.
Read in Genesis the account of Cains boldfaced lying to God, murder of his own brother, and disrespect of God's required sacrifice. His children were the people found in Sumeria, who wrote those texts. Ur of the Chaldees and the surrounding area where Abraham was from at the time was the "land of the Cainanites".
That bloodline came over on the ark in the women Noah and his sons were married to ( remember, the sons of God saw the daughters of men....ect...and took themselves wives)- look at Ham's perverted deeds and his son Cainan, cursed from God......you can follow it down through Put, and Nimrod, into Egypt and so forth...all children of Cainan.....through these Cainanites came the re-birth of the giants after the flood, the Anakim, Nephilum, and others ect....
They were the "children of men" evil in nature, and just as thier men were liars and murders, thier women were used of the same evil spirits to "entice" and "seduce" with their beauty the "Sons of God" from Adam's righteous linage to intermarry with them.
Do you think because Sumerians wrote down their "version" of history first makes it authentic...?
Moses wasn't alive at the time of the events he wrote about in Genesis, He was told by God what to write of events thousands of years before, even the other side of the flood.
Sumerian accounts had been handed down generation to generation, and the stories from before the flood would have been hundreds, and even thousands of years old before even being written on the tablets that have been found.
Moses' account was given to him fresh from God.

Also.....why do you seem to have so much trouble with "God in human flesh", walking in the garden, talking with Adam ect..?
Melchesidec in Abraham's day was an example of God manifested in human flesh.....(No mother or father, beginning of days or ending of life ect...)
Jesus, according to the Bible was God, manifested in human flesh, making Him "the Son of God".....or the "second man Adam" to bring back or redeem that which Adam lost.
The bible says; "they which are led of the Spirit of God, shall be called the "Sons of God".....(not E.T.'s that "fell" or came down from heaven.)
God is a Spirit, omnipotent ect... He can manifest in flesh to be seen and handled..........a feat the false religions of old had a hard time impersonating, so they like to teach such things are imposible.
Did you realize this is a basis for discernment of the "two spirits" in the bible?

1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

An open mind will see these things, God is in the wind and the leaves...everywhere to seen.....is His manifestation in flesh so hard to comprehend.?
Through Jesus, mankind can be restored to that which he fell from - the "mystery of God" is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

This is the very thing the Bible promises us...to take us "Back to Eden"
and restore us as "the sons of God" as it was before the fall of man, with the Spirit of God in us.

 

[SnakeLord]

Do you think because Sumerians wrote down their "version" of history first makes it authentic...?

In the realm of this issue- of course it does. I'll show you why in a minute..

Moses wasn't alive at the time of the events he wrote about in Genesis, He was told by God what to write of events thousands of years before, even the other side of the flood.

The Sumerians would have been alive a lot closer to the events than Moses was. The main point here though, is that the Sumerians were told everything... By the gods.

Do you now see the predicament? Of course, you'll just 'insist' the biblical god is real whereas every other god is a fraud, but you would have no position to make such a statement. As such, I would suggest that we, as humans, do not just jump to an instant conclusion - but actually research, and seek out evidence. In short: Your assumptions are nothing more than groundless assumptions, and have no worth whatsoever here.

Sumerian accounts had been handed down generation to generation, and the stories from before the flood would have been hundreds, and even thousands of years old before even being written on the tablets that have been found.
Moses' account was given to him fresh from God.

Handed down generation to generation... From the Sumerians to the Babylonians, Akkadians, and so on until it reached the Jews. It is the way things work.. Stories are not told in the future before being told in the past. Things inevitably go forwards.

As for your baseless assumption, I can easily counter it by saying that the Sumerian accounts were given to them by the gods. You can use a book to prove the voracity of a book... so can everyone else. In both instances, there is no place to assume a final conclusion. It's about time you learned that.

 

[TheVisitor]

But while we're on the subject, let's raise a few points/questions:

A) your god created the universe, world and everything on it. At this same time he created man and as such mankind must have shared this planet with exceptionally large sized dinosaurs. While it mentions livestock and birds, it fails to mention T-Rex or Archaeopteryx. Is there any answer as to why these creatures were excluded from being mentioned? For now you can forget the evidence to suggest they're 65million years+ old. Let's just 'assume' they were made right alongside mankind. I have always wondered if Velociraptor was kosher.


--------------


It does mention them.....not in the names modern science has given them. Is this ok ?

Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron./

A Behemoth, eating grass like an ox, with a tail like a cedar tree...
-sounds like a brontosaur to me....Also Job 41 talks of a "Levitahan" in the sea

I thought you said you'd read the bible......?
You must have missed this.
I wonder how much else you've missed?
Maybe you should spend more time reading the Bible, and a little less time on Sumerian "legends of lore"

Also..................
A Press Release Dec.14, 2001

Joe Taylor of the Mt. Blanco Fossil museum in Crosbyton, Texas was recently contacted by a fellow paleontologist with astonishing news. They had found a section of T-rex skin!

"What does it look like?"'. he asked.

'Like a plucked chicken"'... with possible chameleon characteristics". "Oh man", Taylor laughed, "the dino-to-bird guys will go crazy".

Taylor was asked what he thought it was worth.

Taylor said that at least two major paleontologists are now studying the six-inch square piece of skin. At the time that he was called, no news release had been done on it.

"I was told more about it,, than I'm saying, but I'll wait to say anything more". It is for sale and anyone interested can contact Joe Taylor at his fossil museum in Crosbyton, Texas.

Joe mentioned that another fossil collector, Scott Taylor, called him late this summer to report that he had found two duckbilled dinosaurs and that both of them still had parts of their skin as well.

"What does it all mean?" he was asked,

"What it means", Taylor says smiling, "is that this skin and these other finds make it harder and harder for people to believe these animals have laid in the ground for millions of years. We just had a story published in a scientific journal about a piece of T-rex bone we recently had electron scanned. The professor doing the work was amazed when he found Collagen filaments in it. It can't be millions of years old", the professor said.


///////////////////////////////



The problem this raises is with Melchizedek... for a guy with 'no beginning and no end', he was superceded by jesus on the basis that jesus had an 'indestructable life' - he superceded Melchizedek because he lived forever - but then didn't Melchizedek, seeings as he had 'no beginnings and no end'?

From what I have researched, the typical christian scholar belief is that the 'no beginnings no end' simply means the there was no written data regarding Melchizedek's heritage/ ancestry

--------------

The kind of typical christian scholar that says Melchesidec was only a priesthood, are for the most part over-educated "three- god" neo-pagans that can take something simple like this, or the subject of the trinity, and turn it into a complete unexplainable mess.
You can't understand God through education, the spirit in man is at eminty with the spirit of God, God is a supernatural being and His truths are supernaturally revealed to you as an indivdual.
I'm not your typical christian scholar.
Lets just take it for what it simply says.....Melchesidec had no beginning of days or ending of life, no mother or father....period.
He promised Abraham would have Isaac, and also displayed the sign of the messiah - the discernment of Sarah's thoughts, like Jesus did with the woman at the well.
Look up the word "theophany"......God just created flesh stepped into it like a robe, ate meat and drank milk with Abraham.
This is the same God that created the flesh of Jesus in the womb of Mary, and dwelled in it...........thats how Jesus's said; "Before abraham was I Am"
It was the same God, not a different person.

 

[SnakeLord]

Job 40:15 "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron

Yes, I know of it.. This wonderful dinosaur that sleeps under lotus plants, concealed by their shadow. He is an awesome creature, one of gods finest, "yet his maker can approach him with his sword". I'm at least glad to see that god's not so scared of this 'behemoth'. Of course, he could just be speaking about elephants, woolly mammoth, or even something as fascinating as Cerberus. While there, we should also speak of the Leviathan in the sea who breathes fire from his mouth, smoke pours from his nostrils. god goes so far as to say "nothing on earth is his equal". Two things:

A) Can you not see the scientific value in such a thing? Does you hair not stand on end, wanting so much to find this fire breathing leviathan? Are you not intrigued to find out how this creature was able to breathe fire, (especially considering he was a sea dweller)? This is what drives a large portion of mankind, and I can only imagine the serious boredom that comes with knowing everything.

B) What we have here, is a minor mention of creatures bigger than the average mountain goat. While it could very well be a sign of dinosaur existence, it could merely be a sign of rhinocerous. A rhino is most certainly more likely to sleep under lotus plants than a T-rex. Furthermore, the leviathan-could be nothing more than a hippo, or for that matter, nothing more than a fantasy. However, for now I will sit back and concede that dinosaurs were alive and well, living in the time of Job. Noah lured the dinosaur/s onto the ark with a lotus plant, and all is well in the world.

Let's not forget however, that this is the same being who told Job that the dawn came up from the 'edges' of the earth, (which is a bit of a silly statement for god to make). You could argue here that god was simply talking in simplistic terms, but that doesn't follow with the whole chapter.. Here he is, giving Job an explanation of how the world works, and yet cannot explain to Job that the earth is actually... round? He then goes on to explain how the lightning reports to him with "here we are". While I can't really disprove that lightning talks, science certainly does it's part to show otherwise.

Alas, it is now well about time I had a sleep. Any responses to this will be dealt with in a few hours.

Regards.

[Edit]

I thought you said you'd read the bible......?
You must have missed this.
I wonder how much else you've missed?
Maybe you should spend more time reading the Bible, and a little less time on Sumerian "legends of lore"

That's a slightly hypocritical statement to make. Tell me Visitor, how much Sumerian have you read? Sorry, do you mind speaking a bit louder, I didn't quite hear you..

A Press Release Dec.14, 2001

Any chance you can state exactly where this was 'released'? I'm sure if you can remember exact dates, you can remember the publication. I'd also be interested to know what "science journal". Thanks in advance. (see, unlike you, I don't just dismiss things completely without researching the material first).

P.S Just incase I missed it, due to spending too much time nose deep in 'legends of lore', is there mention of global annihilation via meteorites anywhere?