Apart from the library of Ashurbanipal?????????????????????????????
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Faith vs Reason
- Thread starter UncleChrist
- Start date
Apart from the library of Ashurbanipal?????????????????????????????
But Babyloian legends were found in tablets, in the library of Ashurbanipal as these pre-dated the time that the Jews were held there in captivity, and as the legends bared so many similarites to stories in genesis it can only be this that genesis is based on maybe moses copied them down, or maybe he read so many that he passed them on by word of mouth (chinese whispers) or wrote his own version but as to divination, for exegesis of genesis you start by taking it out of the bible and looking at it on its own, The very last thing done is to look at the text.
I'm aware of the ancient texts, but not that they were found in the library of Ashurbanipal. That is interesting...
The Babylonian legend could be the same legend of Adam and Eve found in the the Dead Sea Scrolls, the same myth found in Genesis. That would explain how the Jews wrote the Old Testament before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
This neither validates or invalidates the myth.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Isn't it a matter of deciding what we want to start with as our assumptions, trusting them and working from there?
Anyone who thinks they have no faith, or axioms, is deluding themselves.
Anyone who thinks they have no faith, or axioms, is deluding themselves.
I'm aware of the ancient texts, but not that they were found in the library of Ashurbanipal. That is interesting...
The Babylonian legend could be the same legend of Adam and Eve found in the the Dead Sea Scrolls, the same myth found in Genesis. That would explain how the Jews wrote the Old Testament before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
This neither validates or invalidates the myth.
Hurmuzd Rassam in 1854 discovered the remenamts of a library,this was the labrary of Ashurbanipal the last great Assyrian king(650 BC).
iN 1873 George Smith discovered tablets with an account of a tale so similar to that of Noah that it must have been the same story, considering these tablets are dated to that of 100 years before the jews were held captive in Babylon. surley this is validation of no divination,but rather just a mis-match collection of folklore,legends etc
Isn't it a matter of deciding what we want to start with as our assumptions, trusting them and working from there?
Anyone who thinks they have no faith, or axioms, is deluding themselves.
I have faith in many things, but not in God because he has given no reason for me to have faith in God.
Sure, if the Bible is truth, there is a reason, but the Bible has not been proven true.
Hurmuzd Rassam in 1854 discovered the remenamts of a library,this was the labrary of Ashurbanipal the last great Assyrian king(650 BC).
iN 1873 George Smith discovered tablets with an account of a tale so similar to that of Noah that it must have been the same story, considering these tablets are dated to that of 100 years before the jews were held captive in Babylon. surley this is validation of no divination,but rather just a mis-match collection of folklore,legends etc
The account of Gilgamesh (Noah) is nearly identical to the account in the Bible. But that does not invalidate the event, or validate it. It is a myth.
I mean if the myth of Noah were true, then we are all the father of Noah and two brothers passed down the same story over generations, resulting in two nearly identical accounts of the same event. So, if the myth of Noah cannot be validated or invalidated, then it's not worth talking about who's copy is the real story. All of this talk is circumstantial, we don't know if the Jews liked the story of Gilgamesh and decided to assimilate it into their faith or not. It is fishy, and coincidental, but is circumstantial.
I know it is easy to let reason win, but I refuse to give up the fight at this time, likely because I was brainwashed, but I must see it through to the final verdict.
Actually there is nothing to say that Genesis isn't exactly what it says it is. "An account of the creation of the heavens and Earth.
There is no information that gives us positive direction of the flow of information between the two cultures. All we really know is that there is some sharing going on. Who passed it and when it got passed and who got served that sharing is a complete unknown.
There are lots of reasons to believe that Genesis is nothing more than mythology, whatever its origins. Evolutionary theory has shown that.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
You probably have faith in many things that have not been proven true also. That was the point.I have faith in many things, but not in God because he has given no reason for me to have faith in God.
Sure, if the Bible is truth, there is a reason, but the Bible has not been proven true.
I was not making a case for the belief in God and certainly not in the Biblical one.
There is no way to be sure of what happend between Babylon and the Hebrews nor the direction of the tranfer of information or in what time period. NO information suggest a true origin. Under similar processes of speculation one may conclude that the account is the same in relation to a single origin and thus the branching of humanity and the proliferation continued by word of mouth untill commited to writting by both.
That is likely what actuallly occured, and thus the accounts diverge from that premise.
That is likely what actuallly occured, and thus the accounts diverge from that premise.
You probably have faith in many things that have not been proven true also. That was the point.
I was not making a case for the belief in God and certainly not in the Biblical one.
No, I don't have faith in things that have not been proven true. I knew where you were trying to go, but I don't agree. My ex-pastor fed me the same line, and I believed it before.
That was my point, is that the things I have faith in, like that my seat belt will attempt to save my life in a collision, or that a can of green beans does not contain hazardous material.
Can you name one thing that I might have misplaced faith that is not backed by hard evidence, enough that faith is warranted?
There is no way to be sure of what happend between Babylon and the Hebrews nor the direction of the tranfer of information or in what time period. NO information suggest a true origin. Under similar processes of speculation one may conclude that the account is the same in relation to a single origin and thus the branching of humanity and the proliferation continued by word of mouth untill commited to writting by both.
That is likely what actuallly occured, and thus the accounts diverge from that premise.
So do you intend that as an argument for their truth ? Seems to me like it's anybody's guess/
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
No, I don't have faith in things that have not been proven true. I knew where you were trying to go, but I don't agree. My ex-pastor fed me the same line, and I believed it before.
That was my point, is that the things I have faith in, like that my seat belt will attempt to save my life in a collision, or that a can of green beans does not contain hazardous material.
Can you name one thing that I might have misplaced faith that is not backed by hard evidence, enough that faith is warranted?
Probably food products was a good can of worms to open up. You may, unlike most people, be well informed about the problems with additives, food dyes, transfatty acids and so on. But if you are not that would be one area. I don't know you. I'd have to follow you around a while and see where you are blissfully buy this or that official line on something.
Perhaps you bought the whole we are going into Iraq because of 9/11 and WOMD line.
Who know what you have fallen for?
I could try to go into your epistemology directly and see what assumptions you make, a kind of probing around methodology and philosophy of science,but I am way too lazy, right now.
I could try to go into your epistemology directly and see what assumptions you make, a kind of probing around methodology and philosophy of science,but I am way too lazy, right now.
I suppose you do have a point that there are plenty of idiots out there who already have faith in things unproven. It almost seems like half the population.
There are those who have blind faith in things and I was no different given a decade earlier, but you said,
"Anyone who thinks they have no faith, or axioms, is deluding themselves." which implies everyone.
Now that I think about things some more, and I try to think of something I have faith in, I believe having faith in anything is having ignorance. You can have trust, hope, and belief without faith. Is there any faith other than "blind faith"? There is only one definition of the word, out of six, that says it is synonymous with trust. The other five, from Dictionary.com say that it is blind.
*************No, I don't have faith in things that have not been proven true. I knew where you were trying to go, but I don't agree. My ex-pastor fed me the same line, and I believed it before.
That was my point, is that the things I have faith in, like that my seat belt will attempt to save my life in a collision, or that a can of green beans does not contain hazardous material.
Can you name one thing that I might have misplaced faith that is not backed by hard evidence, enough that faith is warranted?
M*W: Jayleew, you are a very wise example of what it means for the truth to prevail. I hope others will take serious heed to your wisdom.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote (FAQ) of the Day:
"It can do no service to blink the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral treaching has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith." ~ John Stuart Mill
*************
M*W's Anti-Bitterness Comment of the Day:
"The important thing is not to stop questioning." ~ Albert Einstein 1879-1955 German-born American Physicist
The account of Gilgamesh (Noah) is nearly identical to the account in the Bible. But that does not invalidate the event, or validate it. It is a myth.
I mean if the myth of Noah were true, then we are all the father of Noah and two brothers passed down the same story over generations, resulting in two nearly identical accounts of the same event. So, if the myth of Noah cannot be validated or invalidated, then it's not worth talking about who's copy is the real story. All of this talk is circumstantial, we don't know if the Jews liked the story of Gilgamesh and decided to assimilate it into their faith or not. It is fishy, and coincidental, but is circumstantial.
I know it is easy to let reason win, but I refuse to give up the fight at this time, likely because I was brainwashed, but I must see it through to the final verdict.
surely in invalidates the possibility of a divine intervention.
but validates a event I.E. a tsunamii of proportions we have witnessed in our lifetime.
so this event is recorded in different areas, someone comes across several accounts, i.e the jews would have come across the tale in babylon when they left babylon it is possible that they found various similar tales enroute and come to the conclusion that the world had flooded (just as in the world is flat because i don't see it bend) add the combined tales togather and it becomes logical with no mystery. I think the world is still suffering from lack of faith in mankind the mental scars left by the inquisition and the crusades on this planet is epic in itself, the fact that people will put all their belief and hope in something you cannot see, hear, touch over their brother is beyond me.
when the bombs land I will be inside the shelter waiting for lunch, while all you believers are outside waiting for god:yay::yay::thumbsup: