sacrifice
- Thread starter machaon
- Start date
The historicity of the crucifixion isn't enough, but it isn't the only evidence. This just shows how you are willing to separate evidence from account, and therefore can question anything. You're closing your eyes and saying "I don't see anything!"Katazia said:
I'm interested to see what kind of evidence you would consider "sufficient" or reliable, and how you would know it.
what do you use to hold it together?...there's no adhesive.
I think perhaps more to the point Jenyar, is what kind of "evidence" would you consider sufficient and reliable?
It seems to me that you are willing to accept something as truth because some old writing says it happened. At this point I could quite easily start ranting on about the Iliad, or any other old book, but I will try to avoid doing so because I'd first like to hear you answer the question.
P.S Yeah yeah, I know the question wasn't aimed at me, but I just thought i'd ask.
I didn't want to answer because I don't want to influence Katazia's answer. But I do want to point something out. The internal evidence of the gospels are not what is in question here. People generally reject mode because they can't accept the message, and it will always be the case. Proof wasn't even enough for some in Jesus' time, miraculous or not.
But, as a means to deliver historical evidence, the Biblical documents hold more than their own against what we expect of historical documents. And you have to evaluate your view of history, because it influences what you expect from it and what you're willing to believe.
By this I mean the kind of thinking about history that recognises its form as a written narrative and suggests that form also provides a model for the study of the past itself. Why? Because we are narrativised creatures. ... historians do not just read the data of the past, instead - and on this I also go along with Vico and Kant - we negotiate it through our concepts. History's a priori is the human power to conceptualise through narrative.
What is history? The postmodern in history
The Bible is real history (as supported by the historical viability within context, of events which are corroborated by historical data, like the crucifixion) narrated by people who took it upon themselves to write it down. And as a narrated history, the New Testament passes every criteria that can be met, along with the expected gaps and dissimilarities. It isn't a work of fiction, like the Iliad or the Odyssea. You make that comparison only because you consider its premise that God exists absurd, and consequently reject any evidence that claims otherwise. But that doesn't make the evidence we have any less valid - evidence that makes statements like "there is no evidence" indefensible.What is history? The postmodern in history
For the purpose of this discussion, I will only claim that the biblical documents at least meet (if not exceed) the criteria for integrity we can reasonably expect any historical document to conform to. We'll leave the significance or believability of its message for now.
Now, since you displayed interest in the subject, maybe you could add your own criteria for the form reliable evidence should take, and supply comparative examples to illustrate how it might reasonably exist. I guess you could reduce the question to this: what makes up historical data if the documents of the Bible do not?
Last edited:
I tend to agree that the bible is as good a historical document as we can expect to get from that era, meaning that if we filter out the religious propaganda, there is probably an element of historical truth there. We can even compare the various gospels against our historical knowledge and come to some conclusions about which gopels are more credible.
Jenyar,
I have read the Gospels and several translations many times as well as a great deal of other Christian literature. Can you honestly say the same thing about opposing literature so you can form truly objective opinions of your own? I challenge you to be honest.
Read –
The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
Once you have digested this material then come back and we can discuss the issues on an equal footing. Like many strong atheists I was once a devout Christian – but no longer – I discovered that Christianity is a fraud, but you must escape the years of indoctrination and overwhelming propaganda to see this - it can be difficult.
Kat
Not quite – My eyes are fully open and there is nothing to see and I have been looking for several decades now. Or rather I have looked and concluded and have moved on.
A simple question but it cannot be answered in a simple sound bite. If you are willing to break away from Christian literature, that I now realize is just propaganda, and consider that you might be entirely wrong then here are two of the leading books that include an enormous quantity of historical research that show that the Gospels and the Christian stories are 100% pure myth.
I have read the Gospels and several translations many times as well as a great deal of other Christian literature. Can you honestly say the same thing about opposing literature so you can form truly objective opinions of your own? I challenge you to be honest.
Read –
The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty.
Once you have digested this material then come back and we can discuss the issues on an equal footing. Like many strong atheists I was once a devout Christian – but no longer – I discovered that Christianity is a fraud, but you must escape the years of indoctrination and overwhelming propaganda to see this - it can be difficult.
Kat
Well Jenyar, I actually mentioned the Iliad because it's sitting right in front of me, and as such was the first thing in my head. However, I understand how nobody in their right mind can claim it as a work of fact so perhaps I should go more along the lines of similarity with the bible. So, for the sake of argument, let's take a look at the Enuma Elish, or perhaps the Epic of Gilgamesh.
As far as historical value goes, the city Gilgamesh lived in has been excavated and is in fact a well known place. We could look to the Enuma Elish, which is quite clearly the original works of the first portions of the bible, or once again in the Epic of Gilgamesh which depicts the flood.
Can and would you not consider that historically viable then? So in the case of the flood we have the Sumerian version and the later written biblical version. If you were to give validity to one, why not the other?
If we look in the bible that says all life started in Sumeria, would that not mean Sumerian texts are completely genuine? Why does a book written about one godly type being have any more validity than one that talks about hundreds? Why would one written two thousand years ago have any more validity than one written 6000 years ago?
We could also get into the fact that the majority of instances written about were all 3rd hand. In the cases of what god supposedly said and did or what happened somewhere else, or what someone said happened somewhere else, there is absolutely no justification to call it valid history.
For instance: Nobody would have seen Adam and Eve, seen what they got upto, what happened and so on.. and as such any writing about it has no basis with which to be classed as valid.
Show me where the bible is written in 1st person perspective.. It's not written like:
"Well, I was walking along the path and bumped into god who said 'hello moses howya doing'?"
Everything is written after the supposed event, and seemingly by someone who has absolutely no 1st hand knowledge of it.
I mean even the son of god himself never wrote a bloody word. There is no..
"My name is jesus and i'm a cool dude, so bow before me."
In most instances it wouldn't be too much of an issue, but we're talking about the supposed son of god and yet not only did he never write 1 word, but nobody else did either. The only place you can hear about the almighty jesus is within a few letters and texts written by 4 people who quite clearly are not substantial enough for you to be making claims of historical voracity.
As upsetting as it might be, someone writing a book does not warrant anyone thousands of years later claiming it as truth. The I Ching goes on about the Emperor of China finding a dragon, and yet you do not instantly ascribe that as a fact/truth.
Worst of all is the fact that this reliance is upon people who knew very very little about the planet and the things upon it. They had no internet, no science classrooms but relied mainly upon their own explanations for any given thing. In the OT where god caused the 10 plagues, was it really the hand of god, or was it a biological disease? There's actually a very interesting text about that Here
Of course, that's not to say the website shown is the complete fact of the matter, but we can most certainly say that if it was, those people would have absolutely no way of figuring that out. So, they relied on what they thought, as opposed to what the facts were. In this instance how you can possibly take their word as truth? I'm sure you're a tiny bit skeptical of the above given text and yet that's modern day science compared to ancient opinion. If you expect ancient words to be truth in the modern time, then why not also let the modern word be truth for ancient time? Would you agree we know a lot more now than man did then?
You cannot just accept ancient words as being facts. Unfortunate maybe, but that's the way it is. The amusing thing is, at that time god was so "down to earth", always there, always giving orders, always making people chop up cows etc, and nobody has seen or heard of him since. There has been no god sitting on the mountains barking orders, or telling people to stone their sons to death or flying above the land in a cloud of fire... He is nowhere to be seen now. All we have left are a bunch of earthquakes, weather patterns and volcanos that can be so easily explained by science and understood by everyone, that the "god excuse" is all finished with.
And yet through fear, self doubt, hope of a bright after life or whatever reason you choose to just accept, you sit there and actually give more validity to ancient garbage than you do to modern day facts. You do this on a whim, pretending to yourself that somehow the biblical texts have validity - while at the same time denying any other ancient holy texts you deem fit, and most likely swiping their gods off to the realms of fantasy. But, how lucky you must be, having access to the "real" book, the "real" god, and the "real" truth. Kinda bizarre that everyone else says the exact same thing with reference to different text and different gods, but hey, I guess you were just born lucky.
But I am curious as to why you just dismissed the Iliad so quickly. After all, it doesn't say "fiction" anywhere in it. Tell me why you just dismissed it then plz.
As far as historical value goes, the city Gilgamesh lived in has been excavated and is in fact a well known place. We could look to the Enuma Elish, which is quite clearly the original works of the first portions of the bible, or once again in the Epic of Gilgamesh which depicts the flood.
Can and would you not consider that historically viable then? So in the case of the flood we have the Sumerian version and the later written biblical version. If you were to give validity to one, why not the other?
If we look in the bible that says all life started in Sumeria, would that not mean Sumerian texts are completely genuine? Why does a book written about one godly type being have any more validity than one that talks about hundreds? Why would one written two thousand years ago have any more validity than one written 6000 years ago?
We could also get into the fact that the majority of instances written about were all 3rd hand. In the cases of what god supposedly said and did or what happened somewhere else, or what someone said happened somewhere else, there is absolutely no justification to call it valid history.
For instance: Nobody would have seen Adam and Eve, seen what they got upto, what happened and so on.. and as such any writing about it has no basis with which to be classed as valid.
Show me where the bible is written in 1st person perspective.. It's not written like:
"Well, I was walking along the path and bumped into god who said 'hello moses howya doing'?"
Everything is written after the supposed event, and seemingly by someone who has absolutely no 1st hand knowledge of it.
I mean even the son of god himself never wrote a bloody word. There is no..
"My name is jesus and i'm a cool dude, so bow before me."
In most instances it wouldn't be too much of an issue, but we're talking about the supposed son of god and yet not only did he never write 1 word, but nobody else did either. The only place you can hear about the almighty jesus is within a few letters and texts written by 4 people who quite clearly are not substantial enough for you to be making claims of historical voracity.
As upsetting as it might be, someone writing a book does not warrant anyone thousands of years later claiming it as truth. The I Ching goes on about the Emperor of China finding a dragon, and yet you do not instantly ascribe that as a fact/truth.
Worst of all is the fact that this reliance is upon people who knew very very little about the planet and the things upon it. They had no internet, no science classrooms but relied mainly upon their own explanations for any given thing. In the OT where god caused the 10 plagues, was it really the hand of god, or was it a biological disease? There's actually a very interesting text about that Here
Of course, that's not to say the website shown is the complete fact of the matter, but we can most certainly say that if it was, those people would have absolutely no way of figuring that out. So, they relied on what they thought, as opposed to what the facts were. In this instance how you can possibly take their word as truth? I'm sure you're a tiny bit skeptical of the above given text and yet that's modern day science compared to ancient opinion. If you expect ancient words to be truth in the modern time, then why not also let the modern word be truth for ancient time? Would you agree we know a lot more now than man did then?
You cannot just accept ancient words as being facts. Unfortunate maybe, but that's the way it is. The amusing thing is, at that time god was so "down to earth", always there, always giving orders, always making people chop up cows etc, and nobody has seen or heard of him since. There has been no god sitting on the mountains barking orders, or telling people to stone their sons to death or flying above the land in a cloud of fire... He is nowhere to be seen now. All we have left are a bunch of earthquakes, weather patterns and volcanos that can be so easily explained by science and understood by everyone, that the "god excuse" is all finished with.
And yet through fear, self doubt, hope of a bright after life or whatever reason you choose to just accept, you sit there and actually give more validity to ancient garbage than you do to modern day facts. You do this on a whim, pretending to yourself that somehow the biblical texts have validity - while at the same time denying any other ancient holy texts you deem fit, and most likely swiping their gods off to the realms of fantasy. But, how lucky you must be, having access to the "real" book, the "real" god, and the "real" truth. Kinda bizarre that everyone else says the exact same thing with reference to different text and different gods, but hey, I guess you were just born lucky.
But I am curious as to why you just dismissed the Iliad so quickly. After all, it doesn't say "fiction" anywhere in it. Tell me why you just dismissed it then plz.
The differences between the Enuma Elish and Noah's flood are just as significant as their similarities. And that's to expected since they believed in different gods. So which god was actually involved you have to decide for yourself. In other words, the two both narrate a great flood (which is actually supportive, not detrimental), but you have to decide based on the evidence they give which is more reasonable. Did Gilgamesh become a god, or did Noah become a sinner?
Where is any history written in the first person, and why it is a requirement for historical validity?
Nominal Sentences
Hebrew lacks the equivalent of English is, am, or are, thus, to express the equivalent of "Moses is a man" in Hebrew, the two nouns are simply stuck together as "Moses man". ... In Biblical Hebrew Step-by-Step (see pp. 61-62) Mansoor refers to this form as the "present tense", but that is not really correct, since ancient Hebrew did not really have a tense system. It is thus preferable (and more accurate) to refer to this form as a "nominal sentence" rather than as the "present tense".
Hebrew lesson six
Hebrew lacks the equivalent of English is, am, or are, thus, to express the equivalent of "Moses is a man" in Hebrew, the two nouns are simply stuck together as "Moses man". ... In Biblical Hebrew Step-by-Step (see pp. 61-62) Mansoor refers to this form as the "present tense", but that is not really correct, since ancient Hebrew did not really have a tense system. It is thus preferable (and more accurate) to refer to this form as a "nominal sentence" rather than as the "present tense".
Hebrew lesson six
In fact, these people were the best possible canditates since they knew God. So where other people might have believed in the god "chance", they could interpret the world and point out events that came specifically from God, such as the ten plagues - each of which just "happened" to address and overthrow a different Egyptian deity.
They weren't stupid, they knew where things like floods and grasshoppers came from, and they didn't use God to explain them away as you seem to think. Whether these things came from God or nature or both was inconsequential to their significance. The reality is that mere scientific "facts" do not make up not everything there is to know about life.
They can say what they like, but no other religion has a person who knew God, or even claimed to know God first-hand. They all have "ways" and "teachings" and "laws", even Judaism, but only Jesus ever claimed to come directly from God and be the way himself. That He made these claims on a historical basis (the preservation of Israel, its prophesies, laws and descendants) is no minor thing. His authority didn't pop up out of nowhere. It's your own responsibility to evaluate the claims on their own merit.
But it has fiction written all over it. Homer wrote (or penned it down, since their is a question whether he was the original author) about circumstances around Troy and the Trojan War 500 years after it. Where you have a problem with 50 years, I have a problem with 500. Whatever facts remained inhis story, the story itself is clearly exaggerated and episodal. If it contained only what the author could remember and understand, it would have looked more like the bible and less like a novel.
Kat,
Until Acharya has established a reputation for scientific New Testament criticism in peer-reviewed journals, her speculations must remain that. A better source for scholarship is Kirby's website, www.didjesusexist.com.
Both those authors are intent on disproving that there was an actual Jesus, and in the process they force interpretations on the Bible that just isn't there. Such as that Paul did not know Jesus. But Paul did not begin believing in Jesus because of myths (see Was Jesus just a copycat saviour myth?, and he did not contradict the gospels (which would have been more problematic). They concede that if Jesus is a myth, it is firmly routed in Hebrew scriptures - which doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it back a few generations. Doherty sees the gospels just as allegory, which shows how far he has distanced himself from its contents.
But I don't think it's prudent to launch into a lengthy literary criticism of their ideas right now, others are better qualified. A more productive debate would be, why do you believe them and ignore the problems that are raised about their views? My position about them is this: aren't they just trying to answer Jesus' question "But what about you, who do you say I am?" (Matt. 16:15)? I take note of their objections, but if they said anything revolutionary or new it would have been headlines.
Until Acharya has established a reputation for scientific New Testament criticism in peer-reviewed journals, her speculations must remain that. A better source for scholarship is Kirby's website, www.didjesusexist.com.
Both those authors are intent on disproving that there was an actual Jesus, and in the process they force interpretations on the Bible that just isn't there. Such as that Paul did not know Jesus. But Paul did not begin believing in Jesus because of myths (see Was Jesus just a copycat saviour myth?, and he did not contradict the gospels (which would have been more problematic). They concede that if Jesus is a myth, it is firmly routed in Hebrew scriptures - which doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it back a few generations. Doherty sees the gospels just as allegory, which shows how far he has distanced himself from its contents.
But I don't think it's prudent to launch into a lengthy literary criticism of their ideas right now, others are better qualified. A more productive debate would be, why do you believe them and ignore the problems that are raised about their views? My position about them is this: aren't they just trying to answer Jesus' question "But what about you, who do you say I am?" (Matt. 16:15)? I take note of their objections, but if they said anything revolutionary or new it would have been headlines.
Jenyar,
Clearly you haven't read the books and you are just repeating critiques from Christian biased sources and propaganda. Read the books since they address these issues and present an overwhelming compeling conclusion - the Jesus story is entirely myth. I found the accounts completely convincing.
Please try to think for yourself and do your own research, or at least look at both sides objectively.
Kat
Clearly you haven't read the books and you are just repeating critiques from Christian biased sources and propaganda. Read the books since they address these issues and present an overwhelming compeling conclusion - the Jesus story is entirely myth. I found the accounts completely convincing.
Please try to think for yourself and do your own research, or at least look at both sides objectively.
Kat
I just don't think we can have a productive debate by throwing books at each other. It's true I haven't read the books, but I'm familiar with their reasoning. I hope you have done some research to verify their claims. You say I should think for myself, then why don't you? Didn't you just admit that you had Acharya and Doherty do the thinking for you?
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but it certainly seems like you're using the fact that differences exist between the two stories to try and claim they are both about completely different things, and indeed do not share a common ancestry. What is overwhelmingly more apparent, (and I'm unsure how deeply you have delved into this particular issue), is that the two stories both share the same origin, and that good old chinese whispers has taken effect.
I will let you guess which, but one of these stories was written a good 1,500 years before the other. If you even thought about stating chinese whispers, changes of culture and ideals do not affect a story after that length of time, I hereby declare you insane.
So for arguments sake let's state that a massive flood really did happen at some time in the past. Where would that give any credibility to the existence of a god/s? Wouldn't you also have to pay particular attention to the earlier work as having more credibility than the latter, if there is indeed any credibility to be found at all?
We can clearly state that if these two stories share the same origin, then the earlier Sumerian work would have been one and a half millennia closer to the event than the Noah story.
It would seem upon further study that YHWH is indeed a mere amalgamation of a whole host of these earlier deities. So who of them, if any, has the validity? I notice how you would so swiftly dismiss these other gods as nothing greater than fiction, so why and with what justification do you then go on to say that so and so god is real, while the others are fake?
Believed, yes.. As you should be aware by now though, believing in something does not make it true, does not make it fact, and does not make it worth the paper its printed on.
Decide for yourself? You mean... choose which you prefer, or have read more about? You are in no position to be deciding anything considering the circumstances. Sure, you can make an opinion based on personal needs, desires and ideals, but there is no way you could make a solid informed decision over which is more credible. I know you'd probably disagree, but if that's the case you need something a tad more substantial than you have supplied up until now.
Evidence "they" give? The problem here is nobody knows who "they" were. There is no way whatsoever of claiming their honesty, integrity or knowledge. There is no way whatsoever of showing either of them even existed. That my friend is not evidence.
You say: "Did Gilgamesh become a god, or did Noah become a sinner?" when quite frankly nobody is in a position to justify an answer to this. What's to say there even was a Gilgamesh or a Noah? Gilgamesh, who was half man-half god lived in a city which has been found by archaeologists.. While that aids in geographical validity, it most certainly doesn't attribute any weight to the existence of a textual character. In the case of Noah, and based upon the quite overwhelming comparisons that can be made between the flood stories, it is quite safe to say he is based upon Utnapishtim/Ziusudra, and as such if any exist it would be Utnapishtim. Of course, we're not in a position to justify their existence. And finally just to reiterate, the Utnapishtim story predates the biblical version by over a millennium. That's 1000+ years. Later on in your post you state you have a problem with 500 years... Take that figure and double it. Surely you have double problems now?
Sorry, I think my point was lost. Let me rephrase..
Dependant on who's personal "opinion" we listen to, we could state that the world and everything on it is approx 7-8000 years old. So some eight millennia ago a man and a woman lived in a garden. Then, according to who's "opinion" we listen to, some dude named Moses wrote about it. The main problem here is Moses would have written about it say... 3-4000 years ago?
Can you see the problem yet? You see, 4000 years would have passed from the "events" until the time those events were put on paper. Again I would question your sanity if you would even contemplate that stories do not morph, adapt and completely change after such a long time. When something is written as an "I was here..", it becomes "present time" as opposed to writing about the long lost past. We can see this style in certain NT books such as the letters like John 2.
But this isn't the only problem... Nobody can accurately state when this "beggining" was, or even who wrote what in the bible. Sure, there are opinions, but when something revolves around mere conjecture and speculation, I would hardly deem it warranted for you to claim historical validity.
Of course "1st person" isn't in any way a requirement, but it comes across better knowing someone witnessed said events, as opposed to writing a story from 4000 years beforehand.
You have yet to provide any justification for such a claim, or that any such being even exists etc etc. This is baseless conjecture.
What you mean to say is; they could interpret the world and its events the only possible way they could. They knew nothing of fish diseases, or ensuing environmental issues that would follow such a problem. I am not going to state that it was most certainly from fish disease, but you are in the exact same position whereby you cannot say it was god who was pissed at the egyptians. You are taking the word of a writer you don't know and who didn't know all that much about the world he lived in, as a truth, when there is no justfication for it.
Overthrew a different Egyptian deity? Sorry, It is early but I don't know which Egyptian deities you're referring to.
Oh come on.. There was a time when people thought there were witches in the world and went round drowning them, there was a time when a headache was sign of an evil spirit in the head which was subsequently chopped off. Don't be surprised to know that this was only 100 or so years ago. We could also take a look at forest folk who actually think dancing round a campfire helps bring rain and healing. Don't be surprised to find out this was just yesterday. Don't be fooled into thinking people are smart- especially when it comes to superstitions. There are still people who cross their fingers, who hang horseshoes above their doors and who throw salt over their shoulders. These are modern day people - how much worth do you really give to people thousands of years ago who would undoubtedly suffer from the same superstitious afflictions, but with even less scientific knowledge. In fact, a non-existant scientific knowledge.
At the same time as biblical writings, the Romans were still worshipping the sun as one of many gods, the Greeks believed in minotaurs and 7 headed snake women and so on.
People on the other side of the world were worshipping elephant gods, or writing about dragons and unicorns. The bible is packed with leviathans, giants, 4 headed flying creatures with wheels, and yes - dragons.
So where in all of this is the science? Where is the worldly knowledge you speak of? These people still thought the world was flat as a poppadum. The Egyptians believed the heart was the "brain" of the body, and swiftly discarded the actual brain as worthless. There lies their knowledge.
When an earthquake happened there was no "tectonic plates" talk, simply a particular deity was angered. When there was a flood it wasn't due to too much rain, build up of silt and breaking of the banks - it was an angered deity in the sky who opened the window to the skydome, (firmament). Yes.. Good old Babylonian astrology that continued its way through the early portions of the biblical works. This was their "knowledge".
The irritating thing is watching a modern day human accept it as swiftly as they do, while turning a blind eye to real knowledge. Yes yes I know, Jesus and his cronies said knowledge was a bad thing - but they were wrong.
This is 2004, not 0004.
You stick up for the apparent, but non-existant, knowledge of people you'll never know while firmly denying all that modern day life has taught, all that mankind has learnt from then until now that actually stands firm and undisputed. We have a vast long way to go yet, but ancient man cannot compare - and yet you accept their "opinions" on a whim.. It's quite shocking.
Of course not everything, but a gazillion times more than that of the people you will find in the bible. You label scientific facts as "mere", and yet give such worth and value to the blitherings of an ancient shepherd that one can only question your minds sanity. "But.. but.. they knew loads!" Lol, utter twoddle.
Even if this were true, which is it not, it in no way gives any rise in claim of validity of any such being. Here watch this:
"I know god personally. We sit and have tea on weekends."
Completely worthless.
Hell, even David Koresh claimed to know god personally, talking about him in the exact same manner that jesus supposedly did. I suppose this lends credence to your claims?
And David Koresh, and 1000 other nutballs with big mouths. But regardless to that.. What's your point? Because some evidence-less person apparently said he came from god - it helps how?
You can't even provide enough evidence to state he existed.. Surely we need to close up that gigantic hole first? The ship is sinking.
Sure it did.. In a book. And what year did anyone even pay attention to that writing and decide to make something out of it?
And right now there is none. You're simply stating something has merit because it happens to say it does.
So does the bible. Do you not see, you're just a different person who likes a different book. Just like Mr. Patel in India, just like Mr. Shah in Iraq, just like Mr. Fooyangchoo in china, and just like Mr. Winston in Africa. You all share the same thing in common which is belief in your book, denial of everyone elses. It's quite simply plain and total stupidity - yet you shall never see that, because you're not awake yet.
Well a question aint so bad.. If we talk along biblical lines, nobody even has the slightest clue who wrote it- they simply speculate whatever they want to.
50? Why the lies or ignorance? What I spoke of earlier was Adam and Eve - and then the subsequent writing of that story that would have arrived some 4000 years later. You have a problem with 500? How does four thousand sound to you? Or perhaps the original flood story written a good 1,500 years before the biblical version. You have a problem with 500? How does one and a half thousand sound to you? Or perhaps even... Hmmmmm... how long has it been roughly since the bible was written? 2000 years? Oh, you have problem with 500? How dows two thousand sound to you?
As is the bible. From a couple of goats to two of every single bloody animal on the planet. Lol, don't make me laugh.
As in... what moses could "remember" from 4000 years before his birth?
Why do you put so much faith in extant documents? Are they all there is to know? What is 4000 years old today was recent 4000 years ago. We have both the Enuma Elish and Genesis. Did the Enuma Elish disappear when Genesis was written, so that they had to try and remember what happened 1500 years ago, or was it available to them? As far as I can see, they're two different perspectives of the same event, with interpretations and exaggerations included to make a point. If you don't like the point, ignore it, but it's no use denying that people found enough supernatural about what happened to elaborate so much. You're no doubt aware that these two aren't the only stories we have to compare. See Flood legends from around the world for a table of comparison.