The Genesis Fraud

[Undeceived]

So I suppose that we're incapable of writing historical fiction UD, complete with fun historical details? No dice. Gilgamesh was made to entertain, it was also made to carry a message, and there was a time that people did believe in the narrative. Gilgamesh is not easily explained as being copied or manipulated from the bible, that's the most idiotic (and bigoted) thing I've ever heard anyone claim when speaking about Gilgamesh. This narrative is one of the oldest surviving works of literature in existence. It's authorship and antiquity are in no way under dispute (the same clearly can't be said for your little holy book). The garden and flood narratives of your favorite myth are such a close match that the less than completely deluded among us have concluded that they are a direct rip of Gilgamesh, not the other way around. Can't say that I blame the folks who came up with your fairy tales for borrowing from the Epic. It is an impressive narrative, and would make its various authors literally giants in the area of fiction and literature even if they had written it last year. So willing to strip these people of their achievements when it seems to suit your fairy tales are you? How's about you point to original narratives in the NT and OT rather than waiving away those bits we absolutely know to be derivative works eh?

You know what, you should probably learn just a little bit about a narrative before you blather on about how it might have been copied or manipulated from your favorite holy texts. Here's one of my favorites on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Babylonian-Gil...033&sr=1-3

Next time you won't have any excuse other than "I don't actually give a shit whether or not the words that fall out of my mouth are accurate, I just wanted to say something"

I made the case that the author(s) had to know details from times far prior to the 6th century BC. That would suggest the author(s) lived prior to 6th century BC. Do you have any non-subjective refutations to my conclusion?

---

The name 'Philistines' is used loosely for enemies in the region.

There were no fucking Philistines in Canaan prior to this. The name was not used "loosely" and you, good sir, are a bible-thumping moron.

Again, the Hebrew compilers updated names to more recognizable names. That, or the 'Peoples of the Sea' settled in certain areas. Don't jump to Bible-bashing conclusions. If Genesis lists thirty groups of people and gets them all right, it's more likely our error than theirs. The 'Philistines' of Genesis were nothing like the early Canaan Philistines. They were friends to the Jews. There are no mentions of great Philistine cities such as Gaza or Ashkelon. This suggests they were two different peoples given the same name.