(July 10, 2015 at 5:41 am)pocaracas Wrote: Randy is arguing that the same story written by different people, each of them adding different emphasis on different details, each with a different agenda, somehow means that the story actually happened as described by each of them.
Several different parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh have been found, some repeat the stories found in other parts, with a few details added or removed, and are dated to a whole different century... does that make the epic any more factual?
Did the gods send Enkidu to challenge Gilgamesh, king of Uruk? Considering that the people of Uruk sent their best prostitute to keep Enkidu busy and out of the city, I'd guess that it's very likely that Enkidu was an actual real threat to Gilgamesh's rule of that city.
I mean... prostitutes exist, we know that. Some are very good at their trade and can lead any man astray, no matter how powerful he is.
We know Uruk existed, there is archeological evidence for it.
We know these first city-states were ruled by a king, and that's what Gilgamesh would be.
He fought and, finding they were well matched, befriended Enkidu, eventually. We know people make friends with their enemies out of respect, occasionally.
So, like I've asked about islam, now I ask you about the babylonians... Why don't you believe in them?
For the same reason that atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Tim O'Neill and others do not believe in them.
Because the parallels are superficial (at best) and poorly documented in comparison to the evidence for the existence of Jesus.
If you read the analysis of true experts (and not the pop crap you find on the Internet), you will learn that professional scholars don't see the connections between Jesus and <insert pagan god here> that rank amateurs enjoy discussing amongst themselves.
This really is a dead end for you and a waste of time.
