The Genesis Fraud

[The Grand Nudger]

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"

-

[michaelsherlock]

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"

-

Also, I would point him in the direction of George Smith, Rawlinson, Layard, Lewis and Kramer for a more complete picture. Also, Oxford Uni, has an online Sumerian Lexicon, complete with the records of the excavated tablets.

[Minimalist]

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

Do you ever know what the fuck you are talking about? Do you simply pull shit out of your ass and tell yourself it is true?

The Philistines, ( Peleset, in Egyptian texts) were part of the Sea People confederation. After a battle with the Egyptians they withdrew to the east and landed in Canaan which until then had been part of the Egyptian empire. They overran the Canaanite towns - the destruction layers and the shift in pottery from Canaanite to Hellenic is well-established - and took over. Shortly thereafter the Egyptians withdrew from their long-established base at Beth Shean.

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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

"The Last Days of Pompei" would suggest that Edward Bulwer-Lytton lived in 79AD.

"The Ides of March" would suggest that Thorton Wilder lived in 44BC.

I know details of times far prior to the 6th century BC as well, guess that makes me a time traveler or immortal of some sort? Or does shit like this only "suggest" such things when you really want it to? You're going to have to try much harder. There isn't anything subjective about this. I don't have to "refute your conclusions", you must demonstrate their veracity. You have not done so. Get to work. When you're done making that solid case for biblical antiquity there are folks eagerly awaiting your input. They all work in cultural anthropology and comparative mythology departments. Here's the real kicker, when you're done placing it at any point in history, it will still be fiction. Cheers.

So, since I'd done having a hell of a laugh about this, lemme explain how this sort of inquiry is actually engaged in. When a text has a reference that can be thought of as a credible "timestamp" it suggest that the narrative was written -no earlier than- this timestamp. It leaves the door wide open for any time from that point to this one. Other evidence must be sought out. It does not suggest any other specific in and of itself. Now, with that in mind, take a look at your bible again, and you might see why this is so troubling for your camp.

Ah, almost forgot to ask. So, is Gilgamesh a rip of the bible?

[michaelsherlock]

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.

Not necessarily. Here goes;

Two years ago, there live a man by the name of....Abraham (popular name from the 2nd millenium BCE~), now Abraham and his son....Isaiah (popular name 1st Millenium BCE) lived in the land of Akkad (1st millenium BCE), now at this time Abraham's cousin, George Bush, who was the son of the President of the U.S.A, was moving from Alexandria in Egypt, where a great library was ( possibly late 1st millenium BCE~till about 4th century CE, but if "library was" meant that there used to be a library there before the author wrote this two years after Abraham, then who knows when it was written).

written in 2012, using names from the 2nd millenium bce onwards.

Ok I will just stop it here. The point is that I can make up a story by
sourcing the Bible and make it look like it was written much earlier than it was, although as I am a "religious nutbag" who is credulous and full of emotional distractions, I will probably accidentally include information that will reveal, more accurately, the time in which I wrote this terrible drival.

[Undeceived]

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.

Not necessarily. Here goes;

Two years ago, there live a man by the name of....Abraham (popular name from the 2nd millenium BCE~), now Abraham and his son....Isaiah (popular name 1st Millenium BCE) lived in the land of Akkad (1st millenium BCE), now at this time Abraham's cousin, George Bush, who was the son of the President of the U.S.A, was moving from Alexandria in Egypt, where a great library was ( possibly late 1st millenium BCE~till about 4th century CE, but if "library was" meant that there used to be a library there before the author wrote this two years after Abraham, then who knows when it was written).

written in 2012, using names from the 2nd millenium bce onwards.

Ok I will just stop it here. The point is that I can make up a story by
sourcing the Bible and make it look like it was written much earlier than it was, although as I am a "religious nutbag" who is credulous and full of emotional distractions, I will probably accidentally include information that will reveal, more accurately, the time in which I wrote this terrible drival.

You’ve proved people can write fiction, which is a point of defense, not evidence. At the start of this thread you presented what you thought was conclusive evidence Genesis was written in the 6th century BC. I explained, using context and culture, why the authors/compilers might include what they did. That put us on argumentative neutral ground. In addition, I claimed the details in Genesis would be unrealistic to know without being in a certain place or having documents from ancestors who were in that place. You then provided the counterargument above. That puts us on argumentative neutral ground again. Saying the writers of Genesis are capable of deception is not the same as giving evidence they actually did.

Do you want to make a case in which the writers did consciously and maliciously deceive? If so, consider what that claim entails. At some point, the Hebrews came to belief in God. When and how? Imagine you and I writing about a brand new Ferrari god in present tense just to screw up the lives of gullible people in the year 2192 who we won't ever know—that is what you’re proposing the Hebrews did. These gullible people would essentially be picking a dusty book off the used bookstore shelf and turning it into their religion. History makes a different claim. It says religions get made in the now. In all the well known religions, people are swayed by something convincing that just happened. In Islam, Muhammad returned to town saying he just received a vision from God. In Buddhism, Buddha claimed to just have received enlightenment on how to live. In Christianity, people saw or thought they saw Jesus alive just after he died. All these people needed empirical evidence before any spiritual reaction. Did one of the Jewish Patriarchs do something special that prompted Judaism? If so, why isn’t it highlighted over the rest?

I also do not see the significance of your claim that Genesis was written later. The other four books of the Torah were written in a similar style, indicating a shared time period. There are references to the Hebrews' God before the 6th century—meaning their belief came from somewhere apart from Genesis. There are also books like Job which seem either to be from an earlier time or had its “time period” mimicked extremely well. Have you devised a model describing how the Hebrews came to belief in their God, step by step? I’d like to see it, if you are willing.

[Minimalist]

Again, the Hebrew compilers updated names to more recognizable names.

That is simply apologetic bullshit. In trying to write a description of events centuries before their time they simply assumed that the world as it existed in their time was the same. This accounts for the inclusion of places and states which existed in the Iron Age but not in the Late Bronze Age showing up in your fucking bible.

As William Dever has noted, the real miracle of Joshua is that he destroyed cities which did not exist.

In the Late Bronze Age, Egypt had complete dominion over Canaan. somehow, the later jerkoffs who wrote these fairy tales had forgotten that.

[michaelsherlock]

Again, the Hebrew compilers updated names to more recognizable names.

That is simply apologetic bullshit. In trying to write a description of events centuries before their time they simply assumed that the world as it existed in their time was the same. This accounts for the inclusion of places and states which existed in the Iron Age but not in the Late Bronze Age showing up in your fucking bible.

As William Dever has noted, the real miracle of Joshua is that he destroyed cities which did not exist.

In the Late Bronze Age, Egypt had complete dominion over Canaan. somehow, the later jerkoffs who wrote these fairy tales had forgotten that.

You would like the works and findings of the Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Ze'ev Herzog, who said;

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

http://archaeologynews.multiply.com/notes/item/15

[Minimalist]

I've read some of Herzog's articles...whenever I can get one in English. He's actually the guy who started the whole ball rolling back in 1999 in Haaretz.