Does God Exist?

[flamingjimmy]

Noah's flood is an interesting example and should not be dismissed as quickly as you seem to think. In 1955 a series of tablets were recovered from Meggido in Palestine, which predate the Israelite presence in the Promised Land, that are known collectively as the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the story "Utnapishtim, the hero of the Flood myth, tells his story to Gilgamesh, which is related to the Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis" (1). In the Sumerian epic the gods destroyed mankind because the population had become too numerous and chaotic and the god Enki decided to save one man who was to build a cube shaped vessel that would save the seeds of all living things. The deluge lasted 7 days.

 

The Old Testament therefore seems to draw upon earlier sources of Sumerian tradition and it proves that the Hebrew writers of the day did not exist in a vacuum, but shared and adapted the current traditions of fellow people in the Middle East. There is evidence of severe flood events all across the Middle East that date throughout the period- any one of these could have led to the development of an oral tradition that was eventually to become legend in the Epic of Gilgamesh and later the Old Testament.

 

Yes Noahs Ark is a rip off of the epic of gilgamesh, and it is possible that somewhere way back before even that was written, there was a pretty bad flood somewhere in that part of the world.

 

In what way does that mean that the bible is any truer? It ripped off an even older story that itself is clearly fantastical and could not have happened. I really don't understand your line of thinking.

 

I mean Lord of The Rings rips of the real life story of the industrial revolution and the wars of that period of history, does that make it a good history book? (I'm sure there are much better examples of this kind of thing but I can't think of any off of the top of my head).

Edited July 4, 2010 by flamingjimmy

[Cavegirl]

Yes Noahs Ark is a rip off of the epic of gilgamesh, and it is possible that somewhere way back before even that was written, there was a pretty bad flood somewhere in that part of the world.

 

In what way does that mean that the bible is any truer? It ripped off an even older story that itself is clearly fantastical and could not have happened. I really don't understand your line of thinking.

 

I mean Lord of The Rings rips of the real life story of the industrial revolution and the wars of that period of history, does that make it a good history book?

 

Where did I say it was a good history book? It has some basis in real places and real events, but it's thousands of years old- what exactly are you expecting?

[flamingjimmy]

Where did I say it was a good history book? It has some basis in real places and real events, but it's thousands of years old- what exactly are you expecting?

 

Whoa... sorry my fault. I got you confused with MadnBad.

[sandie]

These are some of the main points about the bible we do know that the bible in part is based on actual events but we don't know for sure which events are factual or how factually the bible portrays them, so we can say with some certainty that the bible is a semi historical record.

 

We certainly can't say for certain that the bible is just a load of fairy stories though you are obviously entitled to your own opinion, whilst it is not currently a book of law for us it has certainly been so in the past.

And yes it should be taken with a pinch of salt as should all religious records since we can neither prove or disprove belief.

And who on earth has been foisting their beliefs on you did you go to catholic school like a few others on this forum or are your parents devout or what,in any case tell them to sod off whoever they are belief is up to the individual and not something that should be forced on anyone.

 

I will take offence to your comments, I am not a Catholic and my parents were not devout. The oppinion I posted was mine without any help or influance, I feel that yo need to put brain into gear before opening your mouth.

Why can we not say that the Bible is a book of fairy stories, because it is unless you can give me proof othewise. This was the point of my post there is no proof, and I like everone is entitled to their opinion without insults.

[benchy]

Over time and the bible being rewritten numerous times and also names being changed from the original sumerian version the 's' has been ommitted off the the word god....its clear in certain paragraphs that it should be gods plural...i cant remember which paragraphs they are but its obvious it refers to more than one god...

Read the zacharia sitchen books

[benchy]

Watch the first third of the zeitgiest film to discover that the jesus thing is just a celestial event to do with the sun not son and its been a repeating story which is given a different name by every ancient civilsation through hundreds of thousands of years , jesus is just the latest one. Its also to do with ages, were in the age of pieces at the moment and whats the sign of pieces... two fish which is also the symbol of christianity

[182024]

18th century BCE Atra-hasis suggests man was made to be better slaves for doing the work the original junior devines rebelled against (farming and looking after the earth for most parts). Taking 'blood and flesh' from the slain (sacrificed) god of intellegence and mixing it with clay statues which all the gods then took in turns to spit on (added personal DNA), 10 months later a specially made womb breaks open and humans step forth.

Sounds a lot like modern science with Gene splicing, cloning and incubators to me.

 

And breaking into hostilities by not respecting anothers opinion is baaad (few posts above).

[MadnBad]

To say that the bible is "a semi historical record" would seem to suggest that it is atleast half right, can you back up this grand claim? If you don't mean to say the bible is half right roughly what kind of a figure would you put upon its historical accuracy?

 

What specifically do you consider to be the "main points about the bible" and which of these do you think "is based on actual events"?

 

 

Nonsense we can disprove lots of beliefs including many of those set out in "holy" books such as the bible.

 

I never made any mention of historical accuracy if you want accuracy go and do some maths history is not the place for you, it is littered with lies good story telling bad story telling and imagination and gaps. Only now do we value absolute accuracy over a good tale.

 

No you can't disprove belief you may be able to disprove the foundation of that belief but the belief itself is sacrosanct to the individual and your evidence may have little or no effect.

[MadnBad]

I will take offence to your comments, I am not a Catholic and my parents were not devout. The oppinion I posted was mine without any help or influance, I feel that yo need to put brain into gear before opening your mouth.

Why can we not say that the Bible is a book of fairy stories, because it is unless you can give me proof othewise. This was the point of my post there is no proof, and I like everone is entitled to their opinion without insults.

 

You can take offence if you want that is your right, i'm not sure what you're taking offence at but hey ho whatever floats your boat.

Not sure how you post on the internet but i use a keyboard no mouth required .

Seriously though i was not intending to insult you i was just throwing in a couple of ideas as to why you feel that you have had religion imposed on you, if not my previous proposals then why?.

You can say the bible is a book of fairy stories as much as anyone else can say it is the word of god that is your opinion and you are welcome to exercise it.

There is evidence for aspects from the bible but you will have to do your own research if it interests you that much i for one can not be bothered to spend the week going into abstract details.

I'm still not sure what the insults are you'll have to let me in on them at some point.

[adaline]

If there really is god, may he strike this post down!