Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
General Theistics 101 Guidelines
This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha
The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.
The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.
The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.
The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.
The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.
Do you (personally or in general) have a criteria or point at which doubt changes to certainty or do you think a state of uncertainty throughout life is important?
2) What, in yr opinion, is the nature of human knowledge and how do you define truth?
3) The Hindu concept of Maya posits that the material/physical existence/universe is illusory? what is your opinion?
4) Some mystics say that the diversity of the Divine comes about because of the limitations of language and how it is communicated in particular socio-cultural constructs......but the "experience" of the Divine is universal....."Truth is One, the wise call it by many names"---Vedas ----what is your opinion?
5) what is the purpose of scientific revelation if it only reveals creation as it is created?
6) If God is unknowable, what is the purpose of religion?
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostSo this an admission that you don't know what you're talking about?Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostOnly in acknowledging my errors concerning Gilgamesh, and wrong headed argument on that subject. I thus defer to showmeproof in the Ugarit thread. There are at times you do not know what your talking about also.
The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE) ...
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl2..._gilgamesh.htm
We can identify three stages in the epic's development. The first begins in roughly 2700 B.C.E. when the historical Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The earliest written versions of the story date from roughly 2000 B.C.E, but oral versions of the stories both preceded them and continued on, parallel with the written tradition. The language of these materials was Sumerian, the earliest written language in Mesopotamia.
The history of the epic itself begins sometime before 1600 B.C.E., assembled from free translations of the oral versions of some of these tales and put into a connected narrative. By the time of Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E.) the text was essentially stabilized.
http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Rel..._gilgamesh.htm
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on 12 incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 bce). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium bce; the poems have been titled “Gilgamesh and Huwawa,” “Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven,” “Gilgamesh and Agga of Kish,” “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld,” and “The Death of Gilgamesh.”
The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium bce and who was thus a contemporary of Agga ...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...3644/Gilgamesh
The parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate. Upon first glance, anyway. I welcome additional information, especially regarding the number of texts uncovered, and corrections, of course.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI already admitted that I do not know what I am talking about concerning the oldest physical evidence for the epic, but I was surprised by the (now retracted) allusions to a known author. I was also surprised by the reference to the larger number of ancient texts in closer chronological proximity to the original than exist for texts of the New Testament. I have no expertise to evaluate the quality of these quotes, but here is the first couple of academic source (merely introductory college level) cited in a simple Google search for Gilgamesh + date:
The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE) ...
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl2..._gilgamesh.htm
We can identify three stages in the epic's development. The first begins in roughly 2700 B.C.E. when the historical Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The earliest written versions of the story date from roughly 2000 B.C.E, but oral versions of the stories both preceded them and continued on, parallel with the written tradition. The language of these materials was Sumerian, the earliest written language in Mesopotamia.
The history of the epic itself begins sometime before 1600 B.C.E., assembled from free translations of the oral versions of some of these tales and put into a connected narrative. By the time of Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E.) the text was essentially stabilized.
http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Rel..._gilgamesh.htm
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on 12 incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 bce). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium bce; the poems have been titled “Gilgamesh and Huwawa,” “Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven,” “Gilgamesh and Agga of Kish,” “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld,” and “The Death of Gilgamesh.”
The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium bce and who was thus a contemporary of Agga ...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...3644/Gilgamesh
The parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate. Upon first glance, anyway. I welcome additional information, especially regarding the number of texts uncovered, and corrections, of course.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThe parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostYeah, it was a pretty out there claim.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-16-2014, 11:00 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe relationship between the cuneiform texts and the OT is a well established argument as robercht and showmeproofs describes. Especially without evidence of any Hebrew text before the exile, and the late evolution of the Hebrew language.
Comment
-
Since this thread seems to have at least in part been in response to a question I asked you, I feel I owe you a reply.
Firstly, I think most worldviews do need to have at bottom some fundamental axioms - beliefs that can't be conclusively proved but are assumed to be true - on which the rest of the worldview is built. So I think it's good that you have such a clear view of the axioms (or 'foundation assumptions')of your own worldview.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThere have been similar threads in the old Tweb, but since the question has come up, because I consider the traditional arguments for God in traditional Christianity bad to the point of being logically outrageous, some have asked if this is how you view the arguments, Why do you believe in God.
The first posting reflects my Foundation Assumptions of why I believe.
Foundations of Belief
Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included.
The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha
Originally posted by ShunyadragonThe second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.
If we say that all truth is relative, then is that truth itself relative or not? If it is relative, then some truth is not relative (and the axiom is incorrect). If it is not relative then it contradicts itself ( and again the axiom is incorrect).
Further, in practical terms if we hold this as an axiom, the we have no real rational basis for arguing against someone else's truth, telling them that they are wrong. After all we don't have an absolute truth to give them. So I think that you don't follow this axiom in your interactions on TWeb, Shunya.
Lastly, I think your reasons for holding this axiom are poor. 'There is no absolute truth' doesn't follow from noticing that human beliefs are not (always) perfect or correct, nor does it follow from 'what people have claimed as true has changed over time'. IOW, differences of opinion over the what truth of a proposition is do not prove that there is no truth at all, nor that there are several contradictory 'truths' all equally right. Think of some people arguing over the actual length of a particular piece of string....
Originally posted by ShunyadragonThe third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.
Originally posted by ShunyadragonThe fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.
Further that axiom is self-contradictory: 'It's a real a fact about the real world that philosophy and logic only tell us about the subjective world'. That claim is a philosophical claim abut the real world, hence it destroys itself.
Originally posted by ShunyadragonThe fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.
But the claim that 'science has priority over any religious belief' is an absolute truth claim; is also a claim about objective reality which rests on philosophy and logic. So it's in conflict with your second and fourth assumptions.
I think a better axiom would be something like: 'The scientific method is an excellent tool for giving us understanding of the physical world. Conflicts between knowledge claims or truth claims should be examined on a case-by-case basis.'
Originally posted by ShunyadragonThe sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.
I think we can know some things about God. IF there is a God (some all-knowing, all-wise, supremely powerful Being) then surely it's not absolutely impossible for this God to reveal Himself, to some extent, to people. Christianity does teach that there is a lot 'more' to God than we presently know or can understand - the revelation we have is in part and limited by our fallible natures.
The problem with this assumption is that, again, to some degree it contradicts itself: it's a religious doctrine and belief (and therefore cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine) that tells us that the nature of the Divine is such that it cannot be absolutely known.
Overall, I agree to a degree with many of your assumptions, but I think many of them go beyond what you have reasonable grounds to say...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostSince this thread seems to have at least in part been in response to a question I asked you, I feel I owe you a reply.
I think this is problematic as an axiom. I agree that human knowledge is often limited and imperfect, and should be open to revision. However, that is not to say that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. (Here I take 'absolute truth' to mean something that is always true, independent of whether or not people believe it to be.)
If we say that all truth is relative, then is that truth itself relative or not? If it is relative, then some truth is not relative (and the axiom is incorrect). If it is not relative then it contradicts itself ( and again the axiom is incorrect).
Further, in practical terms if we hold this as an axiom, the we have no real rational basis for arguing against someone else's truth, telling them that they are wrong. After all we don't have an absolute truth to give them. So I think that you don't follow this axiom in your interactions on TWeb, Shunya.
Lastly, I think your reasons for holding this axiom are poor. 'There is no absolute truth' doesn't follow from noticing that human beliefs are not (always) perfect or correct, nor does it follow from 'what people have claimed as true has changed over time'. IOW, differences of opinion over the what truth of a proposition is do not prove that there is no truth at all, nor that there are several contradictory 'truths' all equally right. Think of some people arguing over the actual length of a particular piece of string....
A quibble: Reason and logic themselves aren't fallible, it's ourselves and our use of them that is fallible. If maths is reliable then logic is also reliable.
Again, the axiom that 'philosophy and logic are only useful in exploring the subjective' doesn't follow from the fact of people's disagreement about what we can know using philosophy and logic.
Further that axiom is self-contradictory: 'It's a real a fact about the real world that philosophy and logic only tell us about the subjective world'. That claim is a philosophical claim abut the real world, hence it destroys itself.
I consider most other applications of logic to be subjective and limited application to potential knowledge about the nature of our existence. This will require more thought and possible references.
Agreed that science is a great tool for understanding the physical world.
But the claim that 'science has priority over any religious belief' is an absolute truth claim; is also a claim about objective reality which rests on philosophy and logic. So it's in conflict with your second and fourth assumptions.
I think a better axiom would be something like: 'The scientific method is an excellent tool for giving us understanding of the physical world. Conflicts between knowledge claims or truth claims should be examined on a case-by-case basis.'
I think we can know some things about God. IF there is a God (some all-knowing, all-wise, supremely powerful Being) then surely it's not absolutely impossible for this God to reveal Himself, to some extent, to people. Christianity does teach that there is a lot 'more' to God than we presently know or can understand - the revelation we have is in part and limited by our fallible natures.
The problem with this assumption is that, again, to some degree it contradicts itself: it's a religious doctrine and belief (and therefore cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine) that tells us that the nature of the Divine is such that it cannot be absolutely known.
My view of the 'Source' some call God(s) as more apophatic then cataphatic is based this assumption, and I may cite Jewish, Vedic (Hindu), Taoist and Buddhist view of this 'Source.'
Overall, I agree to a degree with many of your assumptions, but I think many of them go beyond what you have reasonable grounds to say.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-26-2014, 03:34 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht
So do you see these transformations happening without awareness of Revelation as some kind of invisible supernatural effect? How do you explain it?
I do not try to definitively explain it.
A few comments about the changes that took place in the world beginning around the period centering on 1844.
(1) The independent belief that prophesy was fulfilled from different religious perspectives in many places in the world that the advent of the Promised One will return and a New Dispensation would begin. (2) The radical changes in science began in the period including the Theory of Evolution. (3) the advent of modern physics and cosmology in scripture. Seven Valleys and Four Valleys "Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun." I doubt that Einstein and other scientists were directly aware of this quotation. At the time it was not accepted by science that the atom was considered the basic unit of matter as described by the Greeks, and the fact that the heart of the atom (nucleus) could be divided with the above consequences. E=mc2
The old worlds are passing away far more painfully and tragically then a 'crisis of faith,' and a new world is unfolding unlike any in the history of humanity.
A review of the thread may inspire questions, and possible requests for clarificationLast edited by shunyadragon; 07-04-2014, 10:27 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
In the discussion of science and religion from the Baha'i perspective I have often been challenged for being accused of taking an unorthodox view. The following is from Stephen Friberg, a Baha'i experimental physicist, who describes in detail the same view as I have in this Huffington Post article.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostBut again shunya, we are talking two different things. I'm talking about creation of the natural world itself, not about creation within the natural world. You seem to keep focusing on the latter. My question was specific: From your perspective, is the natural world itself eternal or is it temporal and created ex nihilo. I think that what you are implying is that the natural world is itself eternal but the laws upon which it operates are created by a distinct and eternal God. Do I have that right? Thats why I asked "where does God enter the picture" from your perspective? Did he create the natural world ex nihilo or did he just engineer that which already existed?
Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2014, 09:05 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThere have been similar threads in the old Tweb, but since the question has come up, because I consider the traditional arguments for God in traditional Christianity bad to the point of being logically outrageous, some have asked if this is how you view the arguments, Why do you believe in God.
The first posting reflects my Foundation Assumptions of why I believe.
Foundations of Belief
Assumptions that form the foundation of what one believes or does not believe. A great deal of debate takes place on beliefs and differences without understanding the underlying assumptions of why people believe. Some of my basic beliefs are included.
The first assumption is the most important, 'consider the universal' in all things as Aristotle proposed in Physica. This amounts to no a priori assumptions on anything including one's own belief system. This assumption relates to my Buddhist leanings, and the view that we can see more clearly if we wipe the slate clean as humanly possible, and consider all the evidence and possibilities.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, the universal, then accept it and live up to it." – Buddha
The second assumption is truth as well as human knowledge is relative and cannot be assumed to be absolute in any way. This assumption is based on the evidence of the nature of human knowledge, and the claims of ‘Truth’ over the millennia.
The third assumption is that the physical existence we perceive through our senses is real, and our reason and logic, though fallible, is sufficiently reliable to trust in our relative knowledge of the objective knowledge of this physical existence. Math is a reliable construct of human logic as a tool to understand our physical existence. This assumption is based on the evidence of reliability of our senses, human reasoning and logic in understanding the nature of our physical existence over the millennia.
The fourth assumption is our understanding of the subjective world beyond the objective physical nature of our existence is limited by our fallible nature, and human understanding of the subjective. Philosophy and logic are useful in exploring the subjective, and understanding our human nature, but remain human constructs of the subjective world of the mind only. This assumption is based on the diversity, and often conflicting and inconsistent subjective beliefs and logical arguments over the millennia.
The fifth assumption is science is the present knowledge we have of our physical existence which evolves with time, and is reliable. It has priority over the understanding of our physical existence over any religious belief including my own. Actually, the Baha'i Faith recognizes this necessary of considering science on the level of Revelation in its own right, and reveals Creation as it is created, and gives it precedence over the interpretation of the Baha'i writings concerning the nature of our physical existence. This relies on the first, second and third assumptions.
The sixth assumption is that IF God exists, God is universal and unknowable in the absolute sense. Doctrines and beliefs of individual religions cannot define the absolute nature of the Divine. The scriptures of the religions of the world reflect a human view of Revelation, and the relationship between humanity, Creation and the Source some call God(s). This is related to the first, second, third and fourth assumptions.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI already admitted that I do not know what I am talking about concerning the oldest physical evidence for the epic, but I was surprised by the (now retracted) allusions to a known author. I was also surprised by the reference to the larger number of ancient texts in closer chronological proximity to the original than exist for texts of the New Testament. I have no expertise to evaluate the quality of these quotes, but here is the first couple of academic source (merely introductory college level) cited in a simple Google search for Gilgamesh + date:
The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE) ...
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl2..._gilgamesh.htm
We can identify three stages in the epic's development. The first begins in roughly 2700 B.C.E. when the historical Gilgamesh ruled in Uruk, a city in ancient Mesopotamia. The earliest written versions of the story date from roughly 2000 B.C.E, but oral versions of the stories both preceded them and continued on, parallel with the written tradition. The language of these materials was Sumerian, the earliest written language in Mesopotamia.
The history of the epic itself begins sometime before 1600 B.C.E., assembled from free translations of the oral versions of some of these tales and put into a connected narrative. By the time of Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E.) the text was essentially stabilized.
http://www.clt.astate.edu/wnarey/Rel..._gilgamesh.htm
From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The fullest extant text of the Gilgamesh epic is on 12 incomplete Akkadian-language tablets found at Nineveh in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (reigned 668–627 bce). The gaps that occur in the tablets have been partly filled by various fragments found elsewhere in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. In addition, five short poems in the Sumerian language are known from tablets that were written during the first half of the 2nd millennium bce; the poems have been titled “Gilgamesh and Huwawa,” “Gilgamesh and the Bull of Heaven,” “Gilgamesh and Agga of Kish,” “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld,” and “The Death of Gilgamesh.”
The Gilgamesh of the poems and of the epic tablets was probably the Gilgamesh who ruled at Uruk in southern Mesopotamia sometime during the first half of the 3rd millennium bce and who was thus a contemporary of Agga ...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...3644/Gilgamesh
The parallels and contrasts (both with respect to authorship, oral tradition, and content) with the 'OT' biblical texts are sometimes striking, but the attempted favorable contrast with dates of NT texts does not seem appropriate. Upon first glance, anyway. I welcome additional information, especially regarding the number of texts uncovered, and corrections, of course.
Check out this as well: http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment