On The Reliability of The Old Testament

[Meriweather]

“A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact plagiarized material, particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians – the inventors of writing. The story of Noah and the flood story, the creation of man out of clay, Cain and Abel, the gardens of Eden, the tree of knowledge, creation of Eve from Adams rib, and numerous other myths, like the throwing of Moses in the river after he was born, are all but stories found recorded on Sumerian clay tablets dating 5000 years back in time”

… This has long been common knowledge amongst the scholars of history, archeology and anthropology, but I find it extremely necessary today, in the so called information age, to drag it out of the academic realm and expose it in the open before the public eyes.

Maybe you are behind in the times. This has been known for ages...heard it when I was a child. As you mention above "This has long been common knowledge..." What is new is claiming the Hebrews "plagiarized" it. You need to add that long before these stories were written down by the Sumerians, they were passed through the land and the people via the spoken word. That some people recorded these stories in Sumerian and others in Hebrew, etc., doesn't make them plagiarized. Further, simply because one tribe wrote the account down before another tribe learned to write does not mean the story originated with them. Impossible to know. Equally possible that a people who broke off from the Sumerians evolved into the Hebrew tribe(s). Or...or...or... (On and on) There is much we don't know and therefore we develop theories that may or may not be correct. In any case, it is an interesting exercise.

 

[Votto]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

What's the proof for the 40 day flood?

Why are you asking me? Did I say anything about proving a 40-day flood?

Get a life, ya broken record ya.

Well you said "If only Christians would believe the Scriptures." So like, maybe if you could prove the Flood, that would help?

Two asteroids struck in the polar regions ~10,000 years ago instantly vaporizing 1500 gigatons of ice into the stratosphere resulting in worldwide flooding events.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

Doesn't mention a flood. You suck at this.

In every ancient culture, you will find a great flood story. Something happened back then. The Nile River, which runs thru Egypt, overflows it's banks every year.

Logic won't work on Taz.

Logic isn’t proof. Despite what you think.

Did you use logic to arrive at that, dummy?

You have nothing, don't be mad, get a clue! Cocksucker.

Hold on... I'm still laughing about your logic isn't proof comment.

Real proof rests on empirical facts, not opinions.

There are several ancient stories about a great flood in that region.

The thing to take away from this is, there was a great flood. Simply knowing what a flood is, along with the various accounts of a great flood, means there was one.

It is then up to you to decide how great of a flood it was.

 

[Votto]

New Testament, Old Testament.

”Meet the new fairy tale, same as the old fairy tale”

The Hebrew people were an educated people, and as such, wrote down their history. Not only did they write it down, they were able to save it over the millennia. This is a very rare thing, in fact, so rare that the Hebrew Bible recorded things that were otherwise unknown, such as the existence of the Philistine people. This has been recognized by science as Biblical Archeology was created by scientists to try and use the religious text as source to unearth archeological finds. So they read about the Philistines in the Bible, and then went digging and found them. This is one of many valuable finds thanks to the Biblical account that has enough veracity for scientists to study and use.

So your assertion is a blatant lie, at least, according to science. In fact, the Bible is the only religious text that has a scientific discipline has based itself upon.

There is no other.

 

[Votto]

All were written hundreds of years apart. Doesn’t inspire confidence.

What does not inspire confidence is for one man to sit down and write an entire holy book, or have just one man make "corrections" of a holy book.

What inspires more confidence is for two to write about the same God.

What enspires even more confidence is for three to give the same acount.

Even more confidence, four people. The Bible is written by a myriad of people over centuries that all point to the same God.

And to have other people write about you, as Jesus did, not writing down anything himself, inspires even more confidence.

That is why eye witness testimony and corroborating testimony is used as evidence in a court of law.

 

[MarcATL]

Got proof of the 40 day flood?

We have evidence.

Got proof that fossils are millions of years old?

 

[Votto]

Got proof of the 40 day flood?

We have evidence.

Got proof that fossils are millions of years old?

Proof of anything is a conundrum.

If you want a proof, take a math class, otherwise, you are simply trying to assess evidence and making some sense of it the best you can.

 

[Hawkins]

A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact plagiarized material, particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians

This is a claim without support, unless you are a conspiracy buyer. History itself cannot be proven. It relies on faith to believe. Flood stories are all over the world, no one can possibly verify who is copying from whom, especially on how long the stories were carried by word of mouth before it is formally written down and who wrote them down, legitimately or not!

The possibilities are, if a God exists and He chose to authenticate the Hebrews' version of the flood, then the truth is on the Hebrews' side disregarding what was written by the Sumerians. What makes you think that the Sumerians' stories are more legit than the Jewish records? What even makes you think that the Sumerians' stories were written earlier before the stories flew among the Jews or their ancestors?

In a nutshell, humand don't (yes, I say don't and take this seriously) have the ability to verify a history especially a piece of ancient history. The Bible on the other hand is an advocate that a God exists and authenticated the Jewish version of the story. It is always an emphasis of the Abrahamic religion that faith is required, while by the very nature of history itself it is true that faith is required as emphasized by the Bible but overlooked by almost all humans. More likely then the Bible (or its author behind) knows better than any humans who don't know the fact that faith is a must in order to interpret a piece of history!

 

[Votto]

A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact plagiarized material, particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians

This is a claim without support, unless you are a conspiracy buyer. History itself cannot be proven. It relies on faith to believe. Flood stories are all over the world, no one can possibly verify who is copying from whom, especially on how long the stories were carried by word of mouth before it is formally written down and who wrote them down, legitimately or not!

The possibilities are, if a God exists and He chose to authenticate the Hebrews' version of the flood, then the truth is on the Hebrews' side disregarding what was written by the Sumerians. What makes you think that the Sumerians' stories are more legit than the Jewish records? What even makes you think that the Sumerians' stories were written earlier before the stories flew among the Jews or their ancestors?

In a nutshell, humand don't (yes, I say don't and take this seriously) have the ability to verify a history especially a piece of ancient history. The Bible on the other hand is an advocate that a God exists and authenticated the Jewish version of the story. It is always an emphasis of the Abrahamic religion that faith is required, while by the very nature of history itself it is true that faith is required as emphasized by the Bible but overlooked by almost all humans. More likely then the Bible (or its author behind) knows better than any humans who don't know the fact that faith is a must in order to interpret a piece of history!

Looking just at scripture, it would appear that proving God exists has nothing really to do with faith in God.

For example, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the garden, but lost faith and sinned.

The Hebrew nation saw God pour the plagues on the land, saw him split the Red Sea for them to cross, saw manna come from heaven to feed them, then lost faith and built a golden calf to worhip instead.

So as we see, faith in God has nothing to do with believing he exists, and everything to do with us placing our lives in his hands because we believe him to be benevolent and all powerful and all knowing.

So what good does it God or us to prove he exists?

Apparently, no good at all.

 

[Taz]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

What's the proof for the 40 day flood?

Why are you asking me? Did I say anything about proving a 40-day flood?

Get a life, ya broken record ya.

Well you said "If only Christians would believe the Scriptures." So like, maybe if you could prove the Flood, that would help?

Two asteroids struck in the polar regions ~10,000 years ago instantly vaporizing 1500 gigatons of ice into the stratosphere resulting in worldwide flooding events.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

Doesn't mention a flood. You suck at this.

In every ancient culture, you will find a great flood story. Something happened back then. The Nile River, which runs thru Egypt, overflows it's banks every year.

Logic won't work on Taz.

Logic isn’t proof. Despite what you think.

Did you use logic to arrive at that, dummy?

You have nothing, don't be mad, get a clue! Cocksucker.

Hold on... I'm still laughing about your logic isn't proof comment.

Real proof rests on empirical facts, not opinions.

There are several ancient stories about a great flood in that region.

The thing to take away from this is, there was a great flood. Simply knowing what a flood is, along with the various accounts of a great flood, means there was one.

It is then up to you to decide how great of a flood it was.

Up to me? I thought that the Bible spelled things out for people. Now, everyone can decide for themselves what the Bible means? That's loopy.

 

[Taz]

Got proof of the 40 day flood?

We have evidence.

Got proof that fossils are millions of years old?

What's the evidence of a worldwide, 40 day flood?

 

[ding]

40 days signifies a long time not 40 days 40 days.

 

[jwoodie]

You know the funny thing about this thread is that those who profess to be born agains Christians are actually under the New Covanant which is the New Testament. When they accepted Christ the old was put away.

Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.

 

[MaryAnne11]

You know the funny thing about this thread is that those who profess to be born agains Christians are actually under the New Covanant which is the New Testament. When they accepted Christ the old was put away.

Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.

He also put us in a New Covenant. The old was put away! You would be wise to study the New!

 

[jwoodie]

You know the funny thing about this thread is that those who profess to be born agains Christians are actually under the New Covanant which is the New Testament. When they accepted Christ the old was put away.

Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.

He also put us in a New Covenant. The old was put away! You would be wise to study the New!

He also made a new covenant after the flood. Should the prior verses of Genesis be put away too?

 

[Votto]

Why should it not be reliable? Don't we rely on ancient Egyptian writings?

Yes, besides from digging through the ruins, we learn much about ancient Egypt through the eyes of ancient Egyptians. Likewise, the Old Testament is ancient Israel's account of ancient Israel. And much of it coincides with what modern historians have discovered about it.

Much about ancient Israel that does not coincide with modern history books is not history in the traditional sense to begin with. Jesus and St. Paul, for example, taught a resurrection from it contrary to what the Pharisees taught. The corporeal resurrection of the Pharisees would and should mount its truth claims on historical documentation, and it would fall short. The new life in God, on the other hand, of Christ and the apostles defies historical documentation.

If only Christians would believe the Scriptures.

What's the proof for the 40 day flood?

Why are you asking me? Did I say anything about proving a 40-day flood?

Get a life, ya broken record ya.

Well you said "If only Christians would believe the Scriptures." So like, maybe if you could prove the Flood, that would help?

Two asteroids struck in the polar regions ~10,000 years ago instantly vaporizing 1500 gigatons of ice into the stratosphere resulting in worldwide flooding events.

Science | AAAS

advances.sciencemag.org

Doesn't mention a flood. You suck at this.

In every ancient culture, you will find a great flood story. Something happened back then. The Nile River, which runs thru Egypt, overflows it's banks every year.

Logic won't work on Taz.

Logic isn’t proof. Despite what you think.

Did you use logic to arrive at that, dummy?

You have nothing, don't be mad, get a clue! Cocksucker.

Hold on... I'm still laughing about your logic isn't proof comment.

Real proof rests on empirical facts, not opinions.

There are several ancient stories about a great flood in that region.

The thing to take away from this is, there was a great flood. Simply knowing what a flood is, along with the various accounts of a great flood, means there was one.

It is then up to you to decide how great of a flood it was.

Up to me? I thought that the Bible spelled things out for people. Now, everyone can decide for themselves what the Bible means? That's loopy.

Things are not exactly "spelled out". That was never the intent. Case in point is the Messianic mystery. Let me splain.

Interestingly, Jesus not only did not write about himself, neither did he did not go around saying who and what he was.

Jesus sat his disciples down and asked them, "Who do you think I am?"

Only Peter got it right. Peter said that he was the Son of God, but Jesus said that the Father had revealed this to him, he did not figure it out on his own. However, the most confusing part is when Jesus commanded not to tell anyone, at least not yet. That way they would not come for him to put him on the cross for blasphemy, at least not yet because his time had not yet come.

And the same question is put to all of us. Who is this person called Jesus? All religions point to him as a man of God, there is no other that can say that.

So who do you say he was?

 

[Thoth001]

A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact plagiarized material, particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians

This is a claim without support, unless you are a conspiracy buyer. History itself cannot be proven. It relies on faith to believe. Flood stories are all over the world, no one can possibly verify who is copying from whom, especially on how long the stories were carried by word of mouth before it is formally written down and who wrote them down, legitimately or not!

The possibilities are, if a God exists and He chose to authenticate the Hebrews' version of the flood, then the truth is on the Hebrews' side disregarding what was written by the Sumerians. What makes you think that the Sumerians' stories are more legit than the Jewish records? What even makes you think that the Sumerians' stories were written earlier before the stories flew among the Jews or their ancestors?

In a nutshell, humand don't (yes, I say don't and take this seriously) have the ability to verify a history especially a piece of ancient history. The Bible on the other hand is an advocate that a God exists and authenticated the Jewish version of the story. It is always an emphasis of the Abrahamic religion that faith is required, while by the very nature of history itself it is true that faith is required as emphasized by the Bible but overlooked by almost all humans. More likely then the Bible (or its author behind) knows better than any humans who don't know the fact that faith is a must in order to interpret a piece of history!

Looking just at scripture, it would appear that proving God exists has nothing really to do with faith in God.

For example, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the garden, but lost faith and sinned.

The Hebrew nation saw God pour the plagues on the land, saw him split the Red Sea for them to cross, saw manna come from heaven to feed them, then lost faith and built a golden calf to worhip instead.

So as we see, faith in God has nothing to do with believing he exists, and everything to do with us placing our lives in his hands because we believe him to be benevolent and all powerful and all knowing.

So what good does it God or us to prove he exists?

Apparently, no good at all.

Great points. And I am more inclined to believe if this god of the Bible Yahweh did exist he was part off of the Annunaki or some alien race that came down here to mess with the human's DNA and control them.

In reading some of the Sumerian stories I think their is a chance that Yahweh could have been Enlil. Since he created the flood because he was tired of the humans being so loud. But, I do know there are many other explanations.

 

[Thoth001]

You know the funny thing about this thread is that those who profess to be born agains Christians are actually under the New Covanant which is the New Testament. When they accepted Christ the old was put away.

Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament.

Did you ever think that maybe the entities that put the NT together had the collections of the older stories in the OT? There is actually a lot of information on how the Piso family of Rome created the NT.

"The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso family, who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist- are all fictional."
Abelard Reuchlin

More info on the Piso family:

The Piso Family and the Story of The Bible

 

[Votto]

A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact plagiarized material, particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians

This is a claim without support, unless you are a conspiracy buyer. History itself cannot be proven. It relies on faith to believe. Flood stories are all over the world, no one can possibly verify who is copying from whom, especially on how long the stories were carried by word of mouth before it is formally written down and who wrote them down, legitimately or not!

The possibilities are, if a God exists and He chose to authenticate the Hebrews' version of the flood, then the truth is on the Hebrews' side disregarding what was written by the Sumerians. What makes you think that the Sumerians' stories are more legit than the Jewish records? What even makes you think that the Sumerians' stories were written earlier before the stories flew among the Jews or their ancestors?

In a nutshell, humand don't (yes, I say don't and take this seriously) have the ability to verify a history especially a piece of ancient history. The Bible on the other hand is an advocate that a God exists and authenticated the Jewish version of the story. It is always an emphasis of the Abrahamic religion that faith is required, while by the very nature of history itself it is true that faith is required as emphasized by the Bible but overlooked by almost all humans. More likely then the Bible (or its author behind) knows better than any humans who don't know the fact that faith is a must in order to interpret a piece of history!

Looking just at scripture, it would appear that proving God exists has nothing really to do with faith in God.

For example, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the garden, but lost faith and sinned.

The Hebrew nation saw God pour the plagues on the land, saw him split the Red Sea for them to cross, saw manna come from heaven to feed them, then lost faith and built a golden calf to worhip instead.

So as we see, faith in God has nothing to do with believing he exists, and everything to do with us placing our lives in his hands because we believe him to be benevolent and all powerful and all knowing.

So what good does it God or us to prove he exists?

Apparently, no good at all.

Great points. And I am more inclined to believe if this god of the Bible Yahweh did exist he was part off of the Annunaki or some alien race that came down here to mess with the human's DNA and control them.

In reading some of the Sumerian stories I think their is a chance that Yahweh could have been Enlil. Since he created the flood because he was tired of the humans being so loud. But, I do know there are many other explanations.

I never understood those who reject the notion of God but readily accept the notion of alien life. Why accept one but not the other? I suppose it all hinges on the accepted notion that life can just spontaneously evolve but the thought of an eternal God seems absurd to many. But as we gaze across a seemingly lifeless universe and are unable to manufacture but one living cell on our own, the thought of life spontaneously coming to fruiting seems absurd to me.


Anyway, IF there is a God he would be fully capable of controlling us as he saw fit. The question becomes, why are we all not controlled by him 100%? We are allowed freedom, that is as much as man does not take from us which often means we later become slaves in some form or fashion, but it is God who gives us free and man who takes it from us. In fact, in human history the vast majority of men have been slaves to other men.

But the Bible is a story of liberation, beginning with Moses leading his people out of slavery in Egypt. Then it was Christ coming to give people hope and liberation under a despotic Roman occupation, etc. promising a hopeful future at some point.

So again, why do we have free will and why do we crave it so? The answer can be seen in the teaching that God is love. Love demands choice. Love is impossible between two parties so long as one or the other cannot freely love the other back by their own free will. So God allows his creation to reject him as well as accept him.

Put another way, imagine you are God. You can create and control anything and everything. In effect, it would be like playing tic tac toe with yourself all day. However, give a creation free will and it all instantly has appeal and interest and meaning, no matter how insignificant they may appear in relation to a massive and eternal universe.

 

[Thoth001]

A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact plagiarized material, particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians

This is a claim without support, unless you are a conspiracy buyer. History itself cannot be proven. It relies on faith to believe. Flood stories are all over the world, no one can possibly verify who is copying from whom, especially on how long the stories were carried by word of mouth before it is formally written down and who wrote them down, legitimately or not!

The possibilities are, if a God exists and He chose to authenticate the Hebrews' version of the flood, then the truth is on the Hebrews' side disregarding what was written by the Sumerians. What makes you think that the Sumerians' stories are more legit than the Jewish records? What even makes you think that the Sumerians' stories were written earlier before the stories flew among the Jews or their ancestors?

In a nutshell, humand don't (yes, I say don't and take this seriously) have the ability to verify a history especially a piece of ancient history. The Bible on the other hand is an advocate that a God exists and authenticated the Jewish version of the story. It is always an emphasis of the Abrahamic religion that faith is required, while by the very nature of history itself it is true that faith is required as emphasized by the Bible but overlooked by almost all humans. More likely then the Bible (or its author behind) knows better than any humans who don't know the fact that faith is a must in order to interpret a piece of history!

Looking just at scripture, it would appear that proving God exists has nothing really to do with faith in God.

For example, Adam and Eve walked and talked with God in the garden, but lost faith and sinned.

The Hebrew nation saw God pour the plagues on the land, saw him split the Red Sea for them to cross, saw manna come from heaven to feed them, then lost faith and built a golden calf to worhip instead.

So as we see, faith in God has nothing to do with believing he exists, and everything to do with us placing our lives in his hands because we believe him to be benevolent and all powerful and all knowing.

So what good does it God or us to prove he exists?

Apparently, no good at all.

Great points. And I am more inclined to believe if this god of the Bible Yahweh did exist he was part off of the Annunaki or some alien race that came down here to mess with the human's DNA and control them.

In reading some of the Sumerian stories I think their is a chance that Yahweh could have been Enlil. Since he created the flood because he was tired of the humans being so loud. But, I do know there are many other explanations.

I never understood those who reject the notion of God but readily accept the notion of alien life. Why accept one but not the other? I suppose it all hinges on the accepted notion that life can just spontaneously evolve but the thought of an eternal God seems absurd to many. But as we gaze across a seemingly lifeless universe and are unable to manufacture but one living cell on our own, the thought of life spontaneously coming to fruiting seems absurd to me.


Anyway, IF there is a God he would be fully capable of controlling us as he saw fit. The question becomes, why are we all not controlled by him 100%? We are allowed freedom, that is as much as man does not take from us which often means we later become slaves in some form or fashion, but it is God who gives us free and man who takes it from us. In fact, in human history the vast majority of men have been slaves to other men.

But the Bible is a story of liberation, beginning with Moses leading his people out of slavery in Egypt. Then it was Christ coming to give people hope and liberation under a despotic Roman occupation, etc. promising a hopeful future at some point.

So again, why do we have free will and why do we crave it so? The answer can be seen in the teaching that God is love. Love demands choice. Love is impossible between two parties so long as one or the other cannot freely love the other back by their own free will. So God allows his creation to reject him as well as accept him.

Put another way, imagine you are God. You can create and control anything and everything. In effect, it would be like playing tic tac toe with yourself all day. However, give a creation free will and it all instantly has appeal and interest and meaning, no matter how insignificant they may appear in relation to a massive and eternal universe.

Yes, the Script-ure is just a story and sure just like Aesops fables the Bible can teach some values also. Just because someone don't follow the Bible god don't mean they don't believe in a higher power of some sort. They just choose not to follow a dictator that demands worship. What kind of loving God demands worship by the way?

And if you don't think their are aliens as big as the Universe is, then I really don't know what to tell you. Just keep following your god in a book. That is your choice. And actually if you actually read some of the tales in the Bible there are many tales of aliens and giants. Why don't you try reading the Bible for once.

 

[MarcATL]

You know the funny thing about this thread is that those who profess to be born agains Christians are actually under the New Covanant which is the New Testament. When they accepted Christ the old was put away.

No ot wasn't "put away." Scripture states that it was fulfilled.

Look up the definition of fulfilled.