Re: A rock in the Snowy Range

On Nov 12, 9:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-Seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 12, 7:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-Seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 11, 7:38 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-Seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:41 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 10, 10:19 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-seeing-I wrote:
On Nov 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-Seeing-I wrote:
[snip]
I doubt the earth is 6000 years old as some believe. But I also doubt
the earth is billions of years old too. The creation of Adam and God's
garden may be as old as around 6000 years; But, the earth itself has
existed through several prior eons in one form or another.
The existence of several prior eons lines up with ancient texts as
well as with modern science. Which raises the probability of it being
true.
So why do you doubt that the earth is billions of years old? You seem to
rely on "ancient texts" for all your knowledge. What evidence do you
have that any of your ancient texts are true?
Not all of my knowledge is gleaned from texts.
Science does have it's merits. IOW not /all/ of scientific discovery
is false. Quite the contrary. Scientists have benefited mankind in was
thought impossible just a hundred years ago.
OK. How do you tell when science is false and when it's true?
But having texts that outline man's existence coupled with scientific
discoveries can raise the probability of accuracy because one does not
rely on just one or the other for information.
None of this answers my question. What evidence do you have that any of
your ancient texts are true?
For instance, Alulim was the first king of Eridu in Sumar according to
the Sumerian king list, making him the first known king in the world
at roughly 250,000 years ago.
Science claims between 400000 and 250000 years ago Homo erects evolved
into Homo spines.
We now have a common date for homo.S. shared by science and ancient
texts of around 250,000.
No we don't. The king list is wrong. Eridu is no more than a few
thousand years old. Nor do Sumerian kings have anything to do with the
origin of Homo sapiens. You are putting together a fake number with a
vague real number that happens to resemble it. That's evidence for nothing.
250000 years ago was probably a point of a creation and not a point of
speciation since we have no observations of the speciation taking
place but we do have stories of a creation taking place that, for all
practical purposes, can be assumed correct because we have no evidence
the stories are just "made up". Couple this with other cultures having
traditions about intelligent humans in the same age range.
That's no evidence at all. You are picking what you like and ignoring
what you don't.
Then we have man living in the Carmel Caves around 150,000 years ago.
Adam and Eve were said to lived in "The Cave Of Treasures" when they
departed Eden.
I have no idea what the Carmel Caves are, but what could they possibly
have to do with the Adam & Eve story?
The anecdotal evidence for intelligent man living hundreds of
thousands of years ago is compelling. Science confirms earth had prior
eons.
Science confirms that Sumerian civilization is no more than a few
thousand years old. You reject that. You accept what you want and reject
what you don't, with no rationale except that you like it or don't.
So. Do we believe man evolved even though we have no actual
observation of such, or do we believe what has been recorded as actual
events by a people that had no reason to lie?
Do we believe, then, that Marduk slew Tiamat and made the earth and sky
from her body? Or do you perhaps pick what you like and ignore the rest?
The math is rather simple. We believe the texts first and science
second
That's not math. It's your arbitrary choice. Why believe the texts?
That's the question I asked and you haven't answered.
OK. Let's try a different approach.
If you are going to assert the Sumarian version of man's origins is
all lie shouldn't you at least offer a motive as to why?
No. I don't say it's a lie. I just say it isn't true. But if we need
motives, I'm sure we could think of some. Do you think Joseph Smith
really translated golden tablets with the aid of the urim and thummim?
Think about it. It took great effort to record all that information on
huge and heavy stone tablets.
Just to lie?
No.
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that Marduk slew Tiamat
and made earth and sky from her body? If not, why not? In other words,
why believe the texts, and why believe only those parts you like?
What book are you taking this specific story from?
Stalling? It comes from the Enuma Elish, as you almost certainly know
already. And you still haven't answered any of my questions. Why don't
you ever answer?
Stalling? No. Lack of time for a proper reply? Yes. Why your interest?
I have no idea.
Enuma Elish is a Babalyonian version; It was supposedly written no
later than the reign of Nebuchadrezzar in the 12th century B.C. But
there is little doubt in anyone's mind that this story was written
much earlier during the time of the Sumerians.The Sumerian version of
the tablets of creation is older and more reliable. Why?
Because the translation of the Babylonian version of texts aer not
exact. In some cases the tablets makes reading the text difficult
because of the damage. Some translators leave huge gaps. Others
attempt to reconstruct the text based on what remains and then
traanslate by filling in the blanks with conjecture. Which is
misleading IMO.
In other cases, there are too many interpretations for the same words
in the same translation. Which is like calling a cat a dog using the
same word in the same book.
But the Sumerian version is reliable on all of these same points and
were found in very good condition.
If you want to know about Murduk, it is best to start with the
Sumarian version of these stories if for no other reasons the Sumerian
version is older, it is in better condition and, it is closer to the
time frame the events were suppose to happened.
The Sumerian versions also parallel the Indian folklore and legends in
the over all theme and points of interest such as an ancient war,
ancient nuclear weapons, etc etc... to name just a few.
Having two separate civilizations with legends that have common main
points raises the probability of the events being grounded in some
type of truth IMHO.
The best i recall about Murduk (he is of little interest in my
personal research) is he was chosen by the gods to fight and destroy
Tiamat and her army. So your answer is yes. He killed her.
But latter he was worshiped in Canna which is how Baal (Bel) worship
came about. By that time the stories (such as Enuma Elish ) had
already become somewhat skewed because of the passing of time and
political corruption. I say political corruption because at that time
and in Babylon the rulers were trying to exhault themselves to the
status of gods. (even though they had been trying since the tower of
Babel) Which is another reason the Babylonian version is less
reliable.
So is this cosmic/spiritual battle real? Well, the Hebrews were told
by God to destroy all traces of Baal worship in Canna. Which would be
effectively removing all traces of Murduk. It would also be removing
the last traces of the children born of giants and human women that
were not destroyed in the flood.
Maybe that was payback for Murduk killing Tiamat and her army.
God's plan has always been to remove the corruption that the fallen
Angels brought to the earth. God even said in the Garden that he was
going to put strife between human seed and the seed of the fallen
Angles AKA the serpent.
Removing Murduk's influence in Canna would be part of that removal
process.
Now, since God plainly states in the bible that he planned to use the
Hebrews to save the world, and, since the Hebrews did go into Canna
and remove all influence of Murduk and the remnants of the children of
the giants, we can assume God's plan is in effect.
That didn't answer the question at all, but in a very long-winded
fashion. You seem to think there's something wrong with the Sumerian
ancient text, and that Marduk didn't make the earth and sky using
Tiamat's body. Why don't you believe that ancient text? What reason
would the Sumerians have to lie?

heh... you are kidding right?

The entire post stressed that the SUMARIAN version was correct  I
plainly stated "So your answer is yes. He killed her."

The only Sumerian story I can find is highly fragmentary. It was found
in bad condition, and I know of nothing that tells us translations of
Sumerian are any better than translations of Babylonian. All the
Sumerian fragment says is that four gods created the Sumerians and the
animals. Nothing about how the world was created (which was presumably
on a missing section).

And what evidence leads you to believe that the Sumerian version is a
true story, and the Babylonian version isn't? ...

read more

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Age of the Earth today
    ... Ancient priest were the most powerful people in their nation; ... genetic code passed on by knowledge, language, texts. ... Age of Earth is connected to powers of 2 as any time scale in Universe ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Anything is possible
    ... Please bear in mind that most ancient texts are rifle with metaphor. ... "Enlil removed heaven from earth in order to make room for seeds to ... Is this when animals were all supposed to be able to speak? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A rock in the Snowy Range
    ... the earth is billions of years old too. ... The existence of several prior eons lines up with ancient texts as ... Nor do Sumerian kings have anything to do with the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A rock in the Snowy Range
    ... the earth is billions of years old too. ... The existence of several prior eons lines up with ancient texts as ... Nor do Sumerian kings have anything to do with the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A rock in the Snowy Range
    ... the earth is billions of years old too. ... The existence of several prior eons lines up with ancient texts as ... Nor do Sumerian kings have anything to do with the ...
    (talk.origins)