Interestingly, Nineveh is also where the ancient tablets of the Enuma Elish, also known as 'The Seven Tablets of Creation', were found. They predate the Bible, which incidentally borrows elements from for its Creation stories.
So many similarities between the creation story of the ancient gods of Sumeria and the later Judean one.
@OogieBoogie since we don't have the source documents that Missed edited when he composed Genesis it is extremely presumptive to say one predated the other.
@hippyjoe1955 if you want facts - did you know that when the Bible states that:
...that 'Elohim' is a masculine [b]plural[/b] form of the word 'El' (meaning 'one who judges' or ' 'elevated one' Just as cherub becomes the plural Cherubim, And seraph becomes Seraphim.
Sorry this is such small text, i couldn't find the original linguistical paper i learnt this from.
Therefore, the Bible creation story does reiterate the Sumerian one by stating that "In the beginning, the Gods created the Heavens and the Earth.
It was only when the Bible began being translated into English that the word 'Elohim' is roughly translated into the words 'God' or 'Lord'.
Feel free to look up Mauro Biglino. He used to work as a Bible text translator for the Vatican, and specialises in religious texts.
@hippyjoe1955 it is true that there are no original copies of Bible texts to date .
The oldest religious text knowm to be found yet is the Sumerian Kesh Temple Hymn (2600 BCE), which tells of the Annuna gods, esp Nintud (also Ninmah, Nintur, Ninhursag), being the mother of mankind.
She is also mentioned in the Atra Hasis (18th C BCE), another found ancient set of tablets, as creating man from the blood of the gods and clay of the earth.
@OogieBoogie Which again proves nothing. If there are two accounts of the same story it does not mean that one borrowed from the other or that one is older than the other. It simply means that two people gave an account of what they saw or believed. The two accounts were then codified by putting them into writing and thus the two accounts remain two accounts. Yes they likely share some common elements just as they likely have differences. Which one is more accurate? We can't tell by how old a copy we have. In the synoptic gospels we see variances. Is one right and the other wrong? Should we believe Mark's account because it is older than Luke's account or should we believe Luke's account because it is better researched?
@hippyjoe1955 im just showing that for a religion that died out, it has thousands of archiological artifacts, tablets, poems, hymns, temples etc...yet for such a huge long standing relgion lasting till current day, that makes claims of its god's creation of everything - there is very little early evidence of it being found.
And when that religion's book of reference echos the stories of this, (and other fore runner religions), perhaps there [b]are [/b]no early texts of it specifically, as its early texts [b]are [/b] these ancient tablets ? Perhaps it [b]did[/b] draw it's religion from older religions and their gods.🤷
Its really odd that there are so few tablets relating to the Hebrew God YHWH. The oldest known one - an inch in diameter is The Curse Tablet (1200BCE) Which reads :
@OogieBoogie You wouldn't expect to find the original Biblical texts in Nineveh. You would expect to find them in Egypt. The originals were carried by Israel to Egypt where Joseph put them in the royal library. 400 years later Moses, raised as a prince in Egypt came across them and edited them into what we now know as the book of Genesis. Yes there should be similarities since they both record the same events. Yes there will be differences since they are from two different sources. However the foolish part was your initial claim that the texts in Nineveh were the source documents for the Bible. There is no proof of that. Yes the name of Yahweh was known from the beginning. However people like you decided to abandon Him and came up with other gods to worship.
@hippyjoe1955 oh, im talking [b]world wide[/b] archeological finds.
And no, i didnt specify that the Nineveh texts were the source for the bible. i said the bible echoed the earler stories of the Sumerian Annuna tablets, ....and made an hypothesis from the evidence we have found so far. I also noted the fact that there are polytheistic references and language used in the bible. Which is interesting as those earlier religions were polytheitic as well.
You are taking my words and extrapolating a precision i never stated as a fact, and then calling that precise extrapolation foolish . Those are your words, not mine .
As to your last paragraph, that is also an assumption. I never stated what my faith is. I just gave factual evidence and logical hypothesis from that evidence.
And not once did i try to insult you as you have attempted to do to me .
I wonder how you needing being mean factors into your soul....your relgion....and the beliefs that it entails?
Does it align ?
Or do you slip away from God, act nastily, and then claim religious adherence?
@OogieBoogie you have no idea which source is older. That is beyond your ability. Which Bible is more accurate? The Kjv of the 1600s or the NIV of 1990?
@OogieBoogie my point stands. Moses edits may be much more accurate since had better and older sources than the folks of Nineveh. We can't prove either by the age of the artifact.
@hippyjoe1955 But correlation of information found on artifacts, along with geoarcheological, and astroarcheological information helps to match facts and eliminate potential fiction.
Its the very reason writing was invented . To retain facts. To pass on knowledge .
And age IS a type of proof.
If they found the original tablets of the Decalogue, would you disregard them for a more modern version ?
@OogieBoogie what I am saying is Nineveh was formed by the potentate named Nimrod. What potentate didn't rewrite history to make himself more powerful?
@hippyjoe1955 ummm, I'm not sure of ypure aware of all the archeological evidence foimd there, its diversity, and that they show evidence of spanning nearly 1500 + years. Nineveh had multiple leaders, invasions, religions.
If one collects information from only one source, how information does one leave out?
Nineveh is only one spec of the history of mankind. Its not it's defintion
@OogieBoogie and you have no idea if any of their sagas are true. GWB said that Iraq had wmd. If 2000 years from now you found a document saying that do you believe it or not? It has since been shown that GWB was sparing the truth.
@hippyjoe1955 ok, im not going to debate this idea if you bring the idiocy of recent politics into this.
If you cant hold any validity to the correlation of ancient texts to other archeological sciences then you are basically claiming that all ancient information perviously written is false .
@OogieBoogie I am using it as an example. Age does not determine accuracy. A falsehood writing 5000 years ago is still a falsehood. The truth revealed 2000 years ago is still the truth.
