Religious

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Enuma Elish? The reason that monotheism is not found in those writings is that the original oral tradition of monotheism became corrupt. This is what evil mankind does: It corrupts and perverts truth.
(And as a side note to you lurking Catholics out there: This is why scripture and scripture alone is the standard of measure for truth. If we were to accept all oral traditions as the inspired word of God, the bible would be replete with contradictions.)

I find it interesting that atheists will quickly rely upon and give credence to ancient Babylonian writings but totally dismiss Moses' writings which dates back to roughly 1450 BC.

Also, I wonder how all these atheistic eggheads who study ancient history, archaeologists, etc. have determined the unquestionable trustworthiness of the Enuma Elish? How did they determine that those writings weren't also heavily edited and had additions made to them, etc.? Got any ideas on that, Actor?

I won't attempt to dissuade you from distrust of oral Sacred Tradition or defense of sola scriptura. As for me, scripture scholar Joseph Ratzinger does the heavy lifting...

..."the exegete should interpret a text from within the context of the unity of the Bible. Applying this criterion to the interpretation of the six-day creation account, we discover that the creation accounts in the Old Testament — the Hexaemeron is only one of several found in Genesis and in Psalms — are clearly 'movement[s] to clarify the faith' and are not scientific or historical narratives. For instance, Ratzinger notes that a study of the origins of the creation texts in the Wisdom literature especially reveal that they were written to respond to the Hellenistic civilization confronted by the Israelites. Thus, it is not surprising that the human authors of these accounts did not use the image of the six days to assert their faith in the one Creator God. This image would not have been appropriate for their time and would not have been understood by their Greek contemporaries. In contrast, a study of the origins of the Hexaemeron, the six-day account of creation, found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that it was written to respond to the seemingly victorious Babylonian civilization confronted by the Israelites several centuries before their encounter with the Greeks. Here, the human author of the sacred text used images familiar to their pagan contemporaries to refute the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account that claimed that the world was created when Marduk, the god of light, killed the primordial dragon. Thus, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, it is not surprising that nearly every word of the first creation account addresses a particular confusion of the Babylonian age. For instance, when the Sacred Scriptures affirm that in the beginning, the earth was without form and void (cf. Gen. 1:2), the sacred text refutes the existence of a primordial dragon. When they refer to the sun and the moon as lamps that God has hung in the sky for the measurement of time (cf. Gen. 1:14), the text refutes the divinity of these two great celestial bodies believed to be Babylonian gods. These verses, and they are only two of many examples, illustrate the intent of the human author of the Hexaemeron. He wanted to dismantle a pagan myth that was commonplace in Babylon and assert the supremacy of the one Creator God..."

... http://www.hprweb.com/2009/01/readin...ger/#fn-944-13

Or at least, an expert on the Ancient Near East, Victor Hurowitz (page down to Chap 1 for a thorough going-thru)...

http://bgst2.com/lib/pdf/exploring_g...in_context.pdf

..."In light of all this and more, it is impossible to accept today in a simplistic manner the claims of Smith or Delitzsch that the biblical authors took the Babylonian Story of Creation, that is, Enūma Eliš, and simply applied it to YHWH, God of Israel. The specific parallels are fewer than originally thought, and even the best ones are not entirely certain. However, both the Bible and Enūma Eliš are products of the ancient Near East, each accepting common beliefs and knowledge, and each developing them in their own unique manner. They should be studied by modern scholars as mutually illuminating not only for what they hold in common but for the unique ways in which each presents their common heritage."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I won't attempt to dissuade you from distrust of oral Sacred Tradition or defense of sola scriptura. As for me, scripture scholar Joseph Ratzinger does the heavy lifting...

..."the exegete should interpret a text from within the context of the unity of the Bible. Applying this criterion to the interpretation of the six-day creation account, we discover that the creation accounts in the Old Testament — the Hexaemeron is only one of several found in Genesis and in Psalms — are clearly 'movement[s] to clarify the faith' and are not scientific or historical narratives. For instance, Ratzinger notes that a study of the origins of the creation texts in the Wisdom literature especially reveal that they were written to respond to the Hellenistic civilization confronted by the Israelites. Thus, it is not surprising that the human authors of these accounts did not use the image of the six days to assert their faith in the one Creator God. This image would not have been appropriate for their time and would not have been understood by their Greek contemporaries. In contrast, a study of the origins of the Hexaemeron, the six-day account of creation, found in the first chapter of Genesis reveals that it was written to respond to the seemingly victorious Babylonian civilization confronted by the Israelites several centuries before their encounter with the Greeks. Here, the human author of the sacred text used images familiar to their pagan contemporaries to refute the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation account that claimed that the world was created when Marduk, the god of light, killed the primordial dragon. Thus, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, it is not surprising that nearly every word of the first creation account addresses a particular confusion of the Babylonian age. For instance, when the Sacred Scriptures affirm that in the beginning, the earth was without form and void (cf. Gen. 1:2), the sacred text refutes the existence of a primordial dragon. When they refer to the sun and the moon as lamps that God has hung in the sky for the measurement of time (cf. Gen. 1:14), the text refutes the divinity of these two great celestial bodies believed to be Babylonian gods. These verses, and they are only two of many examples, illustrate the intent of the human author of the Hexaemeron. He wanted to dismantle a pagan myth that was commonplace in Babylon and assert the supremacy of the one Creator God..."

... http://www.hprweb.com/2009/01/readin...ger/#fn-944-13

Or at least, an expert on the Ancient Near East, Victor Hurowitz (page down to Chap 1 for a thorough going-thru)...

http://bgst2.com/lib/pdf/exploring_g...in_context.pdf

..."In light of all this and more, it is impossible to accept today in a simplistic manner the claims of Smith or Delitzsch that the biblical authors took the Babylonian Story of Creation, that is, Enūma Eliš, and simply applied it to YHWH, God of Israel. The specific parallels are fewer than originally thought, and even the best ones are not entirely certain. However, both the Bible and Enūma Eliš are products of the ancient Near East, each accepting common beliefs and knowledge, and each developing them in their own unique manner. They should be studied by modern scholars as mutually illuminating not only for what they hold in common but for the unique ways in which each presents their common heritage."

But now the "sacred text" has altogether been supplanted by the profane text of fallen man and his science (so called) of evolution. I guess Jesus was wrong when he said that heaven and earth will pass away but His words will never pass away?

And if want to study the heritages societies, I can buy secular history books for that purpose. But when I want to apprehend spiritual wisdom and knowledge to enhance my relationship with my Creator and Redeemer then I go to the source thereof which is in His book we call the Bible.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

My Rock is much superior, for He guarantees my eternal security. Prudential? Not so much.

At least we have evidence from the secular record that the Prudential Insurance Co. exists. The evidence for your rock is zero.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, I wonder how all these atheistic eggheads who study ancient history, archaeologists, etc. have determined the unquestionable trustworthiness of the Enuma Elish? How did they determine that those writings weren't also heavily edited and had additions made to them, etc.? Got any ideas on that, Actor?

All with extensive bibliographies.

http://www.amazon.com/History-God-00...aren+armstrong

http://www.amazon.com/Dating-Acts-Be...ds=dating+acts

http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Acts-U...5QA4ACTCRM8DAJ

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-C...e+jesus+puzzle

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I see everything in life through the lens of scripture.

Which is out of focus.

Somebody had to say it.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Which is out of focus.

Somebody had to say it.

And if this be true and I'm "out of focus" what does this say about your sight? Remember: in the Land of the Blind, one-eyed men and those with blurry focus are still kings.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

At least we have evidence from the secular record that the Prudential Insurance Co. exists. The evidence for your rock is zero.

Between the biblical record and extra-biblical records, no reasonable person on this planet is able to deny the existence of Jesus Christ. Yes...you might well deny who he was, what he did, etc.-- but no one can reasonably deny his existence and expect to maintain credibility with reasonable men . Even the Jews who hated him for the most part acknowledged and recorded his existence in their extra-biblical works! Below is a partial list of same.

http://beginningandend.com/jesus-exi...-jesus-christ/

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Between the biblical record and extra-biblical records, no reasonable person on this planet is able to deny the existence of Jesus Christ. Yes...you might well deny who he was, what he did, etc.-- but no one can reasonably deny his existence and expect to maintain credibility with reasonable men . Even the Jews who hated him for the most part acknowledged and recorded his existence in their extra-biblical works! Below is a partial list of same.

I have slowly and patiently explained to you on multiple occasions why every one of the works on your list does not qualify as evidence. For me to do so again would be casting pearls before swine.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Between the biblical record and extra-biblical records, no reasonable person on this planet is able to deny the existence of Jesus Christ. Yes...you might well deny who he was, what he did, etc.-- but no one can reasonably deny his existence and expect to maintain credibility with reasonable men . Even the Jews who hated him for the most part acknowledged and recorded his existence in their extra-biblical works! Below is a partial list of same.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/po...tion-of-christ

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/po...tion-of-christ

I believe a response to your trifecta of mythicists has been offered previously, but anyway, they all get attention from atheist historian Tim O'Neill...

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...-to-david.html

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/po...tion-of-christ

Shirley U. Jest! "The thinking atheist"? This is one of the sites that is notoriously infamous for digging up the graves of a gazillion bogeymen that they mistake for bible contradictions. Those great "thinkers" over there wouldn't recognize a bona fide contradiction if it bit them in the arse -- really hard.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I have slowly and patiently explained to you on multiple occasions why every one of the works on your list does not qualify as evidence. For me to do so again would be casting pearls before swine.

Oh! Wondrous Grace! (You see God does perform miracles!) Does this mean we get a very well deserved reprieve? OINK, OINK, OINK.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I believe a response to your trifecta of mythicists has been offered previously, but anyway, they all get attention from atheist historian Tim O'Neill...

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2...-to-david.html

Reading that I feel like I've come in at the middle of a movie.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Shirley U. Jest! "The thinking atheist"? This is one of the sites that is notoriously infamous for digging up the graves of a gazillion bogeymen that they mistake for bible contradictions. Those great "thinkers" over there wouldn't recognize a bona fide contradiction if it bit them in the arse -- really hard.

Do you visit the site often?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I believe a response to your trifecta of mythicists has been offered previously, but anyway, they all get attention from atheist historian Tim O'Neill...

I think you mean trio, not trifecta. A trifecta is a bet.

O'Neill does not seem to actually disagree with the trio so much as to simply say their stuff is not well written.