Eden Garden of the GodS

[ding]

Not really the same thing.

Of course it's the same thing. And it's not faith, it's just an evidence-based determination. A bet, if you will. I would never, for instance, bet my life savings that my seat belt will work perfectly in the next accident.

No really dude, just give it up. this sort of evidence-based determination is not the same as your magical faith. Stop trying to equate them; it won't work. Just be happy with your faith, and be proud of it. or don't.

Of course for a guy who puts so much faith in science it is surprising you crap all over it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unless you saw it tested it to it's rated capacity with your own eyes, you are taking it on faith.

Not true at all. I know I could be wrong. A bet, for instance, is not, "faith"; in the case of the seat beltit's just a determination so that you can make your next move.

So, this is what you have been reduced to.... unable to elevate your faith to the status of evidence-based knowledge, you are now forced to denigrate your faith by equating it to the assumption that a seat belt will probably work, and so driving your car. Really? that is the depth of your faith?

Of course, it is not. so stop doing this to yourself.

 

[Picaro]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

 

[Picaro]

Not really the same thing.

Of course it's the same thing. And it's not faith, it's just an evidence-based determination. A bet, if you will. I would never, for instance, bet my life savings that my seat belt will work perfectly in the next accident.

No really dude, just give it up. this sort of evidence-based determination is not the same as your magical faith. Stop trying to equate them; it won't work. Just be happy with your faith, and be proud of it. or don't.

Of course for a guy who puts so much faith in science it is surprising you crap all over it.

lol indeed; that's what is so hilarious about these mentally ill deviants when they go on and on about their 'rationalism n stuff', when they clearly aren't even remotely 'rational' about anything.

 

[TNHarley]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

 

[Taz]

Doesn't he run a few hospitals?

Who raped you?
You’re way too angry to claim the intellectual high ground.

Why are you so obsessed with rape? That a regular thing at the synagogue?

Why are you so angry when it comes to religion?
There are very few answers to this question.

You're the angry one. I use the smily face almost every time. I'm just asking questions to people of faith, nobody seems to have any real answers.

If your post represents your actual thought process you need help really bad.

Why? I'm talking about faith with people of faith because the subject of how reasonably intelligent adults can believe in fairy tales. I find that topic fascinating, and I've also always been on a personal quest to try to figure things out for myself. And I fail to see where I'm angry or anything like that.

 

[ding]

Unless you saw it tested it to it's rated capacity with your own eyes, you are taking it on faith.

Not true at all. I know I could be wrong. A bet, for instance, is not, "faith"; in the case of the seat beltit's just a determination so that you can make your next move.

So, this is what you have been reduced to.... unable to elevate your faith to the status of evidence-based knowledge, you are now forced to denigrate your faith by equating it to the assumption that a seat belt will probably work, and so driving your car. Really? that is the depth of your faith?

Of course, it is not. so stop doing this to yourself.

Are you making a bet when you use the crosswalk and a car is approaching? Or do you accept ot on faith that the car will stop. Do you have complete trust or confidence that the driver will stop? Or are you betting he will?

I don't over complicate the meaning of faith. The definition is pretty clear.

faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

 

[Indeependent]

Who raped you?
You’re way too angry to claim the intellectual high ground.

Why are you so obsessed with rape? That a regular thing at the synagogue?

Why are you so angry when it comes to religion?
There are very few answers to this question.

You're the angry one. I use the smily face almost every time. I'm just asking questions to people of faith, nobody seems to have any real answers.

If your post represents your actual thought process you need help really bad.

Why? I'm talking about faith with people of faith because the subject of how reasonably intelligent adults can believe in fairy tales. I find that topic fascinating, and I've also always been on a personal quest to try to figure things out for myself. And I fail to see where I'm angry or anything like that.

Do an Aish Hatorah Discovery Weekend and you will see all the proof you need...and more.
And yes, many non-Jews do it.
I can’t take you through Scriptural history on a message board.
And no, it has nothing to do with “feeling” the spirit.

 

[ding]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

How many times do you need to be told, TN. It is proof they all descended from a common people and belief. The first eleven chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common.

 

[TNHarley]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

How many times do you need to be told, TN. It is proof they all descended from a common people and belief. The first eleven chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common.

It is NOT proof dingbat
If it is (hypothetically), you are admitting that abrahamic religions branched off from a religion with hundreds of gods. Do you understand that?

 

[Picaro]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

 

[ding]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

How many times do you need to be told, TN. It is proof they all descended from a common people and belief. The first eleven chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common.

It is NOT proof dingbat
If it is (hypothetically), you are admitting that abrahamic religions branched off from a religion with hundreds of gods. Do you understand that?

Of course it is proof, dumbass. They all have the same accounts, the timeline is correct relative to the events and the migration from the cradle of civilization, and it is infinitely more credible than your half ass theory that they ripped them off. Think about the logistics of what you are saying. So no, I don't understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Your ability to process information is poisoned by your bias for an outcome.

 

[TNHarley]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

Oh, so its history, a family of gods created humans.

 

[ding]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

Oh, so its history, a family of gods created humans.

Why don't you explain your timeline how Abraham ripped off the Sumerians? And then explained how the account was captured as symbols in the Chinese language, 1500 years before Moses penned them? Who did they rip off, TN?

 

[TNHarley]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

How many times do you need to be told, TN. It is proof they all descended from a common people and belief. The first eleven chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common.

It is NOT proof dingbat
If it is (hypothetically), you are admitting that abrahamic religions branched off from a religion with hundreds of gods. Do you understand that?

Of course it is proof, dumbass. They all have the same accounts, the timeline is correct relative to the events and the migration from the cradle of civilization, and it is infinitely more credible than you half ass theory that they ripped them off. Think about the logistics of what you are saying. So no, I don't understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Your ability to process information is poisoned by your bias for an outcome.

They dont have the same accounts you stupid fuck!
Jesus fucking CHRIST you are a hack beyond belief.
Your "cradle of civilization" is 1000 years younger than the sumerian texts. The sumerian religion is a thousand years older than when abrahamic religions think the world was even created.
There is no proof in any of this dumbass. Its all faith.
YOU are intellectually dishonest.

 

[TNHarley]

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

The first man was created in Eden. It was located between the Tigris and Euphrates river. It contained rare stones. It had a tree of life. A woman was made to help the first man populate the earth.
Does this sound familiar? It should. It sounds awfully close to the abrahamic version of the garden of eden. But this isnt an abrahamic story. It is a sumerian story that was recorded in 2500BC or so.
I was just reading about it. Pretty interesting.
The god that made the first man, made the first woman behind his brothers back. Which, in turn, led to a great conflict between them. Enlil was the brother. The Earth was his domain. He became the enemy of humans.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

Oh, so its history, a family of gods created humans.

Why don't you explain your timeline how Abraham ripped off the Sumerians? And then explained how the account was captured as symbols in the Chinese language, 1500 years before Moses penned them? Who did they rip off, TN?

I didnt say he ripped of the sumerians. Picaro did. Try reading, dumbfuck.
Dont give me that chinese bullshit again, you dishonest hack. The person that "figured that out" said it wasnt accurate and shouldnt be referenced. But your dishonest ass has to cling to WHATEVER you can.

 

[ding]

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

How many times do you need to be told, TN. It is proof they all descended from a common people and belief. The first eleven chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common.

It is NOT proof dingbat
If it is (hypothetically), you are admitting that abrahamic religions branched off from a religion with hundreds of gods. Do you understand that?

Of course it is proof, dumbass. They all have the same accounts, the timeline is correct relative to the events and the migration from the cradle of civilization, and it is infinitely more credible than you half ass theory that they ripped them off. Think about the logistics of what you are saying. So no, I don't understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Your ability to process information is poisoned by your bias for an outcome.

They dont have the same accounts you stupid fuck!
Jesus fucking CHRIST you are a hack beyond belief.
Your "cradle of civilization" is 1000 years younger than the sumerian texts. The sumerian religion is a thousand years older than when abrahamic religions think the world was even created.
There is no proof in any of this dumbass. Its all faith.
YOU are intellectually dishonest.

No, TN, I've already shown you the timeline.

Maybe it's the whole BC AD thing that is throwing you off. The Sumerians and the Chinese recorded their accounts ~1500 years before Moses did. It was recorded after the great flood and after the great migration.

 

[TNHarley]

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

How many times do you need to be told, TN. It is proof they all descended from a common people and belief. The first eleven chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common.

It is NOT proof dingbat
If it is (hypothetically), you are admitting that abrahamic religions branched off from a religion with hundreds of gods. Do you understand that?

Of course it is proof, dumbass. They all have the same accounts, the timeline is correct relative to the events and the migration from the cradle of civilization, and it is infinitely more credible than you half ass theory that they ripped them off. Think about the logistics of what you are saying. So no, I don't understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Your ability to process information is poisoned by your bias for an outcome.

They dont have the same accounts you stupid fuck!
Jesus fucking CHRIST you are a hack beyond belief.
Your "cradle of civilization" is 1000 years younger than the sumerian texts. The sumerian religion is a thousand years older than when abrahamic religions think the world was even created.
There is no proof in any of this dumbass. Its all faith.
YOU are intellectually dishonest.

No, TN, I've already shown you the timeline.

Maybe it's the whole BC AD thing that is throwing you off. The Sumerians and the Chinese recorded their accounts ~1500 years before Moses did. It was recorded after the great flood and after the great migration.

LOL ok have a wonderful day

 

[Indeependent]

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

How many times do you need to be told, TN. It is proof they all descended from a common people and belief. The first eleven chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common.

It is NOT proof dingbat
If it is (hypothetically), you are admitting that abrahamic religions branched off from a religion with hundreds of gods. Do you understand that?

Of course it is proof, dumbass. They all have the same accounts, the timeline is correct relative to the events and the migration from the cradle of civilization, and it is infinitely more credible than you half ass theory that they ripped them off. Think about the logistics of what you are saying. So no, I don't understand how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Your ability to process information is poisoned by your bias for an outcome.

They dont have the same accounts you stupid fuck!
Jesus fucking CHRIST you are a hack beyond belief.
Your "cradle of civilization" is 1000 years younger than the sumerian texts. The sumerian religion is a thousand years older than when abrahamic religions think the world was even created.
There is no proof in any of this dumbass. Its all faith.
YOU are intellectually dishonest.

No, TN, I've already shown you the timeline.

Maybe it's the whole BC AD thing that is throwing you off. The Sumerians and the Chinese recorded their accounts ~1500 years before Moses did. It was recorded after the great flood and after the great migration.

The Chinese believe all non-Chinese are aliens.

 

[ding]

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

Abraham was alleged to be from there, so why is it supposed to be odd that the founder of the Jewish tribes would have the same history? Is this some sort of retarded stoner argument that Judaism's version is fake because it isn't made up entirely different from the alleged Sumerian versions??? lol in order to be genuine they're required to make up an entirely different history??? Just stick with hitting the bong, and leave the attempts at logic to others.

In any case, it's entirely an allegorical lesson, whether 'Sumerian' or not, no evidence whatsoever the stories originated with Sumerians in the first place, and its meanings are multiple and rather sophisticated lead ins to even more complexities. And, Abraham didn't come from Ur, he came from a region in what is now southeastern Turkey; the assumption he came from the East, the Babylonian region, is a left over and incorrect assumption made by the discoverer of the ruins of Ur making bombastic, self-promoting claims that had no real basis in fact, but sounded great in the papers, and it's the story that stuck in the public imagination, despite what the OT says about where he came from, which was from the north. For the geographically challenged, Sumeria, Ur, and Babylon are east of Judah.

The sumerian texts outdate Abraham by 1000 years or so. So are you saying abraham took the sumerian religion and distorted it? They have similar stories but the religion itself is totally different.

Actually the stories area bout history, not theology, by the standards of the time they're written in.

not that your post makes any sense re the topic.

Oh, so its history, a family of gods created humans.

Why don't you explain your timeline how Abraham ripped off the Sumerians? And then explained how the account was captured as symbols in the Chinese language, 1500 years before Moses penned them? Who did they rip off, TN?

I didnt say he ripped of the sumerians. Picaro did. Try reading, dumbfuck.
Dont give me that chinese bullshit again, you dishonest hack. The person that "figured that out" said it wasnt accurate and shouldnt be referenced. But your dishonest ass has to cling to WHATEVER you can.

The only one being dishonest here is you, bro. It is what it is and the Chinese, who worshiped Shang Di - the God of Abraham - clearly recorded the account of Genesis as symbols in their written language 4500 years ago. 1500 years prior to Moses. Did Moses rip off the Chinese, TN?

And you are implying that Moses ripped off the Sumerians, TN.