Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Just comparing the previously posted accounts of the great flood, the amazing similarities and one big difference. The earlier account by the Sumerians involves a plurality of Gods, the later account known today in the bible has only one God. Furthermore, the earlier accounts of the flood left by the Akkadians and the Baylonians also involve a pantheon of Gods. So which is it? One God or many?
The later works conflict with the earlier and the further back in time one goes examining the civilizations the more similiar the accounts of the flood are. I fairly certain all the aforementioned flood stories are refering to the same flood, too many similiarities. The differences between the earlier and later is the key in my opinion. Logic serves that the earliest accounts will be the most accurate.
I use the flood story as one excellent example of how a tale told in today's bible is told differently from the Sumerian perspective. A full account of many of these similiaries and differences can be examined in the works of Biblical Archeologist Zecharia Sitchen, that I previously mentioned.
|
The Biblical account is as old if not older than the Sumerian account Chewbacca. Abram was from Ur, in Sumer. If anything, there were two divergent accounts. We kept the one that was surrounded in a monotheism that was alive and working, while the other was surrounded in a pantheon of Gods, that, if they existed, did nothing to prevent the destruction of their people or religious code. Seeing as I have accepted Abrahams God who declares exclusivity, I think it's fair for me to say that the Sumerian theology was incorrect. That the Sumerian gods did not exist. In accepting Abrahams account, one rejects the alternate account.
Therefore, if the Akkadian/Sumerian theology was incorrect, if it failed and died, then why accept the other contradicting parts that conflict with Abrahams?
The promises Abrahams God made to him have fulfilled. Even now, they are shown to be true.
Simply because we never lost the teachings and stories does not mean they are newer or more recent. Look at the Quran. The Quran makes "corrections" to the Bible. The Quran though later than the New Testament, seeks to revise the New testamants history.
If.. (and I say IF very delicately) Islam was proved to be false, and faded into oblivion, and in two thousand years people still read the bible. And if in those two thousand years, people stumbled upon the Quran with it's contradictory views, would they be correct in saying the Qurans ideas were earlier teachings than the Bible?
Of course not.
So too with these. The bible has
continuous accounts of people and stories from the dawn of creation. No missing link. No missing generations. Each father to son is listed from Adam to Jesus. If the bible is proven to be correct, it goes back to the origin of mankind. If not, it at least goes back to Sumerian society.