To Abaddon and anyone else interested:
There was a small exchange the other day that I desired to answer, as it has come up numerous other times and needs to be refuted. This is the exchange:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/66748/1037026/post.ashx#1037026
Well, interesting, yes, but not necessarily accurate. Leolaia repeats a very wide spread misconception that I've commented on a few times before on this forum. I find the observation that the Bible came from the ancient Chaldean myths due to their similarities as disengenuous at best, particularly since they are written from opposite viewpoints.
What you have here is just the same thing as one would find in comparing two histories written about the Gulf war, one written by Saddam, and the other by Bush. There would be lots of similarities, but the spirit would be at cross-purposes.
LoneWolf
And I would find your observation presuppositionalistic unless you actually specifically rebutt the evidence people cite to show that the Bible does probably draw from earlier beliefs such as those of the Chaldeans.
If you don't, you're essentially saying you're going to ignore an arguement you don't like (which anyone can do), as distinct from saying you can provide evidence that discounts an argument.
Of course I could say (regarding your argument);
"Well, interesting, yes, but not necessarily accurate. Hornetsnest repeats a very wide spread misconception that I've commented on a few times before on this forum."
But that would just be rude... Abaddon
---------------------------------------------------------------
To begin: ?presuppositionalistic? . . . I presume you eat that with a fork, right? (Grin) (Yes, I know what it means.)
Your observation is accurate --- as far as it goes. It also goes both ways. Leolaia did not bother to show all of the ?proof? that may or may not be available on her observation (she presented no argument), if for no other reason that it would take up too much space. She posted an observation, period. In normal society, if someone has questions or reservations about a statement, they too have the freedom to post an observation, whether contrary to the first one or not. If there is sufficient interest in the subject, then they may start presenting the reasons for their observations.
In this matter and in most others, I refrained from posting all of my reasons due to the fact that I have neither the time nor the patience to write a whole book every time I say or write something. I?ve posted much the same thought a couple of times before, and not one individual had enough interest in it to inquire. I see no reason to waste that time and effort unless there is some.
As far as ignoring an argument that I don?t like, I cannot help but laugh, for if ever there was a people more guilty of that than the ?Powers That Be? right now, history has yet to record it. And mark this well: I?m referring to BOTH the religious authorities and their so-called ?Higher Critics?. They are both so preoccupied with proving each other wrong that even if the angels came down and sang it to them in 12 part harmony as to what is, all they would do is argue over what ?is?, is. It is a case of ?don?t confuse me with the facts, as my mind is already made up.?
Now, if either of you took offense at my simple observation above, then I?m laughing at you. NO ONE, not the religious officials who proclaim themselves holy, nor the scientific community with their fancy airs and half the alphabet strewn behind their names, nor you nor anyone else are above question --- or if necessary --- challenge. There are few things in this world more enjoyable than the keeping of pompous asses in a state of perpetual uproar. Am I stating that you are such? No. But if the shoe fits, wear it.
I?ve had a belly full of that generation who thinks that ?being offended? is a sporting event. I personally don?t give the foggiest damn if they are offended or not.
That said, I?d like to present my reasons for coming to the conclusions that I have. My hope is that you will meet me in like spirit, with both of us recognizing that our opinions may and probably will differ, but that they are honestly held due to a careful examination of the issues. Don?t make the mistake that most others do, though, in assuming that I am ?desperately clinging onto a dying faith? as one individual put it a few years ago, as nothing could be further from the truth.
If I am to do this properly, though, I must first give you a little background as to where I?m coming from.
I was born in 1940, my first month in service was December of 1946, I was baptized in 1955, and disfellowshipped for asking too many questions about 1988. (At least that?s the real reason.) I?m the 4th generation in the ?Truth?, especially when counting my great, great uncles Manton in Montreal who supplied the different colored inks for the organization at the turn of the 20th century. Both I and my wife have about 80 relatives in the organization - each. I might add that my wife and all 6 kids are still in, yet my family is still intact, due in very large part to that combative attitude that you might have caught a glimpse of above. If they mess with me or my family, there?s hell to pay.
There was a difference though in the way that I assimilated the teachings. I?d taken all the math that I could in school and loved it. The careful logic utilized there (especially Geometry --- Plain, Solid, and Analytical) became a part of my personality. I used that in everything I encountered, including faith.
The results were dramatically different than most experience. Remember all the articles about how the FDS were the embodiment of so many prophecies? All of that went in one ear and out the other as so much BS. How about 1975? Rejected within two seconds of hearing it the very first time, on the basis of Mark 13:32 alone. My interest was in gleaning the few nuggets that I could find, and I had to throw out a lot of manure in the process.
Another thing that impressed me was the scripture at Zech. 13:7 combined with the Society?s teaching that we would all be tested alone. Logic immediately prompted me to ask, not ?why? but ?how?. If I was in Satan?s place, what would be the absolute worst (and most effective) way of destroying the Organization and testing the people therein? The answer was instantly apparent --- and glaring. Corrupt the leaders. That thought even tied in with the scriptural warnings about wolves in sheep?s clothing.
The result was that when 1975 turned out a dud, I was DFed for something I didn?t do, and the GB turned out to be pathological liars, it didn?t bother me at all. All of it was to be expected.
I tell you this not for the purpose of ?impressing? anyone, but rather so I can request a favor of you. I think we have both experienced those who will listen to our first few words with condescension, then jump to wild conclusions as to where we are coming from. (Of course, no elder has ever done that. LOL!!) I have yet to meet anyone who was even close in my case.
Try to get the sense of what I?m saying. I couldn?t care less if you disagree, but I do care big time as to WHY you do. Within those disagreements are the nuggets that I?m looking for. BUT, I will not be coming from the directions that you expect.
---------------------------------------------------
At first, I was totally disinterested in this subject. We were studying the Babylon the Great book and it bored me stiff like it did almost everyone else. My grandfather (a member of the remnant) was more interested, and eventually got a copy of Hislop?s ?The Two Babylons? and read that with fascination. I remembered his interest and wondered about it.
Then we studied the Babylon book the second time and it was every bit as boring, however, towards the end of it I began to get the big picture that it was trying to paint. Finally, about 10 years after my grandfather passed away, I got around to getting a copy of ?The Two Babylons?. The book hit me like a brick between the eyes --- repeatedly. However, I read that book in exactly the same manner as I did when studing the Society?s teachings. Some things made sense, some didn?t. Probably the biggest that didn?t was that Hislop had limited his modern day application to the Catholic Church. I saw no reason at all that it wouldn?t apply with equal accuracy to all of them.
This fired my interest, big time. When I was done I was left with a hunger for more. First I tackled a side issue. I?d remembered the ?Studies In the Scriptures? books that my folks had and the business about the pyramids, so I checked out a couple of books on pyramidology. What a batch of nonsense! However, one passage in one excruciatingly boring book went something like this: ?Before the 1880?s, whenever someone inquired of the spirits for information on Atlantis, through the Ouija board or some other method, they were silent. However, after Ignatius Donnelly wrote his book, ?Atlantis ? The Antediluvian World?, it seemed to throw the spirit world into an uproar, and they seemed to go out of their way to talk about it.? Now how was I supposed to resist the temptation to find out what could stir up the spirits? LOL!
I found the book --- long out of print, and it didn't take much to figure out what had disturbed them! It turned out that Donnelly was a US senator in those days (and is listed in our encyclopedia) and his book was an exhaustive study in comparative mythology. I liked it enough to round up the sequel, ?Ragnarok, Land of Fire and Water.? It was also out of print. These were careful studies, without the flamboyant conclusions that were so common to that era.
I turned back to the Babylon books, both of them. They quoted extensively from I. P. Cory?s ?Ancient Fragments?. Could I find it, considering that I?d had a hard time with the other two that were printed in the 1880?s, and this one was printed in 1832? I was doubtful, but hopeful.
Not only did I find it, but I about died laughing when I did! It was still in print and you?d never guess from where! It?s part of the Secret Doctrine Reference Series from the Wizard?s Bookshelf! Think of that! The Babylon the Great book was based in part on a book that is available only from a publisher that specializes in the occult! ROTFLOL!!! I found the book fascinating.
I looked at the inside back cover and there are many more books of the series advertised, including such things as ?The Twelve Signs of the Zodiac?, ?New Platonism & Alchemy?, ?The Desatir?, etc. One quickly caught my eye. The following is the ad in full. (I now own that book and am copying the ad word for word.)
CHALDEAN ACCOUNT OF GENESIS
By George Smith (1876) Translated from the cuniform (sic) tablets (CIRCA 3000 BC) unearthed at Nineva (sic). This far more complex rendition parallels the creation epics of India and Persia to the dismay of dogmatic theologians. That it is the predecessor of the O.T. Bible is inescapable.
ISBN:0-913510-26-2 340 p.
THAT I had to see, so I bought this hard bound book. Upon its receipt I devoured it from cover to cover, only to be shocked --- not at the supposed ?evidence? that the Bible came from that source --- but from the level of ?logic? that these so-called ?authorities? had utilized to come to that conclusion! I?ve known 3-year olds that were more skilled in logic than these knuckleheads were! I might add that nowhere in the book did George Smith suggest such a thing.
It is my personal opinion that to reach such a conclusion would entail a willful blindness as well as a desperate desire to prove their supposition, and a willingness to bend anything to that end. However, that?s my opinion. (Please note that I am NOT applying those words to either you or Leolaia, Abaddon. I figure that you have been merely repeating that which you have heard, without investigating it for yourself.)
Before I get into specifics, then, let me mention a little about George Smith. He lived from 1840 to 1876 and was an English Assyriologist, spending most of his life studying cuneiform inscriptions in and for the British Museum. Towards the end of his short life, he went to Nineveh twice for that museum in successful bids to excavate more of these tablets. Finally in 1876 the trustees sent him again. He was struck down by fever shortly after he arrived. His credentials are impeccable.
Needless to say, many of the tablets were in poor shape. He would number and translate each line, and whenever something was missing, he would indicate that with dots, like this, as translated from fragment K 3473:
15. . . . . he sinned against me
16. . . . . and angrily . . . .
17. . . . . the gods all of them
18. . . . . made her hands . . . .
Etc., etc. However, the tablet containing the flood account was astonishingly complete.
Now for some specifics. In this account Noah?s character is named Hasisadra. I?ll begin with his words in part of the story that is almost universally familiar. In column III:
38. I sent forth a dove and it left. The dove went and turned, and
39. a resting-place it did not find, and it returned.
40. I sent forth a swallow and it left. The swallow went and turned, and
41. a resting-place it did not find, and it returned.
42. I sent forth a raven and it left.
43. The raven went, and the decrease of the water it saw, and
44. it did eat, it swam, and wandered away, and did not return.
45. I sent the animals forth to the four winds, I poured out a libation,
46. I built an altar on the peak of the mountain,
47. by sevens herbs I cut,
48. at the bottom of them I placed reeds, pines, and simgar.
About the only differences between this and the Bible?s account is one of greater detail. There is no difference of any import. However, here the account radically diverges from that of the Bible:
49. The gods collected at its savour, the gods collected at its good savour;
50. the gods like flies over the sacrifice gathered.
51. From of old also Rubat in her course
52. The great brightness of Anu had created. When the glory
53. of those gods on the charm round my neck I would not leave;
Column IV.
1. In those days I desired that for ever I might not leave them.
2. May the gods come to my altar,
3. may Elu not come to my altar,
4. for he did not consider and had made a deluge,
5. and my people he had consigned to the deep.
6. From of old also Elu in his course
7. saw the ship, and went Elu with anger filled to the gods and spirits:
8. Let not anyone come out alive, let not a man be saved from the deep,
That Hasisdra rejoices in all of the gods attending is interesting enough, but that he would specifically exclude one of them and his reason for doing so is riveting. They seem to go out of their way to establish who he was serving, and it?s not Jehovah. (In fact, line 50 reminds me of Jesus? words in Matt. 12:43, but that?s another subject.)
I, of course, liked that part about the gods gathering like flies! LOL!
In the next lines, Ninip is the god of war, Hea is the god of wisdom, and Bel is the prince or ruler of all of the gods. Note how Elu is chastised:
9. Ninip his mouth opened, and spake and said to the warrior Elu:
10. Who then will ask Hea, the matter he has done?
11. and Hea knew all things.
12. Hea his mouth opened and spake, and said to the warrior Bel:
13. ?Thou prince of the gods warrior,
14. when thou art angry a deluge thou makest;
15. the doer of sin did his sin, the doer of evil did his evil.
16. the just prince let him not be cut off, the faithful let him not be destroyed.
17. Instead of thee making a deluge, may lions increase and men be reduced;
18. instead of thee making a deluge, may leopards increase and men be reduced;
19. instead of thee making a deluge, may a famine happen and the country be destroyed;
20. instead of thee making a deluge, may pestilence increase and men be destroyed.?
I found lines 9 thru 12 especially interesting. It reminds me of a trial, with Ninup being the prosecuting attorney bringing Elu?s conduct to the attention of the court, Hea playing the part of an expert witness and stating how things should have been handled, and Bel as the judge. From this point on Elu is not mentioned again, apparently having been summarily dismissed with contempt. After these few words by Hasisdra . . .
21. I did not peer into the judgment of the gods.
22. Adrahasis a dream they sent, and the judgment of the gods he heard.
. . . Bel makes his decision and goes to the rescue.
23. When his judgment was accomplished, Bel went up to the midst of the ship.
24. He took my hand and raised me up,
25. he caused to raise and to bring my wife to my side;
26. he made a bond, he established in a covenant, and gave this blessing,
27. in the presence of Hasisadra and the people thus:
28. When Hasisadra, and his wife, and the people, to be like the gods are carried away;
29. then shall dwell Hasisadra in a remote place at the mouth of the rivers
30. They took me, and in a remote place at the mouth of the rivers they seated me.
From here the story moves on, but the above should bear out a few things:
a. Elu has been treated as an insignificant, lesser god, one personified by petulance, anger, and a childish lack of self-control.
b. Bel is depicted as righteous and merciful, the supreme being, capable of overruling the decisions of the other gods. He is the hero now.
c. Hasisdra?s loyalty was to Bel and the other gods.
d. Hasisdra and his wife were removed from the world of men. (Lines 28 -30) (A parallel account speaks of him, his wife, and the ship?s pilot (?!?) being taken up into heaven to be with the gods.)
I found point ?d? especially fascinating. If the flood happened as the Bible says it did, and mankind was reduced to little more than one family, then now would be the time for subversion, for it would affect all succeeding generations. Noah was said to have survived the flood by 300 years, and his influence during that time would be phenomenal as the surviving patriarch. How much easier would such subversion be, if he was discredited as being an imposter!
This (and more) is the reason I stated that the two accounts were written from opposite viewpoints, and that those holding such viewpoints would have to be bitter enemies.
Now, there is one difficulty with my view here that I believe that I have solved. I won?t mention it now as this is already too long (My apologies, Simon), plus, I?m curious. I want to see if Abaddon can tell me what it is. Is he capable of living up to the same standard of thoroughness that he demands of others?
Ornery, ain?t I? LOL!!!
LoneWolf