- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
and which isn't that much different than claims of other people of different religions in their own explanations for things they could not otherwise understand.
Why does it matter which texts were first? So the others didn't waste paper writing down their beliefs. Why does that matter? It doesn't change what they believed or the reasons why they believed them, in either case. And many of the Christian stories began as word of mouth, not written texts. They just happened to last long enough to become written text, and not just hieroglyphs or pictures or passed down.
The claim was, by Rouge, that other religions have a similar account to Christianity. I was merely showing that the Bible was written before any of those religions that have a similar history.It does matter. But it wasn't the first text either, as noted by dates given. However, being first to write it down has no bearing on anything.
The oldest known religious texts are Pyramid texts of Ancient Egypt that date to 2400-2300 BCE. The earliest form of the Phoenician alphabet found to date is the inscription on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos. ( The Sumerian Temple Hymns [1]). The Epic of Gilgamesh from Sumeria is also one of the earliest literary works dating to 2150-2000 BCE, that includes various mythological figures. The Rigveda of Hinduism is proposed to have been composed between 1700–1100 BCE[2] making it possibly the world's oldest religious text still in use. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE.[citation needed]
The majority of scholars agree that the Torah's composition took place over centuries.[3] From the late 19th century there was a general consensus around the documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the five books were created c.450 BCE by combining four originally independent sources, known as the Jahwist, or J (about 900 BCE), the Elohist, or E (about 800 BCE), the Deuteronomist, or D, (about 600 BCE), and the Priestly source, or P (about 500 BC).[4]
The first scripture printed for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, and is the earliest recorded example of a dated printed text, bearing the Chinese calendar date for 11 May 868 CE.[5]
The claim was, by Rouge, that other religions have a similar account to Christianity. I was merely showing that the Bible was written before any of those religions that have a similar history.
The claim was, by Rouge, that other religions have a similar account to Christianity. I was merely showing that the Bible was written before any of those religions that have a similar history.
I never claimed those other religions had to be written down to have any bearing on this. You are the one who kept making the claim about the Bible being written first. Okay, great. It really isn't completely true, since other religious writings were made earlier, even if they weren't an actual "book". But it has no bearing on whether that gives the Bible more credibility or not in its claim to be the truth or in whether those writers weren't just trying to use "God" to explain those things which they were unable to find a reason for happening.
A) I ceded that one text was written before the Bible. Although that text isn't along the same lines as the Bible and doesn't reflect redundant points in history. You can read can't you?
B) Like I said, you insinuated that the Bible copied other religions because the texts were similar. I showed that it was not possible because the Bible was written before them. If anything, they copied the Bible, not vice versa. Whether you believe the Bible is true or not wasn't the issue. You're moving the goal posts. The issue was Christians copying other religions texts. I showed the Bible was written before similar texts, so if anything its the opposite.
You do know that the Bible existed before any other religious documents correct? So, who's religion is based off who's? What proof do you have of your god?
And I pointed out to you that we did not need religious texts to know about a culture's religious beliefs. Their beliefs existed, whether written down or not, prior to the Bible. Those past religions still had beliefs that were very similar to those of the Bible's but even before many of those things in the Bible were occurring. It almost sounds like a game of telephone, looking back on it, where someone finally wrote down what was being said as if it were the absolute first thing said, but none of us really knowing the truth since it was basically all word-of-mouth til that first time it got written down which was long after the story started.
I find it fascinating that, uniquely with regards to religion, people find the existence of multi-source reporting to be a discrediting factor.
Telephone is a bad example - only the individual sender and receiver are aware of the message that is passed. Group telephone (which is what oral tradition is) offers instant correction to account corruption.
That being said, you can't really say that last bit about "the Bible", because the Bible was neither written in a single place, or in a single time, nor is it a single text. You have some documents that were clearly written by primary sources, and some that are clearly written down portions of an oral tradition.
I find it fascinating that, uniquely with regards to religion, people find the existence of multi-source reporting to be a discrediting factor.
The Bible was the original document showing the "stories" you are speaking of. Unless you have proof that other religions believe it first, then this is simply hyperbole.The stories are similar, whether they were written down or not. It is very easy for something that is heard by word of mouth from another religion to be taken in by this other religion and used as their own. So what if they wrote it down first? They weren't copying other texts, they were taking from other religions.
How do you know they existed prior to the Bible though? What proof do you have?And I pointed out to you that we did not need religious texts to know about a culture's religious beliefs. Their beliefs existed, whether written down or not, prior to the Bible. Those past religions still had beliefs that were very similar to those of the Bible's but even before many of those things in the Bible were occurring. It almost sounds like a game of telephone, looking back on it, where someone finally wrote down what was being said as if it were the absolute first thing said, but none of us really knowing the truth since it was basically all word-of-mouth til that first time it got written down which was long after the story started.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?