JESUS, God, the Ordinal First and Last

[joelr]

No it's not. You can't refute it, so you copy paste without addressing the issue.

copy paste of scholarship does address th eissue, which you have done none of to support any idea you have put forth

Another copy paste without addressing a single thing I said.

you can ignore consensus opinion, it won't change

Look at that! You admitted it. Your conclusion is based on who wrote it first! Good for you.

I never claimed the Jewish people were writing their stories, I said it was oral story telling. That's a straw man.

We have dealt with this and you continue to tap dance around facts. The Israelites are first known at 1200 BCE. That is it. The OT was 600 BCE.
Much before 1200 BCE they were not Israelites but Canaanites with different mythology. You need evidence to support your outlandish claims which you do not have.

Not true. I sourced the Hawaiian myth, I sourced the story of Noah's flood and showed you the details you're ignoring. I use your own sources to refute you. And I sourced the assumptions made to come up with El and Yahweh in ugarites writing. I also sourced criticism of Dever's conclusion about the figurines. You just copy paste so much, it takes a long time to go through it and point out the flaws.

You haven't refuted one single thing except I used "verbatim" loosely, however the point of the lines are verbatin - sacrifice smelled of sweet savour, rained for 7 days.
Verbatim.

You did not criticize Dever. You pretended what he said was wrong and the figurines he later mentioned that had no names were the only thing he was talking about. Very misleading. On purpose or you missed this?

It's just critical analysis. Most people probably ignore your posts, so you're not accustomed to someone actually reviewing what you're saying.

You are not reviewing what I;m saying. You are using confirmation bais to form an incomplete argument where you get scholarship and then demand further explanations while for yourself you make claims. Claims that the Israelites were around far before every spoken about, that they had fully formed myths in 3500 BCE, totally outrageous and absurd claims, with ZERO sources or scholarship, just pure speculation. Based on what? A myth about a man who lived a long time before the Israelites?? Hmmm, maybe, when Genesis was written, do you think they made up a new myth starting with creation and going from there, adding characters along the way? Do you know Adam and eve were also not real people? OR are you going to make yet another claim ??

Critical analysis. please. That is absurd.

I'm not asking for sources, I'm asking for engagement of grey-matter. I'm asking for attention to detail.

Yes I've been paying attention to this fiction you are pushing while I keep sourcing more and more scholarship and you continue to claim things about the Israelites no one claims even in fringe theory (maybe in fundamentalism), and then think you have some high ground? Like you don't even know this is a complete wash for you.

Yes, there's a logical problem assuming direction of influence. That problem has not been addressed. It makes perfect sense. Ancient myths begin as oral story telling. Everyone knows this. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

And here it is again. Right, the Israelites were telling these stories in 3500 when they were not even Canaanites yet. They were probably descendents living in Egypt who worshipped completely different deities. Then the Canaanite ancestors also worshipped EL as the supreme deity.
When they broke off from Canaan they began to form their own stories. Orally, maybe, but around 1200 BCE. You just put up what 15 posts, and nothing to suggest these ideas are possible (they are not).

Sure I suggest it depends on how Jewish is refined. I'll see if I can find something.[/QUOTE]

Let me say it again. Everyone knows that ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

We know who told it orally first as well. Sumerians, then Mesopotamians. Then , 1200 BCE, Israelites.

Christianity has a motive for syncretism. Judaism does not and it has a substantial list of unique practices. Your own source confirms Jews staunchly stick to our traditions.

Boyce does not say that. Nor does Hundley, Sanders or wright. Judaism is highly syncretic. Note HEBREWS. Peer reviewed works this is from.

Second Temple Judaism[edit]
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is thought to be derived from Persian cosmology,[49] although the later claim has been recently questioned.[50] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]


Boyce
Historically, the unique features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5] messianism, belief in free will and judgement after death, conception of heaven, hell, angels, and demons, among other concepts, may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including the Abrahamic religions and Gnosticism,[6][7][8] Northern Buddhism,[7] and Greek philosophy.[9]

My beliefs are irrelevant.

I think they are causing you to make bad arguments without sources and then ask me to continue producing more and more sources.

v

Similar, yes But who borrowed from whom is still just guesswork.

No, no it isn't. No one is "guessing".
Again, you entire argument is one big crank. And to demonstrate it, 20posts and ZERO scholarship.

No Israelites much before 1200 BCE.
Mesopotamians -

age of mesopotamian cuneiform

around 3500 BC

. 35th century BC

LanguagesSumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, Luwian, Urartian, Palaic, Aramaic, Old Persian



Cuneiform


Cuneiform is a system of writing first developed by the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia c. 3500 BCE. It is considered the most significant among the many cultural contributions of the Sumerians and the greatest among those of the Sumerian city of Uruk, which advanced the writing of cuneiform c. 3200 BCE and allowed for the creation of literature.

the word "guesswork" is not in any of these sources. And scholars are 100% on who was first, not just with stories but with a civilization.

 

[joelr]

More copy paste without addressing the issues.

OMG. Says the person who continues to posit the Israelites existed far before ALL of the historical scholarship puts them?

I just need to show the consensus. Because you have done nothing but make claims. This is no different than debating with a fundamentalist Jehovas Witness who just keeps saying Satan has influenced me and the scholars I source. No difference.

It depends on how one defines a Jew. Who was the first Jew? The person who believed in 1 creator lawgiver god who revealed itself to them. No one really knows who first came up with the idea or when.

Right but there are no Gods and especially no God who "reveal themselves" to people. That exists in mythology.

Feel free to source some evidence that shows Gods are not only real but reveal themselves to people.

Because we have thousands of examples of other people claiming they also had revelations and those are considered false. Whatever religion one is in that is suspiciously the one example that gets a pass without evidence.

The historical evidence shows some displaced Canaanites formed a tribe that became a town, city and nation. They copied myths that were around and went from there.
Not just Genesis is copied.

The Book of Proverbs
The third unit, 22:17–24:22, is headed "bend your ear and hear the words of the wise". A large part of this section is a recasting of a second-millennium BCE Egyptian work, the Instruction of Amenemope, and may have reached the Hebrew author(s) through an Aramaic translation.

The "wisdom" genre was widespread throughout the ancient Near East, and reading Proverbs alongside the examples recovered from Egypt and Mesopotamia reveals the common ground shared by international wisdom.


Common ground, except Egypt and Mesopotamia are far older.

 

[joelr]

More copy paste without addressing the issues.

Cheap tactic. Really poor. I provide sources of my information you make unsupported claims AND also attack the fact I back up idea with scholars as if it's not detailed enough..it's so bad it's almost gaslighting.

Gilamesh was known in 2700 so oral stories may have been around then.
All Old Testament scholarship puts Genesis at 600 BCE and the first Israelites at 1200 BCE.

Not guesswork but the gaslighting is noted.

Mesopotamia best known from The Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2150-1400 BCE) the great Babylonian poem that predates Homer's writing by 1500 years and, therefore, stands as the oldest piece of epic world literature. Gilgamesh features in several Sumerian poems but is best known from the epic.

Historical evidence for Gilgamesh's existence is found in inscriptions crediting him with the building of the great walls of Uruk (modern-day Warka, Iraq) which, in the story, are the tablets upon which he first records his quest for the meaning of life. He is also referenced in the Sumerian King List (c. 2100 BCE) and is mentioned by known historical figures of his time such as King Enmebaragesi of Kish (c. 2700 BCE), besides the legends which grew up around his reign.

 

[101G]

Bibleask isn't sourced, not PhD historical scholars at all.

but it busted your so called claim of a contridiction..... (smile)

You cannot debunk scholars with amateur Pastors

oh yes you can, when one have an amateur, and IGNORANT as your Dr. Ehrman's if he, and YOU, would have read what the Lord Jesus said, and what he was speaking of ...... a first grader would debunk the so-called scholar. Listen and Learn,

Mark 2:26 "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"

did the Lord Jesus say Abiathar gave David the Bread? no he said IN, IN, IN, the days of Abiathar the high priest. anyone of the priesthood could have given David the bread ...... but the Lord said, in the days of Abiathar as High priest.

see, this is how LIES get started ..... by IGNORANT amateur so-called scholars. and yes, scholars do LIE as we see here.

101G

 

[101G]

@joelr
do any of your gods ever make the claim that they are the "Diversity" or the EQUAL "SHARE" of themselves in Flesh? check your mythology records.

for if they do not then there is no claim, or connection to the ONLY TRUE, and LIVING GOD, "JESUS"/YESHUA.

also I challenge you to find in your mythology records a god who saves all that he or she created by his or her death, and resurrect own their own power by themselves?

will be looking to hear from you.

101G.

 

[101G]

to all,
the bible is clear, the First is also the Last. in Revelation 1:1 it states, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

Question, is this the same one "person" or is it two separate persons?
and one more, Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

if 101G is correct in Diversity, then how can the SAME one person not know his own return date, but yet at the same time know his return date, that's if he's Both Father and son the Same one person, and 101G believes this is the SAME one person.

yes, it is true, and the answer can be found in Revelation chapter 5. for he who sits on the THRONE is he who stands, (the Lamb), before the Throne.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

This is all a strawman and other fallacies at once. You demand scholarship yet your main point is that why didn't the Israelites influence the Mesopotamians.
Which no scholar said ever. There is no evidence the Israelites existed before 1200 BCE. The Mesopotamian myths are from around 3500 BCE.
And STILL you have no evidence.
So first we need more scholarship. I'm not writing long sections of books so worldhistory will have to summarize.



age of mesopotamian cuneiform

around 3500 BC

c. 35th century BC

LanguagesSumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hittite, Hu


Cuneiform

Cuneiform is a system of writing first developed by the ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia c. 3500 BCE. It is considered the most significant among the many cultural contributions of the Sumerians and the greatest among those of the Sumerian city of Uruk, which advanced the writing of cuneiform c. 3200 BCE and allowed for the creation of literature.

All of the great Mesopotamian civilizations used cuneiform until it was abandoned in favour of the alphabetic script at some point after 100 BCE, including:

When the ancient cuneiform tablets of Mesopotamia were discovered and deciphered in the late 19th century, they would literally transform human understanding of history. Prior to their discovery, the Bible was considered the oldest and most authoritative book in the world and nothing was known of the ancient Sumerian civilization.



Many biblical texts were thought to be original until cuneiform was deciphered. The Fall of Man and the Great Flood were understood as literal events in human history dictated by God to the author (or authors) of Genesis but were now recognized as Mesopotamian myths which Hebrew scribes had embellished on from The Myth of Etana and the Atrahasis. The biblical story of the Garden of Eden could now be understood as a myth derived from the Enuma Elish and other Mesopotamian works. The Book of Job, far from being an actual historical account of an individual's unjust suffering, could now be recognized as a literary motif belonging to a Mesopotamian tradition following the discovery of the earlier Ludlul-Bel-Nemeqi text which relates a similar story.



The concept of a dying and reviving god who goes down into the underworld and then returns to life, presented as a novel concept in the gospels of the New Testament, was now understood as an ancient paradigm first expressed in Mesopotamian literature in the poem The Descent of Inanna. The very model of many of the narratives of the Bible, including the gospels, could now be read in light of the discovery of Mesopotamian naru literature which took a figure from history and embellished upon his achievements in order to relay an important moral and cultural message.

Prior to this time, as noted, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world, and the Song of Solomon was thought to be the oldest love poem, but all of that changed with the discovery and decipherment of cuneiform. The oldest love poem in the world is now recognized as The Love Song of Shu-Sin dated to 2000 BCE, long before The Song of Solomon was written. These advances in understanding were all made by the 19th-century archaeologists and scholars sent to Mesopotamia to substantiate biblical stories through physical evidence, but, in fact, what they discovered was precisely the opposite of what they had been sent to find.

Along with other Assyriologists (among them, T. G. Pinches and Edwin Norris), Rawlinson spearheaded the development of Mesopotamian language studies, and his Cuneiform Inscriptions of Ancient Babylon and Assyria, along with his other works, became the standard reference on the subject following their publication in the 1860s and remain respected scholarly works into the present day.

The literature of Mesopotamia significantly informed written works which came after. Mesopotamian literary motifs can be detected in the works of Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, and Roman works and still resonate in the present day through the biblical narratives which they inform. When George Smith deciphered cuneiform he dramatically changed the way human beings would understand their history.

The accepted version of the creation of the world, original sin, and many of the other precepts by which people had been living their lives were all challenged by the revelation of Mesopotamian – largely Sumerian – literature. Since the discovery and decipherment of cuneiform, the history of civilization and human progress has been radically revised from the understanding of only 200 years ago, and further revisions are expected as more cuneiform tablets are discovered and translated for the modern age.

Paragraphs ignoring the point, again. Ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

 

[dybmh]

At 36:19 she speaks on Ashera arrows found at Israelite sites, Ashera is found in the OT only a few times but her "signature moves", smashing skulls, trampling corpses are put onto YAhweh.

You claimed she said "Yahweh and his asherah", but she didn't. You were wrong and won't admit it.

Now you bring up arrow heads, but no inscription of Yahweh.

Complete nonsense. Submit that for peer-review please. You keep using words like "critical analysis" as if googling some Hebrew means you have proven scholarship all wrong. You ask critical historical methods from me and then make outlandish claims about the ISraelites being around to influence the Sumerians.
Total inconsistent nonsense.
As if A Hebrew Bible professor doesn't know Hebrew?

Again, you're ignoring the details. We're not talking about Hebrew right now. It's the ugarite's inscription that is supposed to indicate Yahweh and El are canaanite. The issue is the weak assumption that ?L?T? somehow must be El. And the weak assumption that ?Y?W? somehow must be Yahweh.

You do know what a question mark means. I showed you the alphabet, I showed you the inscription. It's easy enough to understand.

Yes "His Ashera" is there, why do you think Dever would say that?

Not in the video from the Hebrew scholar.

Dever is not without scholarly criticism. He is criticized for ignoring contrary evidence, lack of attention to detail, and infatuation with his ideas.

Dever's views have been criticized by some of his fellow scholars, both on the minimalist and maximalist field. Writing on Shofar, minimalist scholar Philip R. Davies, who is often criticized by Dever in the book, chided his inability to distance himself from his obsessions:

Peter James, writing on the Palestine Exploration Quarterly, was critical of Dever, accusing him of dismissing contrary evidence without argument and failing to engage with detail as against wider cultural context:

Dever also has a long and bitter feud with fellow archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, whom he has described as "idiosyncratic and doctrinaire" and "a magician and a showman", to which Finkelstein answered by calling Dever "a jealous academic parasite" and "a biblical literalist disguised as a liberal".
​

Besides, what credentials does Dever have in biblical Hebrew? Looks to be none.

Your zealous faith in him is noted.

One paper - "Yahweh and His Asherah": The Goddess or Her Symbol?
explains what many of the historical books do, the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix - his Ashera is in a form I do not know and looks like syth asera with symbols above it? I don't know Hebrew and I understand these OT scholars and archeologists who make claims hat are peer-rerviewed are telling accurate information in english.
That paper is published from Brill and is on jstor.org, it's also in other books on the subject.

Ok! Progress! I'll look it up!

Here's what I found. There's scholarly debate on the translation of the inscription Dever found.

Two Iron Age bench tombs carved into natural rock were discovered at el-Qom; both were investigated by William Dever in 1967 following their discovery by tomb robbers.[2] Both tombs contain inscriptions, dating from the second half of the 8th century BCE,[3] slightly after the Asherah-relating Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions. The inscription from Tomb 2 is associated with a "magic hand" symbol, and reads:

"Uriyahu the honourable has written this
Blessed is/be Uriyahu by Yahweh
And [because?] from his oppressors by his asherah he has saved him
[written] by Oniyahu"
"...by his asherah
...and his asherah"[4][5]
Unlike the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions, they do not include a place name with the name of Yahweh (the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions talk of "Yahweh of Samaria" and "Yahweh of Teman"); this seems to indicate that they were written after the fall of Samaria, which left Yahweh as the god of one state only.[6]

There is some scholarly debate about the translation, particularly for line three.[7][8]
​

Hmmmmm, scholarly debate. Dever has a reputation for making weak claims and ignoring details. And he's not a scholar of biblical Hebrew.

The other scholar you brought doesn't make the claim "his asherah". But you won't admit it.

Not exaggerated at all. Consensus scholarship. Please stop calling the consensus an exaggeration. You are simply wrong.

It's exaggerated. You're ignoring details.

The Tower of Babel story appropriates and inverts the Mesopotamian ideology of the ziggurat (temple-tower). The ziggurat was the most visible part of the Meso- potamian temple complex and served as a cosmic axis, linking heaven and earth.



In Babylonian tradition the temple-tower of Babel was a cosmic and holy place, built by the gods, where Marduk's presence was manifested on earth.

The biblical story clearly appropriates the Mesopotamian tradition and ideol- ogy of the temple-tower of Babylon, but reverses its meaning by placing the plan to "build a city and a tower with its top in heaven" (Gen 11:4) in the mouths of humans, and coloring this desire as an act of hubris and rebellion.


The Hebrew Bible acknowledges that Israel was a relative latecomer in the ancient Near East. The first era of human civilization was in the ancient east, in and around Mesopotamia. According to Israel's collective memory, the human ascent from nature to culture had to go through Mesopotamia. This temporal priority ought to have given Mesopotamia the glory of cultural origins. For latecomer Israel to be exalted, the temporal priority of Mesopotamia had to be depreciated.





According to the Hebrew Bible, history comes out of Mesopotamia, but it was a dubious and shameful history until the call and migration of Abraham. However, as the Israelites knew well, Mesopota- mian power did not remain in the distant past. Its empires held sway at the time the primeval stories in Genesis 1-11 were cast into writing. The ancient past in these stories offers implicit commentary on Mesopotamian civilization and em- pire in the present, colored by transgression, hubris, and a desire to rebel.


-
The biblical story of the Garden of Eden could now be understood as a myth derived from the Enuma Elish and other Mesopotamian works. The Book of Job, far from being an actual historical account of an individual's unjust suffering, could now be recognized as a literary motif belonging to a Mesopotamian tradition following the discovery of the earlier Ludlul-Bel-Nemeqi text which relates a similar story.

All of this ignores that ancient myths begin as oral story telling.

 

[dybmh]

Says the person inventing a new world where the Israelites wrote myths in 3500 BCE

Not true! I have never said anything about Israelites writing. You just can't seem to get this right. Details, details.

Ancient myths begin as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

I'll just keep repeating it, maybe you'll eventually acknowledge it.

And you are wrong. Dever -
One of the astonishing things is your discovery of Yahweh's connection to Asherah. Tell us about that.
In 1968, I discovered an inscription in a cemetery west of Hebron, in the hill country, at the site of Khirbet el-Qôm, a Hebrew inscription of the 8th century B.C.E. It gives the name of the deceased, and it says "blessed may he be by Yahweh"—that's good biblical Hebrew—but it says "by Yahweh and his Asherah."

Dever doesn't have credentials in biblical Hebrew. The text of that inscription is debated by scholars.

Dever:
Is there other evidence linking Asherah to Yahweh?
In the 1970s, Israeli archeologists digging in Kuntillet Ajrud in the Sinai found a little desert fort of the same period, and lo and behold, we have "Yahweh and Asherah" all over the place in the Hebrew inscriptions.

The assumption that popular practice defines Judaism is noted.

Then the figurines you are talking about without names:

See! The figurines don't have inscriptions contrary to your claim.

Are there any images of Asherah?
For a hundred years now we have known of little terracotta female figurines. They show a nude female; the sexual organs are not represented but the breasts are. They are found in tombs, they are found in households, they are found everywhere. There are thousands of them. They date all the way from the 10th century to the early 6th century.

They have long been connected with one goddess or another, but many scholars are still hesitant to come to a conclusion. I think they are representations of Asherah, so I call them Asherah figurines.

Note: scholarly consensus is lacking on the connection between the figurines and asherah
Note: Dever says they're found everywhere. That's false. He's ignoring the Tel Arad Temple. He was there! Found an inscription only mentioning Yahweh, no asherah, no figurines. Nothing indicating polytheism.

Tel Arad Temple - Madain Project (en)

not yet. Speaking of inventing however, Israelites influencing the Mesopotamians? That is truly an invention. Why would you sling ad-hom when it's you who is the one doing it?

Again, you claimed the source in the video said the figurines had inscriptions of Yahweh and asherah. That's a misquote. Then you said these inscriptions were a line of evidence. That's an invention.

It's not ad hom. Those are the facts of what you said. You misquoted and invented a line of evidence that doesn't exist. You also misquote me, claiming I'm talking about Israelites writing, when I've said oral story telling, oral tradition, repeatedly. Inventions and misquoted.

LOL, now you have requests. I'm waiting on all my requests. Historical scholarship that puts the Israelites influencing the Mesopotamians.

No. You asked for PhD peer review, I asked for PhD peer review. That's what happened. Turn about is fair play. My position is agnostic. We don't know. Your position is it's known.

I did find a couple of scholars supporting my agnostic view. I don't have their books, but I did find a quote.

Peter Enns - Wikipedia

Biblical scholar, graduated from Harvard. Not a fundementalist. Critical of biblical history.

In his book, The Evolution of Adam, page 23, he says:

“The Pentateuch was not authored out of whole cloth by a second-millennium Moses but is the end product of a complex literary process—written, oral, or both—that did not come to a close until the postexilic period. This summary statement, with only the rarest exception, is a virtual scholarly consensus after one and a half centuries of debate”
​

There you go. Here's a scholar, taking the moderate approach. He says the consensus is, the bible might come from oral tradition. Maybe writing, maybe oral, maybe both.

There you go. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

There's also this:. Form criticism - Wikipedia. The analysis of biblical scripture which traces it back to an oral tradition.

So there you have it. Scholars that agree, the bible could be the result of oral tradition. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

Yes, you left out some of Fransescas words, seem to think scholars would make the claim about Yahweh and his Ashera and it's not true and expect the Israelites would influence Sumer and Mesopotamia

Wow, you're on a first name basis... Go you.

Anyways, that's false. She doesn't say Yahweh and his asherah. I didn't leave out her words. You misquoted.

And all I'm saying is the source for the original stories is unknown. They could have come from someone/someones who match the description of an Abraham and his household. Might as well label them Jews. You can label them ancient Sumerians, it really doesn't matter what we call them. Technically we should call them the Ubaid people who collected in Sumer. No one knows where these people came from. Sumer was trading, the myths could literally have come from anywhere, anyone they traded with. Might have been an Abraham type person.

No, it shows Ashera was a Canaanite deity first. Giving more evidence to the fact that Israel came from Canaan and Exodus is a national-myth

Ummmm the canaanite goddess wasn't named asherah. I think it was something like astarte. Francesca admitted we don't know if asherah was canaanite. Rewatch the video you posted. Don't forget to pay attention to the details.

Cuneform and Mesopotamian mythology is far far older than Israel. I have posted enough scholarship to verify this. You have not. Funny how you "don't have to" (you do) and just think you are making a valid point based on lack of knowledge while I post credible scholarship saying Israel was influenced by Mesopotamian myths. The you want further break-downs of dating methods and how this was established when you have provided NOTHING. As if historical academia is like "oh wow, we never thought to check..."??

Yes, you have brought scholars assuming that who ever wrote it first is the one who conceived the story.

And you have repeatedly ignored that ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

But it is. Every source, journal paper, historical book I read is clear on this. Because you don't understand it isn't a valid point and continues to be a waste of time.

And all of this reading hasn't enabled you to address these simple questions.

No, Judaism began with a story about an individual

Sure. That's what I meant. It started as a story about an individual. So, the popular practice of a group of people labeled Israelites is irrelevant.

It did not start with a person who said "I am a new nation:"

Why not?

Genesis was written around 6 BCE, 2 sources were made and later combined and a myth about a founder who first spoke to their God was created.

When it was written is irrelevant. Ancient myths began as oral story telling.

 

[dybmh]

I suspect the stories were changed after Christian missionaries showed up.

Sure, you're choosing to ignore details that refute your position. Standard operating procedure.

The Hebrew Bible is long since known in academia to be influenced by Mesopotamia.

Based on an assumption.

Messianic saviors being predicted relates to Judaism. The general resurrection at the end after God beats the devil, Persian. And other theologies adopted during the 2nd Temple Period

Both of those are missing in the Hebrew bible. No messianic savior, not God vs. Devil. Those are not in the Hebrew bible. Those are in commentary.

It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians

Note:. Your source says monotheism wasn't borrowed.

This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah,

This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah,

. Except where all nations will be blessed in Genesis. Through Abraham. And Psalms 67.

The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.

Or not.

The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism

Umm nope. The story of the Abraham with the 3 angels, soddom and gemorrah. The angel of death in Exodus, the protecting angel in the desert, the angel who contacts Joshua before Jericho. The angel in the burning bush. Clearly, Joel, you don't know enough of the Hebrew bible to pick out the false statements. Anyways Grier is a professor of philosophy, right. That explains these mistakes.

The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4

More irrelevant flotsam. There is no firey hell in the Hebrew bible, as stated above. This is just copy-paste lacking any connection to the topic.

Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.

Enoch isn't the Hebrew bible. The only extant version is in Ge'ez. And Psalms of Solomon???? What's that? Does he mean Song of Solomon? I mean, this source can't translate shir hashirim, and you consider it valuable?? He's clearly not using Jewish sources, but you believe it with all your heart.

Let me remind of the "sweet savour" claim that you had totally false. But boy oh boy was it important to you.

Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8

so what, there's no detectable change in the position on homosexuality. Another copy-paste fail. Does not address the point.

In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).

Ah. Yes, that's a contradiction, and a definite change. But it has nothing to with freewill. So, good job, you found something partially true buried in the spaghetti thrown at the wall.

In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.

Paul? Christ? Do you even in read these things before posting?

Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute

Philosophy not Biblical credentials.

 

[dybmh]

Then those are 2 things taken from the Persians.

But if they're not in the Hebrew bible it's irrelevant.

The assumption is not weak. It happened when the Persians moved in, Cyrus was well liked. The evidence is very strong. Also all religion is syncretic. You cannot claim a God . Syncretism is the only actual option.

Nope it's weak. Popular but weak.

Any mention of God is a straw man. But if it makes you feel tingly to bring it up, I guess that matches the other irrelevant stuff you post.

What is in question here? Boyce is saying (Isaiah 42. I, 4) is evidence of syncretism from the Persians.

And that's false. See Genesis 2, psalms 93, the plagues of the Exodus for explicit examples of a supreme God. The late chapters of Isaiah are not the only ones.

But Isaiah 53:5 is a prediction of a messiah?? That is a Persian concept? So is monotheism????

Wow, no. And you just flip-flopped again. Your source said, it wasn't monotheism it was universalism. So, good job keeping up with your own posts, your own sources.. And no, Isaiah 53:5 is not a messianic savior. Start at Isaiah 52. Remember, the chapter breaks are late additions. The other nations oppress the nation, the nation bears the burden. The righteous remnant is the suffering servant. If you go through Isaiah, you'll see multiple places in the later chapters, the servant is Israel.

An important theological development during the dark ages of 'the faith concerned the growth of beliefs about the Saoshyant or coming Saviour. Passages in the Gathas suggest that Zoroaster was filled with a sense that the end of the world was imminent, and that Ahura Mazda had entrusted him with revealed truth in order to rouse mankind for their vital part in the final struggle. Yet he must have realized that he would not himself live to see Frasho-kereti; and he seems to have taught that after him there would come 'the man who is better than a good man' (Y 43.3), the Saoshyant. The literal meaning of Saoshyant is 'one who will bring benefit' ; and it is he who will lead humanity in the last battle against evil. Zoroaster's followers, holding ardently to this expectation, came to believe that the Saoshyant will be born of the prophet's own seed, miraculously preserved in the depths of a lake (identified as Lake K;tsaoya). When the end of time approaches, it is said, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child by the prophet; and she will in due course bear a son, named Astvat-ereta, 'He who embodies righteousness' (after Zoroaster's own words: 'May righteousness be embodied' Y 43. r6). Despite his miraculous conception, the coming World Saviour will thus be a man, born of human parents, and so there is no betrayal, in this development of belief in the Saoshyant, of Zoroaster's own teachings about the part which mankind has to play in the great cosmic struggle. The Saoshyant is thought of as being accompanied, like kings and heroes, by Khvarenah, and it is in Yasht r 9 that the extant Avesta has most to tell of him. Khvarenah, it is said there (vv. 89, 92, 93), 'will accompany the victorious Saoshyant ... so that he may restore 9 existence .... When Astvat-ereta comes out from the Lake K;tsaoya, messenger of Mazda Ahura ... then he will drive the Drug out from the world of Asha.' This glorious moment was longed for by the faithful, and the hope of it was to be their strength and comfort in times of adversity.

Blah blah blah, all this is worthless because there is no messianic savior in the Hebrew bible. That's commentary.

presenting Zoroastrianism to Muslim Iran he was naturally happy to stress the theory of Zoroaster's rigid monotheism, without any taint even of theological dualism. 'The contest is only between the spirits of goodness and evil within us in the world .... Good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, stand as the fundamental principles of the religion of Zarathustra. And this is a perennial source of glory and pride to Iran and the Iranians, that once in that land one of its sons gave this grand message to humanity, to keep themselves aloof even from bad thoughts' (pp. 48, 50-1). The Zoroastrians warmly welcomed Pur-Davud's efforts to win recognition for the nobility of their faith among those who had so long despised it as polytheism and fire-worship...

Your copy-paste fail is noted.

 

[dybmh]

this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.

Still no change, this reflected in multiple books multiple authors of the Hebrew bible. Still no evidence of borrowing. Just similar beliefs.

 

[dybmh]

The version that is closest he also dies at the end. Not hypocracy, it's the standard version believed to be used.

The version of the Nu'u myth that matches closest is ignored. But the version of Gilgamesh that matches is retained, by choice. Yes, hypocrisy.

It does not say that

Yeah, it does. If both came from a common tradition. Then the Noah story wasn't copied from Gilgamesh.

If they both copied from a common source then that is also syncretism.

No, if the written Noah story coming from a Jewish oral tradition which communicates a Jewish theme, with Jewish characters isn't syncretic. Remember, there needs to be something foreign added to be syncretism. A written story based on a common tradition is not syncretism unless something foreign is added and you just can't find that. Ezekiel is a change, but not borrowed. And that's all you've got so far.

I don't care which version they copied from, the point is they are using syncretism and not getting God messages.

The lack of concern for details is noted. And There's that "God message" straw man again. Keep going!

Many of these sources are peer reviewed or sourcing peer-reviewed material.
The papers are reviewed for the journals.
world history is sourcing scholarship. Fransesca has only peer-reviewed work.

But you're not bringing the peer reviewed work which would include... Drumroll.... Peer review.
Sure maybe they have been peer reviewed, but your bringing copy-paste claims lacking critical analysis. And you don't have knowledge of the language. You don't have knowledge of the Hebrew bible. You don't know Hebrew commentary. Can't distinguish between fact and fiction. And all of this had resulted in false weak claims without qualification, without moderation.

This paper on jstor
"GILGAMESH" AND GENESIS: THE FLOOD STORY IN CONTEXT on JSTOR

covers several other papers and appears to believe they both come from an older source. This is the same thing. Religious syncretism. Does not need to be Mesopotamian. Just not what is claimed, a story which is true and involving a true God. It's a myth taken from other myths.

Look at you. You brought a paper that says it wasn't borrowed from Gilgamesh. Now you have to back pedal. And I was right all along. It's really been a great debate. Now maybe you'll cease with the copy paste nonsense, spamming threads with false claims. Maybe. Well, I'll be here to remind you of this debate if you're tempted to repeat all this again.

And again. It's not syncretic unless something foreign is added.

Early OT studies support the Documentary Hypothesis, 2 sources J and P which were combined to get the version we know.

What do you, you Joel, actually know about this hypothesis. Would you actually be able to identify a false claim about Hebrew bible? So far it seems like no. You have zealous faith in the conclusions, but probably have no clue how those conclusions are made.

The Mesopotamian influence is not denied, ever.

Ummmm you do know mesopotamia is a place not a people, right? The first Jews could have been from mesopotamia. Those ideas could have been imported from Jews elsewhere.

Historical scholars. Not theologians with apologetics writing for answers in Genesis.

Yes, your bigotry is noted. Check out Kenneth Kitchen for an example of a scholar who challenges the documentary hypothesis. He published, was a professor, graduate from Harvard I think. Didn't write for answers for Genesis.

Yes we know the first recorded human author. Edheduanna writing about Inana.


The Hymn to Inanna (also known as The Great-Hearted Mistress) is a passionate devotional work by the poet and high priestess Enheduanna (l. 2285-2250 BCE), the first author in the world known by name. The poem is significant as one of the oldest works of literature extant and for its content elevating the goddess Inanna above all others.



Hymn to Inanna
from The Hymn to Inanna by Enheduanna | Poetry Foundation

Ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant. You just can't seem to address this issue. Just copy pasting more irrelevant off topic stuff.

 

[101G]

Ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant. You just can't seem to address this issue. Just copy pasting more irrelevant off topic stuff.

Agreed, so let's all get back on topic, with the topic at hand, God the Ordinal First and Last.

let's go at the topic from another angle, Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

I know that you will not agree with me as to who this child is, but for argument sake, lets identify this person as person X. and the term "Counsellor" we will look at, concerning person x. because it's very important with this Identification as to who poured out his Spirit of grace and of supplications according to Zechariah 12:10/

Counsellor, it's the Hebrew word,
H3289 יָעַץ ya`ats (yaw-ats') v.
1. to advise.
2. (reflexively) to deliberate or resolve.
[a primitive root]
KJV: advertise, take advise, advise (well), consult, (give, take) counsel(-lor), determine, devise, guide, purpose.

another word for Counsellor, to help us better understand the word, when us as "A legal adviser or solicitor". advocate, (see 1 John 2:1, OT Isaiah 11:2), intercessor, (see Romans 8:26, OT Isaiah 63:5, and Isaiah 59:16, Zechariah 12:10), Comforter/Helper, (see John 14:15, Isaiah 40:1-4), but in today's world, we say, attorney-at-law, or an attorney for the defense.

all these synonyms titles are all worn by Person X. lets just make it clear, person X is the Holy Spirit in Isaiah 9:6.

can you agree on Person X title here of "Counsellor". I'll be looking to hear from you

 

[dybmh]

No, we need a Hebrew Bible PhD here. At 3:45 Professor Stavrakopoulou will explain that during the Persian period the OT was canonized and re-branded into a new Judaism.

Explain? Nope just claims. But she does admit there's disagreement and dispute on these ideas, and qualifies them "perhaps" and "theoretically".

It's about 3 minutes of claims about rebranding, but no data is given.

2:02 "biblical scholarship is fraught with disagreement and dispute"

2:12 "Some parts of psalms may be very ancient."

2:34 "most people agree..."

3:14. Host asks "what are you beliefs?"
"Theoretically..."

4:24 " as part of rebuilding the community many traditions and perhaps written sources were rebranded."

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all.
One Scripture that contain all of the NT Gospel is Isaiah 9:6. we looked at the terms, Wonderful, Counsellor, now "MIGHTY GOD".
God's "Might"
H1368 גִּבּוֹר gibbowr (ghib-bore') adj.
גִּבֹּר gibbor (ghib-bore') [shortened]
1. powerful.
2. (by implication) a warrior, tyrant.
[intensive from the same as H1397]
KJV: champion, chief, X excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.
Root(s): H1397

the power of God is unlimited, so we can really STOP here. but let's give a few praises the GREAT ONE. we see this in his CREATION, and all and everything that he has MADE in his creation. and when he made all things, he was "ALONE" and "BY HIMSELF". and to maintain all that he has created, every day, hour by hour, minute, by minute, this is power off our scale.

so this Child, which was "BORN", and this "Son" which was given, is the MIGHTY GOD, manifested in flesh. what was unseen .... OT, is now seen, or made Manifested by flesh and blood, NT. now, that's a TRUE MIGHTY God.

101G.

 

[dybmh]

Yes "His Ashera" is there, why do you think Dever would say that?
One paper - "Yahweh and His Asherah": The Goddess or Her Symbol?
explains what many of the historical books do, the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix - his Ashera is in a form I do not know and looks like syth asera with symbols above it? I don't know Hebrew and I understand these OT scholars and archeologists who make claims hat are peer-rerviewed are telling accurate information in english.
That paper is published from Brill and is on jstor.org, it's also in other books on the subject.

It's an *assumed* prenominal suffix.

 

[joelr]

This makes absolutely no sense. In order to show something changed, the before and after needs to be compared. There is no early version to compare to, Joel. That's why this whole notion that Judaism was "rebranded" after Babylonia is a fail. It doesn't matter if the ugarites wrote first, that doesn't mean Judaism borrowed nor adapted, nor changed anything..

It isn't a fail because your imagination says so. It's the consensus opinion in scholarship. I will get into this further.

Nope. Not every. You just brought a scholar that said it wasn't. See below..

The vast consensus says yes.

So, no, not every scholar says Noah was written with Gilgamesh as a source. You just flip-flopped in consecutive replies..

Every non-fundamentalist historian. All historical scholars.

Who was the first person to believe in:

1. One solitary god
2. A law giver god
3. A creator god
4. A god who reveals itself to people

Honest answer: you don't know. No one really knows.

Prove me wrong. Bring a peer reviewed anything that claims to know who came up with these ideas first. They might say who wrote the down first, they might say when the idea became popular. But no one can claim to know who's idea it was, and when that idea was conceived.

That's why keep saying it, because, the first person with those ideas, we might as well label them a Jew.

Whether the story is true or not is irrelevant. Judaism began when a person believed in a single creator god, who gave a law / laws, and believed this creator revealed itself to them.

Someone believed this first. Maybe it was first conceived late, and written after the Babylonian exile. Or maybe it was an old story passed down orally. You don't know, no one knows. That's the point.

There is an extremely likely picture of Judaism based on evidence. Starts in 1200 BCE and they were polytheistic. Monotheism came after the exile in 600 BCE.

again, consensus in scholarship.

 

[joelr]

It's a theory. You've made your claim. The flood stories are similar, but you're ignoring the details.
Your claim was Genesis was originally conceived by the Sumerians. Good to see you've rolled that back.

Your watered down claim is noted.

Watered down? LOL. It's time to put this to bed. I'm bringing in Dr Baden one of the most respected OT scholars, Harvard PhD and author of
The Composition of the Pentateuch.
Then some Dr Bowen

Yahweh and Ashera

Professor Joel Baden PhD

5:45

No doubt there were people in ancient Israel that thought Yahweh had a consort Ashera


8:54

Yahweh is a mix of all sorts of stuff

Original Yahweh - he is a storm God from the south

Then there is all this stuff Israel borrowed from Canaanite religion

Then there is stuff Israel borrowed from Egyptian religion and Mesopotamian religion in various ways.

Parts of the Bible Yahweh appears to be part of a pantheon, just as Canaanite Gods.

Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions


1:25

OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say

“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…

2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.

References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.

21:00

Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.

Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.

23:22

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A……”


In fact the Moses childhood story is the childhood story of a God 1000 years earlier:
Authorship/Moses


Dr Joel Baden


6:47

The idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch has been out of favor in scholarship for the last 400 years.


23:18

Is Moses stories historically accurate and true, no.



27:30

Moses childhood story same as Egyptian story 1000 years before - hidden, put in basket in river, etc…same as birth narrative of Sargon. Clearly same story.

Person writing Moses birth story clearly drawing on well known and far older Mesopotamian tradition.


30:30 contradictions and doublets or both at the same time.[/QUOTE]

 

[joelr]

No it's not. You can't refute it, so you copy paste without addressing the issue.

I refute it (your imagination) with scholarship consensus. Copy/paste provides sources. We are going heavy on this now to demonstrate the actual consensus on all matters.

Another copy paste without addressing a single thing I said.

You cannot hand wave off the consensus opinion which was demonstrated in that copy. I will address all the main issues by showing the vast consensus. Which beats your imagination by an unimaginable amount.

Look at that! You admitted it. Your conclusion is based on who wrote it first! Good for you.

The Israelites wrote their own myths using source material from Mesopotamian, Egypt and so on. Where it first came from who knows.



I ne

ver claimed the Jewish people were writing their stories, I said it was oral story telling. That's a straw man.

I understand this line of reasoning you are using. It's an imaginary fundamentalist, apologist argument. We have a good consensus opinion of when the Israelites became a people and it was way after Mesopotamia. Also they were subject to the Mesopotamian creation/flood myths every New Years festival in captivity because the Enuma Elish was read aloud every festival.

Not true. I sourced the Hawaiian myth, I sourced the story of Noah's flood and showed you the details you're ignoring. I use your own sources to refute you. And I sourced the assumptions made to come up with El and Yahweh in ugarites writing. I also sourced criticism of Dever's conclusion about the figurines. You just copy paste so much, it takes a long time to go through it and point out the flaws.

We will get to the Ashera thing. The Hawaiian myth is not like the Noah story. We are past this. Consensus opinion says Israelites used Mesopotamian sources to write the myths.

It's just critical analysis. Most people probably ignore your posts, so you're not accustomed to someone actually reviewing what you're saying.

Right, so a little gaslighting to suggest I'm not worth reading, but you have such an intellect that you are able and finally actually saying something.
Nonsesnse and cheap immoral tactics.
You have done almost zero critical analysis. What you have done is put forth two statements, backed by nothing. Both are not supported by anything except your
imagination. Oral stories go back before Israel existed and the didn't copy. Except you flip flop because sometimes you admit they copied but it "might not be copying" because the Mesopotamians actually copied from Hebrew oral tradition. But then with the Hawaiian myth you argue against any copying.
Flip. flop.
They copied according to all historical scholarship and the Israelites didn't exist before 1200.

I'm not asking for sources, I'm asking for engagement of grey-matter. I'm asking for attention to detail.

I'm giving sources. You can pretend I'm not doing something but I am. It's actually you who is doing nothing. No sources, just imagination.

Yes, there's a logical problem assuming direction of influence. That problem has not been addressed. It makes perfect sense. Ancient myths begin as oral story telling. Everyone knows this. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

Israel began as separate tribes in 1200. Mesopotamia was established with full mythology as was Egypt. Not in contention.

Sure I suggest it depends on how Jewish is refined. I'll see if I can find something.

I'll show the origins.

I think it's always good to examine assumptions. The reliance on the date of the writing is noted. Thank you for confirming the flaw I have been talking about.

The source material for Genesis is far older.

Let me say it again. Everyone knows that ancient myths began as oral story telling. Who wrote it first is irrelevant.

Your inability to address my examples are noted.
Christianity has a motive for syncretism. Judaism does not and it has a substantial list of unique practices. Your own source confirms Jews staunchly stick to our traditions.

Judaism is highly syncretic and experts agree.

Similar, yes But who borrowed from whom is still just guesswork.

Not at all, the best scholars know this.