Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[Shad]

False, I do not reject any of those. I reject someone who creates lies, fantasy, and assumptions on another.

You reject it as no credible academic has made these claims and support it to become an accepted view. It is not a lie, it is calling a pig a pig.

You're in the same boat that you refer to. You reject everything that isn't your own tradition. Of course, not Shad's traditions are possibly flawed... Not possible. Shad's traditions and academia are perfect, flawless, and the ONLY way.

No I reject views that have no evidence based on research by an amateur that can not pass the simplest of scrutiny. Again you reject academia as it rejects your views.

 

[Shad]

As you are ignoring the similarities and counting the differences, selection bias.

No I counted both. However the similarities you found are based on a secondary language thus your similarity become nonsense when ran through linguistic methods of evaluation. Ie I deconstructed your similarities to shows these are not similarities.

When, for the hundredth time... It was about similarities in the first place.

Which is no more than saying "This is about selection bias and poor thinking!"

 

[Unification]

Hilarious. You do not understand how people create conclusions using different methods but your own claim is based on the simplest of these methods.

That's the problem. You reach conclusions as an end game. No room for expansion and growth. On a scale of 1-100, you have reached a conclusion at 50. I was at 50 with you but continue forward, as I have no traditions or a closed mind stagnating growth.

 

[Unification]

You reject it as no credible academic has made these claims and support it to become an accepted view. It is not a lie, it is calling a pig a pig.



No I reject views that have no evidence based on research by an amateur that can not pass the simplest of scrutiny. Again you reject academia as it rejects your views.

Focus on the 50% of the equation, the science, history, academics, and mathematics. I know that 50% with you and focus on the other 50%. These texts that you study, academia is only half of the equation.

Doesn't mean I ignore what you say as false, it is true... I just expand into the other half.

 

[Unification]

No I counted both. However the similarities you found are based on a secondary language thus your similarity become nonsense when ran through linguistic methods of evaluation. Ie I deconstructed your similarities to shows these are not similarities.



Which is no more than saying "This is about selection bias and poor thinking!"

There are tons of similarities and influence between Sanskrit literature and the bible, not just Abraham and Sarah. To say that they are all coincidences would be biased, closed minded, and not very academic. Academia and common sense shouldn't collide. That is poor thinking, also a closed off way of thinking.

To create less confusion, let's say that Hebrew is its own language... It still wouldn't negate the similarities and influence.

There is a difference between what each religion says are the meanings and what the "actual" meanings are that the writer was trying to convey. It's a fallacy to believe that since a religion interprets them a certain way, that is the endgame and that's what they must mean.

Take "Israel" for example. Academically, the 50% of the equation is a literal country.... Was the word broken down academically? Does that mean that "Israel" in text automatically makes it a literal country? Does Isis, Ra, and El have anything to do with it? If it's a language barrier and Israel is Yisrael, was there any influence from elsewhere and Yisrael is only conveyed in the Hebrew language?

"Jesus" for another example. Is he a literal guy floating around the sky somewhere or is he not a he or a literal person and symbolically something else? Does that make Jesus and his striking similarities to other deities false because of an academic language barrier? Would calling "Christ," Krishna or Tyrone or Max or Abdullah make a difference?

 

[Shad]

That's the problem. You reach conclusions as an end game. No room for expansion and growth. On a scale of 1-100, you have reached a conclusion at 50. I was at 50 with you but continue forward, as I have no traditions or a closed mind stagnating growth.

Focus on the 50% of the equation, the science, history, academics, and mathematics. I know that 50% with you and focus on the other 50%. These texts that you study, academia is only half of the equation.

Doesn't mean I ignore what you say as false, it is true... I just expand into the other half.

Empty rhetoric

There are tons of similarities and influence between Sanskrit literature and the bible, not just Abraham and Sarah. To say that they are all coincidences would be biased, closed minded, and not very academic. Academia and common sense shouldn't collide. That is poor thinking, also a closed off way of thinking.

To create less confusion, let's say that Hebrew is its own language... It still wouldn't negate the similarities and influence.

There is a difference between what each religion says are the meanings and what the "actual" meanings are that the writer was trying to convey. It's a fallacy to believe that since a religion interprets them a certain way, that is the endgame and that's what they must mean.

Take "Israel" for example. Academically, the 50% of the equation is a literal country.... Was the word broken down academically? Does that mean that "Israel" in text automatically makes it a literal country? Does Isis, Ra, and El have anything to do with it? If it's a language barrier and Israel is Yisrael, was there any influence from elsewhere and Yisrael is only conveyed in the Hebrew language?

"Jesus" for another example. Is he a literal guy floating around the sky somewhere or is he not a he or a literal person and symbolically something else? Does that make Jesus and his striking similarities to other deities false because of an academic language barrier? Would calling "Christ," Krishna or Tyrone or Max or Abdullah make a difference?

Again the similarities are constructs based on amateur knowledge of the texts you are comparing. These similarities vanish in the face of scrutiny.

Use of Israeli in the text depends on the context, you know what context is right?

Similarities between figures does not make these similarities copied from another source. More so few even attempt to claim Jesus was copied from other sources or was some other figure like Horus or w/e. You also forgot that Jesus similarities are based in an environment in which other figures are know and part of a long cultural history where as your views are not. You are making an assumption of similiarities without providing evidence of similarities. So your rebuttal is an empty claims to back another empty claim

There is no academic language barrier you are projecting an idea of your own into a system which does not have this barrier. IE You are rejecting linguistics again. The only barrier is that you have no education in the subjects you are talking about but still think you have a point. However this is your hubris and a little bit of Dunning-Kruger effect kicking in

 

[Unification]

Empty rhetoric



Again the similarities are constructs based on amateur knowledge of the texts you are comparing. These similarities vanish in the face of scrutiny.

Use of Israeli in the text depends on the context, you know what context is right?

Similarities between figures does not make these similarities copied from another source. More so few even attempt to claim Jesus was copied from other sources or was some other figure like Horus or w/e. You also forgot that Jesus similarities are based in an environment in which other figures are know and part of a long cultural history where as your views are not. You are making an assumption of similiarities without providing evidence of similarities. So your rebuttal is an empty claims to back another empty claim

There is no academic language barrier you are projecting an idea of your own into a system which does not have this barrier. IE You are rejecting linguistics again. The only barrier is that you have no education in the subjects you are talking about but still think you have a point. However this is your hubris and a little bit of Dunning-Kruger effect kicking in

To sum the logic you're using in simplicity... There is a literal, academic, external tree. Every language has its own word for a tree. Since the Hebrew word for tree and the Sanskrit word for tree do not fall in the same mathematical linguistic family, and have no common written root words... A literal, academic, external tree is different amongst Hebrews and Indians due to language barrier and linguistics.

True or false, in reality... The Hebrews and Indians have recently begun to find similarities in their religions, developing a better relationship. In the robotic mathematical realm, traditions and differences have hindered. Only feeding into the false system.

Another example of your logic. . . .

Take the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it's similarities in Sanskrit and Hebrew literature. You will say, no... There are differences in meaning... Selection bias. Automatic assumption and conclusion that the tree is a literal, academic, external tree and how it's interpreted to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is what it must mean. Yet, "common"(similar) sense amongst all human beings is that knowledge only resides in the brain, so the tree of knowledge is referring to the same thing... The brain.

You will say, "nope... Have to take it in academic external mathematical CONTEXT." The tree must be a literal external tree with literal external fruit with literal knowledge residing in the fruit. Since this cannot be scientifically and externally proven with evidence by professionals, it is false... And I am a superior and credible scholar and knowledgeable for pointing this out .. Without realizing that the internal poetry of myth is referring to the only place knowledge resides, within my very scholarly, academic, and knowledgable brain." "Therefore, you are projecting an idea of your own that is amateurish because that's not how the particular interpretation is to the religion and my traditional context. In context, a tree cannot and isn't referring to the brain which has dendrites." "Also, tree, dendrites, are English words... Thus they have nothing in common with Hebrew."

That is where your traditional education and academia fails miserably. It is all external and thinks it monopolizes myths, language, linguistics, and speech into mathematical and scientific formulas with no realization that real life and real minds defy all of your traditional robotic academic mathematical formulas.

 

[Shad]

To sum the logic you're using in simplicity... There is a literal, academic, external tree. Every language has its own word for a tree. Since the Hebrew word for tree and the Sanskrit word for tree do not fall in the same mathematical linguistic family, and have no common written root words... A literal, academic, external tree is different amongst Hebrews and Indians due to language barrier and linguistics.

IE Separate languages with no connection.

True or false, in reality... The Hebrews and Indians have recently begun to find similarities in their religions, developing a better relationship. In the robotic mathematical realm, traditions and differences have hindered. Only feeding into the false system.

No amateurs think they found similarities which can not stand up to scrutiny.

Another example of your logic. . . .

Take the tree of knowledge of good and evil and it's similarities in Sanskrit and Hebrew literature. You will say, no... There are differences in meaning... Selection bias. Automatic assumption and conclusion that the tree is a literal, academic, external tree and how it's interpreted to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is what it must mean. Yet, "common"(similar) sense amongst all human beings is that knowledge only resides in the brain, so the tree of knowledge is referring to the same thing... The brain.

Moral issue are found in every culture. This does not mean these issues and solutions are from the same source or interconnected.

You will say, "nope... Have to take it in academic external mathematical CONTEXT." The tree must be a literal external tree with literal external fruit with literal knowledge residing in the fruit. Since this cannot be scientifically and externally proven with evidence by professionals, it is false... And I am a superior and credible scholar and knowledgeable for pointing this out .. Without realizing that the internal poetry of myth is referring to the only place knowledge resides, within my very scholarly, academic, and knowledgable brain." "Therefore, you are projecting an idea of your own that is amateurish because that's not how the particular interpretation is to the religion and my traditional context. In context, a tree cannot and isn't referring to the brain which has dendrites." "Also, tree, dendrites, are English words... Thus they have nothing in common with Hebrew."

Strawman and projection. Try again.

That is where your traditional education and academia fails miserably. It is all external and thinks it monopolizes myths, language, linguistics, and speech into mathematical and scientific formulas with no realization that real life and real minds defy all of your traditional robotic academic mathematical formulas.

Nope. My education enables me to dismiss these claims as having no basis. More sophistry in order to support an empty assertion.

When speaking of logic try to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments. It undermines all your claims to logic when you demonstrate your inability to use it.

 

[Unification]

IE Separate languages with no connection.



No amateurs think they found similarities which can not stand up to scrutiny.



Moral issue are found in every culture. This does not mean these issues and solutions are from the same source or interconnected.



Strawman and projection. Try again.



Nope. My education enables me to dismiss these claims as having no basis. More sophistry in order to support an empty assertion.

When speaking of logic try to avoid logical fallacies in your arguments. It undermines all your claims to logic when you demonstrate your inability to use it.

Separate languages and linguistics are irrelevant when it comes to the similarities.

Amateur or professional are irrelevant , either/or can point out similarities. Scrutiny is good, it's even better when we scrutinize the traditions we may hold onto so dearly. Scrutinizing doesn't dismiss similarities or mean they're not there.

Everything in logic states that everything is interconnected, derived and influenced from the same source/sources. And that is just science. Poetic/mythological language, is outside and beyond your traditional parameters. A traditional majority view doesn't make something true. To state being in the minority equates to something or someone being false is illogical.

You've shown so yourself and have projected so yourself without being cognitively aware of it, no strawman. Dunning-Kreuger.

Your education is fine, outside of that it has reached conclusions to things that are nowhere near close to conclusion. Illogical in itself. Your education is fine, outside of that it dismisses everything that scrutinizes its tradition, and not because of logical reasoning. Your education is fine, outside of that it "accepts" things as if it's the endgame and only way to see things. Controlled systematic parameters in the mind.

Stick to what you do best in the west sphere of your brain, when you're ready to use the east sphere a little more.. and combine the two instead of stopping and concluding at 50%.. Maybe you will see. Afterall, all of the Sanskrit, bible, and Quran literature are about you, your brain and mind.

It is illogical to deem something as not history or scientific in text, and continue to place it in your traditional, academic systems. Treating mythology and poetic literature as if your rules and systems still completely apply is completely illogical. I really have no idea how someone as bright as you still can't cognitively be aware of that.

Forgive me for having some fun with "El Shaddai," meant no harm. Nice reasoning with you.

 

[idav]

Are you saying They were killing an animal once they got an idea to be recorded on the animal skin ?!

Oh wow, you have some talent for these type of strawmans.

 

[idav]

Academic thought

And what about the events that were happening at the era of Mohammed and verses revealed accordingly according to such specific events,
was it recorded before such events had occurred, lets just use our minds beside science, science can't be useful if we can't have minds to think, just saying .

The stories already existed. Mohammed would not need to invent new stories that already exist. The whole fact that Mohammed founded Islam as an Abrahamic religion speaks volumes to its originality.

 

[FearGod]

The stories already existed. Mohammed would not need to invent new stories that already exist. The whole fact that Mohammed founded Islam as an Abrahamic religion speaks volumes to its originality.

If you think the koran was written before Muhamad's birth then who wrote it and for what purpose he did so ?

 

[Shad]

Separate languages and linguistics are irrelevant when it comes to the similarities.

You are using language to even see these similarities.... Which is covered by the field of /drum roll, linguistics. Hilarious that you are so lost you do not even realize what you are talking about when you dismiss linguistics and language while using the simplest of both forms for your arguments.

Amateur or professional are irrelevant , either/or can point out similarities. Scrutiny is good, it's even better when we scrutinize the traditions we may hold onto so dearly. Scrutinizing doesn't dismiss similarities or mean they're not there.

No, being an amateur means one is not qualified in discussing the very topic they are talking about. Professionals are qualified. You use double-standards. You have no issues with scrutiny of academia but exercise none of it with your favour se of ideas.

Everything in logic states that everything is interconnected, derived and influenced from the same source/sources. And that is just science. Poetic/mythological language, is outside and beyond your traditional parameters. A traditional majority view doesn't make something true. To state being in the minority equates to something or someone being false is illogical.

No it doesn't. Empty claims backed by nothing. Minority views are typically false within academy as it is the minority view, you know what minority means right?

You've shown so yourself and have projected so yourself without being cognitively aware of it, no strawman. Dunning-Kreuger.

Your dismissal of academia while banging on the drum of your own ideas as correct is the definition of what I said.

Your education is fine, outside of that it has reached conclusions to things that are nowhere near close to conclusion. Illogical in itself. Your education is fine, outside of that it dismisses everything that scrutinizes its tradition, and not because of logical reasoning. Your education is fine, outside of that it "accepts" things as if it's the endgame and only way to see things. Controlled systematic parameters in the mind.

Said dismissal of academia. I hope you realize that the modern idea of Judaism are anything but traditional. If you want traditional go look at religion, those held or still hold those views. People think Exodus was a real event. People think the Conquest of Canaan was a real event. None of these events are support within academia only religions as both are key foundation mythology for 3 major religions.

Stick to what you do best in the west sphere of your brain, when you're ready to use the east sphere a little more.. and combine the two instead of stopping and concluding at 50%.. Maybe you will see. Afterall, all of the Sanskrit, bible, and Quran literature are about you, your brain and mind.

More dismissal of academy in favour of whatever idea pops into your head... Yes all 3 are about the human experience but this does not mean all 3 are from the same source. Your religious pluralism is a facade for claiming your particular view is the foundation of all views.

It is illogical to deem something as not history or scientific in text, and continue to place it in your traditional, academic systems. Treating mythology and poetic literature as if your rules and systems still completely apply is completely illogical. I really have no idea how someone as bright as you still can't cognitively be aware of that.

Language is poetic, you seem oblivious to how the poetic nature of the Bible does tell a story about a people. At time it is historical, at times it is not. However in order to figure out which is historical academia uses methods outside of linguistics and poetry. Method you dismiss.

Forgive me for having some fun with "El Shaddai," meant no harm. Nice reasoning with you.

Sure if you call that reason.

 

[Unification]

You are using language to even see these similarities.... Which is covered by the field of /drum roll, linguistics. Hilarious that you are so lost you do not even realize what you are talking about when you dismiss linguistics and language while using the simplest of both forms for your arguments.



No, being an amateur means one is not qualified in discussing the very topic they are talking about. Professionals are qualified. You use double-standards. You have no issues with scrutiny of academia but exercise none of it with your favour se of ideas.



No it doesn't. Empty claims backed by nothing. Minority views are typically false within academy as it is the minority view, you know what minority means right?



Your dismissal of academia while banging on the drum of your own ideas as correct is the definition of what I said.



Said dismissal of academia. I hope you realize that the modern idea of Judaism are anything but traditional. If you want traditional go look at religion, those held or still hold those views. People think Exodus was a real event. People think the Conquest of Canaan was a real event. None of these events are support within academia only religions as both are key foundation mythology for 3 major religions.



More dismissal of academy in favour of whatever idea pops into your head... Yes all 3 are about the human experience but this does not mean all 3 are from the same source. Your religious pluralism is a facade for claiming your particular view is the foundation of all views.



Language is poetic, you seem oblivious to how the poetic nature of the Bible does tell a story about a people. At time it is historical, at times it is not. However in order to figure out which is historical academia uses methods outside of linguistics and poetry. Method you dismiss.



Sure if you call that reason.

Autonomy of language and linguistics are irrelevant in similarities. Mythological poetry that has all been influenced and interconnected together using different written languages. Forcing it to be relevant does not make it relevant to similarities.

A professional would be qualified in the autonomy of language and linguistics, and denotative semantics. Not connotative semantics of ancient mythological text, literature, and symbolism. A professional only knows the autonomy of the language, linguistics, and denotative semantics.

Nothing is dismissed about the academia and autonomy of language and linguistics. You still fail to realize these are mythological texts, literature, and symbolism in which academia renders as positive logic and meaningless outside of its positive logic. I haven't ignored, nor disagreed with any academia. Claiming academic monopoly on myths and poetry is silly.

None of the events took place literally, so to still place them under academia, is what's hilarious. Obvious myths and poetry with an alternative meaning.

No religious pluralism.

None of it is historical. You're under the assumption that since real people are used in mythology, that it falls under your academic system.
Ie: since Egypt and Israel are literal countries, that must mean what the writer was conveying.
Ie: since Israelites and Canaanites are/were real people, that must mean what the writer was conveying.
Ie: since the sun and the moon are real, that must mean what the writer was conveying.

The four rivers flowing out of a garden, it wouldn't matter what the names are, and what language the rivers are written in. It all is symbolic for the brain and what the four rivers flowing out of the brain represent. You know... That thing every human has in common and similar with one another.

Regular intellectuals were never meant to comprehend the mythological literature. Yet claim academic monopoly on it.

Yet, we have professionals and archaeologists searching for literal rivers and myths... That is what is hilarious.

 

[Shad]

Autonomy of language and linguistics are irrelevant in similarities. Mythological poetry that has all been influenced and interconnected together using different written languages. Forcing it to be relevant does not make it relevant to similarities.

Again you are hilarious in your bungling around. Think about what you just said. Language and linguistics are irrelevant to similarities found in a text (writing using words). This is just plain stupid. Again you project your religious pluralism as if it was a fact, it is not.

A professional would be qualified in the autonomy of language and linguistics, and denotative semantics. Not connotative semantics of ancient mythological text, literature, and symbolism. A professional only knows the autonomy of the language, linguistics, and denotative semantics.

Wrong semiotic analysis and analytic distinction used in conjunction to separate the word meaning and cultural meaning. You are making the basic mistake that your cultural and theological assumptions are correct regarding the text. You refuse to denaturalizing your own views then project these on to other texts without merit.

Nothing is dismissed about the academia and autonomy of language and linguistics. You still fail to realize these are mythological texts, literature, and symbolism in which academia renders as positive logic and meaningless outside of its positive logic. I haven't ignored, nor disagreed with any academia. Claiming academic monopoly on myths and poetry is silly.

Wrong again. There is no link between your texts and Abraham established by academia at all. Thus you are ignoring academia. You are repeating the same mistake you made above by taking for granted your cultural assumption as fact. Again you make a mistake and forgot theology is considered in conjunction with academia when it comes to myths, ideas, symbolism, etc.

None of the events took place literally, so to still place them under academia, is what's hilarious. Obvious myths and poetry with an alternative meaning.

Academia covered mythology as well a factual history. You are assuming that academia does not consider these views at all nor can comment on these views.

No religious pluralism.

None of it is historical. You're under the assumption that since real people are used in mythology, that it falls under your academic system.

It does as academia covers a wide range of topics and ideas from fictional to factual. Take Homer's work as an example which contains myth and factual places.

Ie: since Egypt and Israel are literal countries, that must mean what the writer was conveying.
Ie: since Israelites and Canaanites are/were real people, that must mean what the writer was conveying.
Ie: since the sun and the moon are real, that must mean what the writer was conveying.

Red herring since none of these are in question. Beside when people look at say Ancient Egyptian mythology about Ra and the Sun ideas are symbolic representation. So when one is writing about Ra there is no assumption that it is also factual information about the Sun. These ideas are separated into the persona figure of Ra which is different, but linked, to ideas of the Sun.

The four rivers flowing out of a garden, it wouldn't matter what the names are, and what language the rivers are written in. It all is symbolic for the brain and what the four rivers flowing out of the brain represent. You know... That thing every human has in common and similar with one another.

Which is irrelevant to your claims as each person or group of people draw upon different meaning from representation. You are merely showing a common trait of all humans as if it is was a factual basis for your claims. All humans could be seeking to understand the divine, this does not mean each seeker is actually connected, has the same ideas, same methods or result.

Regular intellectuals were never meant to comprehend the mythological literature. Yet claim academic monopoly on it.

Theological sophistry and dismissal of academia. This is typical of religious ideologies which are in conflict with academia. However rather than attempting to resolve this conflict you dismiss that which is in conflict with your ideaology

Yet, we have professionals and archaeologists searching for literal rivers and myths... That is what is hilarious.

Nope. Many myths are born out of events of the past. Finding these links gives another interpretation which may no longer be dominate within the religion(s) which includes different mythological ideas. For example the Greek idea of super-humans and giant creature is born out of it's theological narrative. There are also records of fossil discoveries which the ancients could have easily interpreted as evidence of this giant creatures. A mammoth thigh bone could of been assumed as that of a cyclops thus shift many of the narrative from strictly mythology to what was assumed to be factual significance and application to the real world. This gives rise to new myths and legends continuing the exist theological cycle. It is also relevant to how the ancients viewed the world from natural philosophy. The discovery of fish fossils in an environment foreign to fish furthered the idea that reality was once comprised of a single element, water, which was a dominate idea included in the 5 elements making up reality; water, earth, fire, water and aether. People still do this today. People repeatedly go to Turkey to discover the Ark in order to validate their theological ideas about the world. They find a piece of wood then assume it must be part of the Ark. All opposing ideas are dismissed without question in order to fulfill their theological ideology. This gives to new myth which are coined as "conspiracies" when professionals reject the ideological driven conclusions of amateurs, or even their own peers, thus people must be attempting to hide the true of one's ideology. This is exactly where you are placed, within a conspiracy group, with your repeated dismissal of academia when it does not see merit in your theological driven ideology and the conclusions you put forward on slim or no evidence.

 

[Unification]

Again you are hilarious in your bungling around. Think about what you just said. Language and linguistics are irrelevant to similarities found in a text (writing using words). This is just plain stupid. Again you project your religious pluralism as if it was a fact, it is not.



Wrong semiotic analysis and analytic distinction used in conjunction to separate the word meaning and cultural meaning. You are making the basic mistake that your cultural and theological assumptions are correct regarding the text. You refuse to denaturalizing your own views then project these on to other texts without merit.



Wrong again. There is no link between your texts and Abraham established by academia at all. Thus you are ignoring academia. You are repeating the same mistake you made above by taking for granted your cultural assumption as fact. Again you make a mistake and forgot theology is considered in conjunction with academia when it comes to myths, ideas, symbolism, etc.




Academia covered mythology as well a factual history. You are assuming that academia does not consider these views at all nor can comment on these views.



It does as academia covers a wide range of topics and ideas from fictional to factual. Take Homer's work as an example which contains myth and factual places.




Red herring since none of these are in question. Beside when people look at say Ancient Egyptian mythology about Ra and the Sun ideas are symbolic representation. So when one is writing about Ra there is no assumption that it is also factual information about the Sun. These ideas are separated into the persona figure of Ra which is different, but linked, to ideas of the Sun.




Which is irrelevant to your claims as each person or group of people draw upon different meaning from representation. You are merely showing a common trait of all humans as if it is was a factual basis for your claims. All humans could be seeking to understand the divine, this does not mean each seeker is actually connected, has the same ideas, same methods or result.



Theological sophistry and dismissal of academia. This is typical of religious ideologies which are in conflict with academia. However rather than attempting to resolve this conflict you dismiss that which is in conflict with your ideaology



Nope. Many myths are born out of events of the past. Finding these links gives another interpretation which may no longer be dominate within the religion(s) which includes different mythological ideas. For example the Greek idea of super-humans and giant creature is born out of it's theological narrative. There are also records of fossil discoveries which the ancients could have easily interpreted as evidence of this giant creatures. A mammoth thigh bone could of been assumed as that of a cyclops thus shift many of the narrative from strictly mythology to what was assumed to be factual significance and application to the real world. This gives rise to new myths and legends continuing the exist theological cycle. It is also relevant to how the ancients viewed the world from natural philosophy. The discovery of fish fossils in an environment foreign to fish furthered the idea that reality was once comprised of a single element, water, which was a dominate idea included in the 5 elements making up reality; water, earth, fire, water and aether. People still do this today. People repeatedly go to Turkey to discover the Ark in order to validate their theological ideas about the world. They find a piece of wood then assume it must be part of the Ark. All opposing ideas are dismissed without question in order to fulfill their theological ideology. This gives to new myth which are coined as "conspiracies" when professionals reject the ideological driven conclusions of amateurs, or even their own peers, thus people must be attempting to hide the true of one's ideology. This is exactly where you are placed, within a conspiracy group, with your repeated dismissal of academia when it does not see merit in your theological driven ideology and the conclusions you put forward on slim or no evidence.

You know what is meant. It's as silly as dismissing everything that you say about Hebrew literature because you're writing in religious forums in ENGLISH.

I have no external tradition or theology or religion.

Study the academics of culture, tradition, theology, religion, language, and linguistics all that you want. I dismiss none of this.

Noah's ark is about the brain and mind.

Assuming because one sees the word "Israel," that it must be referring to literal country Israel is not very academic. If a writer wrote in Hebrew, and from the literal country Israel, writing "Israel" doesn't make it a literal country, one is using symbolism.

The literature was never meant and still isn't meant for any external religion, tradition, or theology. Religion was born out of taking myths externally. That is the conflict. You feed right into it. If it makes you feel better, making unconscious excuses for professionals searching and studying literature that doesn't exist externally. . So be it. . keep categorizing and labeling humans. If you want to know the literature, study your own brain and mind. Get to know yourself.

 

[paarsurrey]

With due respect.
One may like to visit Post #400 and Post #1 one the subject of plagiarization.
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

With due respect.
One may like to visit Post #400 and Post #1 one the subject of plagiarization.
Regards

The argument cited in post#1 is absurd, IMHO. But, that being said, the Quran certainly seems to have "plagiarized" Hebrew oral traditions (stories passed down). I guess you can believe that God simply reiterated his own stories again in the Quran through Mohammad, but that isn't as likely as borrowing from older stories.

 

[Augustus]

I guess you can believe that God simply reiterated his own stories again in the Quran through Mohammad, but that isn't as likely as borrowing from older stories.

As regards the religious environment of Late Antique Arabia:

"By the early seventh century it is possible to speak of a fledgling Arab Christianity, based in the settlements of Rusafa (in northern Syria), Hira (southern Iraq), Najran (northern Yemen), and a number of places in the Roman province of Arabia stretching from Jabiya in the north, in modern southwest Syria, to Petra and Kilwa in the south, in modern south Jordan and northwest Saudi Arabia, respectively."

In God's path: The Arab conquests - Robert Hoyland

At Kilwa they found the following:

The date of occupation of this monastery will remain undetermined until the final outcome of the studies of the excavated materials is known. In the meantime, we might base our assumptions on the Arabic inscription found on the lintel of cell 63 (Fig. 16, photograph and facsimile)3 which translates as follows:

Bism Allâh ḥimat ‘hl Taklâ min ‘Iqlîm
In the name of God, this is ‘the forbidden land, the irrigated field’, belonging to the community of Takla, originally from Iqlīm.

The first remark we would like to make concerns the script. It is identical to the inscription at Qaṣr Burquʿ, dated 81 AH/AD 700 by the Omayyad caliph, al-Walīd, before his ascension to the throne (AD 705–715). According to Savignac’s observations, the lettering of the text resembles script dating from about AD 1000 (Horsfield, Horsfield & Glueck 1933: 381). Unlike the text of Qasr Burqu’, we owe this text to Christians: the name of the saint is clear from the reading (Takla). The name seems to refer to Thecla (Takla), the famous saint whose cult flourished in Seleucia and Syria during the fourth and fifth centuries (Davis 2001)... The monastery of Kilwa, which still retains much of its mystery, may very well help us to gain a greater understanding of the expansion of Islam and its behaviour towards other communities, in this case Christianity. It is essential to stress that the crosses in Kilwa, more than ten in number, are all in very good condition, as are those in Qaṣr Burquʿ (Gaube 1974: 98; Field 1960), and that this Christian symbolism has never been damaged. Further work on Kilwa will improve our knowledge of the historical geography of Arabia at the beginning of Islam, and will help us to understand the spatial organisation adopted by nomadic peoples in arid areas.

Christian monasticism on the eve of Islam: Kilwa (Saudi Arabia) — new evidence - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0471.2011.00335.x/abstract

None of this on its own really 'shows' a great deal. Just more examples of how the region wasn't this pagan backwater completely separated from the rest of the region. The people of the region were not ignorant of monotheism and the contemporary religious issues of the wider region.

 

[paarsurrey]

The argument cited in post#1 is absurd, IMHO. But, that being said, the Quran certainly seems to have "plagiarized" Hebrew oral traditions (stories passed down). I guess you can believe that God simply reiterated his own stories again in the Quran through Mohammad, but that isn't as likely as borrowing from older stories.

You did not give any argument. Is science excepted from plagiarization? Why?
Regards