men living beyond 200 years, fiction? or bad interpretation?

[iholdit]

The case seems to be that the Hebrews seperated themselves out from among the Canaanites at some point and called themselves Israelites. If you're going to argue we should take the Hebrew Bible as history, you can forget it, because most of it wasn't written until the time of Ezra, whilst other civilizations you're speaking of have texts much older.

The Bible itself proves that much of it wasn't written when it says it was. Example: Dueteronomy wasn't written by Moses, because it gives the account of his death and says that "until this day" his sheplecure has never been found.

Joshua and Judges are similar in their claims, showing these texts were all written much later.

Just because there is a name at the top ofthe book doesnt mean the whole book was written by that person. The book of kings would have to be written by all the kings if that were true.

Your argument is that because moses death was written in deuteronomy that means none of the book could have been written by moses, just doesnt make sense. For example if you had a diary most of your life, then you died and your children or other relatives found your diary and wrote at the end of the diary that you died on whatever day and you were buried wherever etc. Does that mean that you didnt write most of that diary?

Are you saying someone has to write something down for it to be history? If thats the case, then everytime someone goes to court and says what they witnessed something, it must have never really happened because they didnt write it down. Thats just not a valid argument, oral history is a part of history as well.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You dont really have the benefit of "knowing" they are not true accounts but this is a whole other topic.

We know for a fact man was not created fully formed. Additionally we know there was never a world wide flood as the bible indicates. We do have evidence of local flooding in various areas. So we can in fact know that the creation story of the bible as well as the flood story are inaccurate.

As far as borrowed, just because the accounts are somewhat different doesnt mean they were borrowed. If you and i both witness something from different vantage points, we would tell the story of what happened differently in the details but the general idea would be similar. If we then told the story to our children and they told their children and so on, until one of your childrens children wrote it down. Then several generations later one of my descendants wrote it down. Both stories would be different in details, yet that doesnt mean my descendants borrowed your story and reworked it.

I get it. I was simply pointing out that there are variations with the details. One noticeable difference is the Sumerian version consisted of multiple gods whereas the Genesis account slims it down to just one...depending on ones interpretation of the word (Elohim). What gets interesting is trying to wrap ones mind around which of these particular stories could be considered the older of the two. The Sumerian version is literally written in stone and we have a pretty good idea how old it is and we know the biblical version, if it was told orally at all because we simply don't know "if" it was passed around orally, was written centuries later. As far as the age of people as recorded in the bible this might have been a common myth considering, once again, it was something that was found amongst the Sumerian stories......

 

[outhouse]

They were not hebrews in terms of they didnt have modern hebrew writing etc. but you admit they had ancestors who were there during the time of sumer and ancient egypt correct?

So the hebrews ancestors would have been able to observe the same events as those cultures and would be able to pass the story of those events down to their descendants. Those descendants would eventually become the hebrew people with hebrew writing etc. This would mean the hebrews would have gotten the story of those events from the oral tradition of their ancestors and not from the sumerian or ancient egyptian writings like you seem to believe.

except for one huge problem, there is no evidence. there are no cuniforms, no hieroglyphics, no written anything beyong 1000 BC

but theres plenty from previous civilizations.

hebrews were not a previous civilization, they were parts of other advanced cilvilazations. they came from egypt and other areas, they didnthave there own religion. they worshipped pagan gods like everyone else.

your idea falls through on so many levels it is not worth thinking about

the hebrew religion is a melting pot of previous pagan religions, a compilation so to speak to meet there own language and religious needs.

 

[outhouse]

atleast the sumerian flood story is based off a real flood in 2900BC when the euphrates overflowed.

the hebrew fiction is easy to trace back to egyption and sumerian cultures.

As is the ages of pagan gods the hebrews took to make there fictional heros live long lives

 

[iholdit]

We know for a fact man was not created fully formed. Additionally we know there was never a world wide flood as the bible indicates. We do have evidence of local flooding in various areas. So we can in fact know that the creation story of the bible as well as the flood story are inaccurate.



I get it. I was simply pointing out that there are variations with the details. One noticeable difference is the Sumerian version consisted of multiple gods whereas the Genesis account slims it down to just one...depending on ones interpretation of the word (Elohim). What gets interesting is trying to wrap ones mind around which of these particular stories could be considered the older of the two. The Sumerian version is literally written in stone and we have a pretty good idea how old it is and we know the biblical version, if it was told orally at all because we simply don't know "if" it was passed around orally, was written centuries later. As far as the age of people as recorded in the bible this might have been a common myth considering, once again, it was something that was found amongst the Sumerian stories......

I dont think we can say we "know" there was never a world wide flood for example. We can say the evidence suggests there wasnt but that isnt the same as knowing. At this point we could go into translations and interpretations of scripture regarding the flood etc. but that would be getting off topic.

As for multiple gods the canaanites as a whole would have had multiple gods. The bible is filled with hebrews worshiping false gods, idols etc. So it was part of the "norm" to have multiple gods. The hebrews generally would have recognized one god but they would have been aware of the multitude of gods that others and even some of their own worshiped. Whether you attribute a flood for example, to be caused by one god or multiple gods wouldnt take away from the fact that a flood occured. The difference would be who or what caused the flood but the flood occuring would be known by all who witnessed it.

You are correct that without written evidence we cant say for certain they would have witnessed the same events as the sumerians at the same time. But the ancestors of the hebrews would have been in the right place at the right time to witness the same events as the sumerians so the probability is high that the hebrew ancestors witnessed the same events as the sumerians.

 

[iholdit]

except for one huge problem, there is no evidence. there are no cuniforms, no hieroglyphics, no written anything beyong 1000 BC

but theres plenty from previous civilizations.

hebrews were not a previous civilization, they were parts of other advanced cilvilazations. they came from egypt and other areas, they didnthave there own religion. they worshipped pagan gods like everyone else.

your idea falls through on so many levels it is not worth thinking about

the hebrew religion is a melting pot of previous pagan religions, a compilation so to speak to meet there own language and religious needs.

Your argument has been that hebrews basically stole the sumerian and egyptian stories. Now you admit that the ancestors of the hebrews would have been a part of those ancient civilizations or at least involved with them at or before the time those stories were first written.

That makes the hebrews not a "melting pot of previous pagan religions" but their ancestors were the witnesses of these events and part of these religions. The hebrews would say they had experiences with a one true god who led them away(in general) from the other false gods of their ancestors. Im sure if someone worshiped 10 gods and one of those gods came to them and said i am the real god those other gods are fake, they would probably stop worshiping the other 9 gods and just worship the one god.

The fact that there have been no written records from hebrew sources before 1000bc doesnt eliminate the fact that other sources have written about hebrews since around 1800bc. It also doesnt take into consideration that hebrews would have been canaanites and used the canaanite language before developing their own language. So there is no reason to expect the ancestors of hebrews would have written in hebrew.

By your logic most native american tribes didnt exist before europeans came to america to record their existence. Clearly we believe native american tribes existed before europeans came to america and they had their own religion etc. for probably thousands of years before there was ever a written record of it by europeans.

 

[outhouse]

iholdit.

you are the one making statements that go against historical facts

you are the one reaching here in all areas to fit the myth to your needs.

it is you that needs to provide links, evidence or something to back up your wild left field statements.

I dont think we can say we "know" there was never a world wide flood for example.

we do know there was no world wide flood, this is fact.

the flood story is a myth based on the sumerian version.

please stay on topic with your belief or disbelief of 900 year old men listed in the bible

 

[iholdit]

iholdit.

you are the one making statements that go against historical facts

you are the one reaching here in all areas to fit the myth to your needs.

it is you that needs to provide links, evidence or something to back up your wild left field statements.



we do know there was no world wide flood, this is fact.

the flood story is a myth based on the sumerian version.

please stay on topic with your belief or disbelief of 900 year old men listed in the bible

Do you honestly believe that only history that was recorded is true? That would mean all animals didnt exist before man wrote about them, for example.

Scientists are constanly finding new evidence that changes what we believed happened. You saying we know something is a fact, that we didnt witness is not scientific.

You are speculating that the hebrews used sumerian and egyptian stories. You have no evidence their ancestors didnt actually witness these events themselves. So you need to provide links that prove hebrews used sumerian and egyptian stories, if you want to say we know its a fact.

As for a world wide flood, we dont even "know" how water got on earth to begin with. Some scientists believe it was due to comets but that has been disputed. So if we dont "know" how water got on earth to begin with what makes you think we "know" there wasnt a world wide flood? All we can do is go by the evidence we do have and try to figure out what happened from there. We can not say we "know it is a fact" because we dont even "know" if we have all the evidence. You can only say "based on the evidence we have we believe" and not "we know its a fact".

I already explained my position on how it is possible for humans to live past your 120 year limitation, based on the evidence from animals studies. You are not willing to accept that and yet you have no problem accepting that its a known fact that hebrews got their stories from sumerian and egyptian when there is no evidence they did. The only evidence that exists is that the sumerian text was written first but that isnt proof hebrews used those writings. Which is what you need, actual proof before you can say we know something is a fact.

 

[outhouse]

your whole post seems to hide from reality, it really isnt worth a rebuttle.

im not here to debate your personal fantasy

 

[outhouse]

based on the evidence from animals studies.

I will say this.

that doesnt apply to humans at all

if it did it would be a multi billion dollar industry.

now quit the fantasy


do you believe the world is 6000 years old too???

 

[iholdit]

I will say this.

that doesnt apply to humans at all

if it did it would be a multi billion dollar industry.

now quit the fantasy


do you believe the world is 6000 years old too???

Lmao!!! You obviously havent looked at the studies. In some of the studies the conditions are so dangerous to the animals that most of them dont survive, but the ones that do survive can live up to 10 times as long as the normal animals. Some of the studies that work involve things like eliminating the animals sense of smell or exposing them to poisons etc. Most humans arent going to risk dying or even losing some of their senses to live longer and also scientists wouldnt be able to ethically do this to humans.

The other options are things like caloric restriction or intermittent fasting. Most humans have a difficult time reducing calories when they are told by their doctor to do so for health reasons, forget about convincing them to caloric restrict to extend their life. Plenty of people smoke even though there is plenty of evidence of health risks, so its not as easy to convince people to do this as you would believe.

The part that is a multi billion industry is supplements. Some supplements have been shown in studies to extend the lifespan of various animals. Many humans use these supplements to try to extend their life as well and it is a multi million-billion dollar industry. The problem is it is difficult to do studies for a 100 years or more to show a supplement worked in humans, but that doesnt mean it is a fantasy to believe it can work in humans.

There is evidence that various biomarkers for aging which are similar to those in the animals occur in humans on caloric restricted with optimal nutrition, intermittent fasting and taking supplements. In 100 years perhaps we will have the proof of whether or not this extended life in humans, but we do have evidence right now, that the same types of effects that occured in the animals who lived longer than normal are occuring in humans following the same types of diets or supplements etc. Here is a study showing these type of effects in humans on caloric restriction and there are many other short term studies on the subject.
Caloric Restriction in Humans

Sorry but you are the one in fantasy land being that you are stating things as you know they are a fact, when you dont have proof. I havent said i know it is a fact i have said it is possible or probable depending on what we have talked about. If you want to actually discuss things without claiming you know everything let me know.

 

[outhouse]

do you believe the world was created 6000 years ago???

 

[iholdit]

do you believe the world was created 6000 years ago???

Are you serious? You bring up other topics like you did with your claim that hebrews used sumerian and egyptian stories, then when i reply to that you complain i go off topic. Then you do it again with this question.

Define years, do you mean modern earth years of approx 365 days, approx 24 hour days etc.? Are these years judged from a stationary perspective? We would have to go into how time works at this point really.

If you are asking from modern earth years from a stationary perspective, then no i dont believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, even the ancestors of the hebrew were mentioned in the wikipedia article as existing over 10,000 years ago, so i have no idea what you are getting at.

Though if you asked me for absolute proof the earth wasnt created 6,000 years ago i couldnt give you any, so i wouldnt say i know it is a fact, but the evidence suggests the earth was created before 6,000 years ago.

If you complain about me going off topic again i will refer you to your last post.

 

[outhouse]

men dont live anywhere near 200 years despite your illogical claims so i had to check to see how deep in fantasy land you really are.

you sound exactly like a YEC

 

[iholdit]

men dont live anywhere near 200 years despite your illogical claims so i had to check to see how deep in fantasy land you really are.

you sound exactly like a YEC

And you sound just like someone who wants to deny the research in animals of life extension could ever apply to humans causing them to live to 200 years old or more. Like i said you denying the possibility of this ever having occured or ever will occur in modern times and saying you know for a fact it doesnt shows who is in fantasy land.

You are basically saying all of the researchers who do animal research in hopes of applying to humans are in fantasy land. Do you have any idea how much research has been done on animals, that has applied to humans? To say its not possible for animal research on longevity to ever apply to humans at all and you know for a fact it wont, makes you the president of fantasy land.

You are basing your claim that a human has never lived to 200 years old mostly on what we have records for in the last 200 years maybe. I know people in their 70`s who cant get copies of certain documents because they burned in a fire or were destroyed in a flood etc. We do not have copies of every single person who ever lived births certificate in fact there are plenty of people who dont even have a birth certificate.

Your claim that it never happened is based on what little evidence we have of modern record keeping of industrialized countries, mostly in recent times. That doesnt account for every person who ever lived or who lived in countries who dont keep these kind of records etc. You dont know that it never happened for a fact, you can only speculate based on the limited evidence you do have. Considering you seem to understand almost nothing about longevity research you are really just basing your illogical claims of knowing it is a fact on pure fantasy.

 

[outhouse]

And you sound just like someone who wants to deny the research in animals of life extension could ever apply to humans causing them to live to 200 years old or more.

then show it applys to humans.

so far all you are is talk

 

[outhouse]

no human being has ever lived to 200 quit with the fantasy,, your on a level of lunacy

 

[iholdit]

then show it applys to humans.

so far all you are is talk

Lmao!!! I posted a study about how some of the longevity research on animals has had some of the same effects in humans. Your response was to change the subject to the age of the earth. All you are is talk, about everything you "know is a fact" when you cant prove any of it.

Oh wait i forgot you were there from the beginning of the earth and you witnessed every person who ever lived and their entire lifespan etc. and that is why you know all these things for a fact. But didnt we already establish that would make you older than 200 years? Lmao!!!

 

[outhouse]

if your all talk thats fine

so far you have no real proof that man lives over 120 on average

end of story.

you certainly dont have any proof of man getting anywhere near 200

 

[outhouse]

man didnt live to the ages reported in the bible
there was no world wide flood
mam was not created in 1 day
woman was not created from a rib
there was no ark with all the animals
man spoke many languages before the tower of babel
adam and eve were not the first two people
there are no talking snakes

these are all stone cold facts


and with all of our modern medicine and technology, no man has ever lived to or past 200 years

SO its fiction or interpretation error and I have showed both sides of the story. your fantasy is not up for debate