Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Epic of Gilgamesh

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Epic of Gilgamesh

    Originally posted by markedward View Post
    Evidence of this type of reapplication can be found in Ezekiel as well. Ezekiel is told to mock the king of Tyre, and so Ezekiel gives a mocking lament over the king. But the description he gives of the king dying and going to sheol highly resembles a passage found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which Gilgamesh's friend, Enkidu, is prophesying about his fate. Everything Enkidu says is found in Ezekiel's mocking of the king of Tyre.
    I made this a new thread because the subject would be total off-topic in the thread I snipped the above text.

    Can you give an URL of what's stated in the bold sentence? The subject has my interest.

    As you perhaps know yourself the Epic of Gilgamesh is often used to discredit the Flood story of Genesis 7 being a copy&paste job from the epic. I am much surprised to learn there is a second similarity with the Bible as well.

    Ed

  • #2
    One of my all-time favorite songs is Tomb of Gilgamesh by Tourniquet.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YxVJfSNGQ0
    “You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought.”

    Charles G Finney



    http://holyrokker.blogspot.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Biologists know that there couldn't have been a world wide flood that destroyed all things because of the genetic mappings that they have accumulated over the years. One explained to me, If there was a flood (like what the Bible portrays), then our genetic maps would show a slight direpency in the internal genetic codings that we a have established and there would be a hole in part of the nets of genetic information. In other words, if there was a flood like that, there would be a major dent in the genetic train of information! There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains. It is because of this great upward force of the crust of the earth that causes them to tower above (with oddly found fossils). About Gilgamesh, you can't use a fictitious story to expound upon anything.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ThuggishSplicer View Post
        Biologists know that there couldn't have been a world wide flood that destroyed all things because of the genetic mappings that they have accumulated over the years. One explained to me, If there was a flood (like what the Bible portrays), then our genetic maps would show a slight direpency in the internal genetic codings that we a have established and there would be a hole in part of the nets of genetic information. In other words, if there was a flood like that, there would be a major dent in the genetic train of information! There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains. It is because of this great upward force of the crust of the earth that causes them to tower above (with oddly found fossils). About Gilgamesh, you can't use a fictitious story to expound upon anything.
        So you are saying you do not believe the bible and that it is in fact the word of God. If you are going to throw out the story of the flood from Genesis then you in essence have to throw out the rest of the bible. Either it all is true or none of it is true.
        I am a Christian man in the Devil's land, spreading the gospel man to man.
        Have you laid your burdens down?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TrustingFollower View Post
          So you are saying you do not believe the bible and that it is in fact the word of God. If you are going to throw out the story of the flood from Genesis then you in essence have to throw out the rest of the bible. Either it all is true or none of it is true.
          Well put!!! So many are readily putting "the world" explanation on the Word of the ONE and ONLY TRUE LIVING GOD!!!!!!!!!
          John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that HE gave HIS only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have eternal life.


          My testimony: http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=137007

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ThuggishSplicer View Post
            Biologists know that there couldn't have been a world wide flood that destroyed all things because of the genetic mappings that they have accumulated over the years. One explained to me, If there was a flood (like what the Bible portrays), then our genetic maps would show a slight direpency in the internal genetic codings that we a have established and there would be a hole in part of the nets of genetic information. In other words, if there was a flood like that, there would be a major dent in the genetic train of information! There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains. It is because of this great upward force of the crust of the earth that causes them to tower above (with oddly found fossils). About Gilgamesh, you can't use a fictitious story to expound upon anything.

            Are you saying you 'don't' believe there was a flood? Do you Deny the flood and the reality of Noah and the Ark?

            Do you believe the whole Bible to be the Inspired Word of God.. or just parts of it???

            These questions need to be addressed....
            Many appear Righteous and Just because they say 'yes' to Jesus Christ , yet they don't do His Will.
            ------------------------------------------------
            Verily I say unto thee, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the Kingdom of Heaven before you do.
            ------------------------------------------------
            The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying. YEA, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with LOVINGKINDESS have I DRAWN THEE.
            Jeremiah 31:3

            Comment


            • #7
              slow down here...

              Wow, a bunch of posters just jumped on thuggishsplicer without asking for any sort of clarification.

              IMHO believing in the truth of every word of the Bible is not supposed to be easy. It is very easy to say one of two things: "Genesis said the the whole world was covered in flood, therefore science is wrong," and on the other hand, "Science has disproved Genesis, therefore the Bible is untrue."

              It is likewise easy to say that Gilgamesh talks about a flood, therefore it proves the truth of Noah.

              The question I would ask is: does the "whole world" have to mean the "whole Earth"? If so, then why was America called "the new world"? The idea of equating the world with the Earth is hard for most of us to escape from because we have seen photos from space. But until very recently, "the world" was used as a term to refer to every place which you knew of or which you had heard about. Should I be branded an unbeliever for suggesting that Noah had never heard of, nor would he care about, the Americas, Northern Europe, Subsaharan Africa, Middle-Asia, South-Asia, and East-Asia, let alone Australia... Well, you get my point.

              So, and I would really, genuinely like an answer from a more traditional Christian: is it heretical to suggest that the flood which covered "the whole world" did not cover the whole Earth?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by jonahthebold View Post
                Wow, a bunch of posters just jumped on thuggishsplicer without asking for any sort of clarification.

                IMHO believing in the truth of every word of the Bible is not supposed to be easy. It is very easy to say one of two things: "Genesis said the the whole world was covered in flood, therefore science is wrong," and on the other hand, "Science has disproved Genesis, therefore the Bible is untrue."

                It is likewise easy to say that Gilgamesh talks about a flood, therefore it proves the truth of Noah.

                The question I would ask is: does the "whole world" have to mean the "whole Earth"? If so, then why was America called "the new world"? The idea of equating the world with the Earth is hard for most of us to escape from because we have seen photos from space. But until very recently, "the world" was used as a term to refer to every place which you knew of or which you had heard about. Should I be branded an unbeliever for suggesting that Noah had never heard of, nor would he care about, the Americas, Northern Europe, Subsaharan Africa, Middle-Asia, South-Asia, and East-Asia, let alone Australia... Well, you get my point.

                So, and I would really, genuinely like an answer from a more traditional Christian: is it heretical to suggest that the flood which covered "the whole world" did not cover the whole Earth?
                Look at it this way, God said the flood covered the whole world. Who are you to call God a liar? God said it covered the world so I take His word at it rather than a sinner saying it don't line up with science. People are dumb in the scope of God's wisdom so it makes it a rather easy choice on who I will follow.

                God said the whole world was flooded, some scientist says it could not be the whole world. You and the bible say Noah claim the entire world, but science says no. Why do you take the word of a sinner over the word of God who created all of the world? This is what faith is all about my friend, believing God and trusting Him. If you can't trust Him in this simple matter how are you going to trust Him in the eternal matters?

                So to answer your question, yes the whole world means the whole world. God said it happened and neither you or I were there to see it so we take His word for it. I choose to have faith in this and everything the bible says rather than risk the consequences of unbelief. This is not a hard concept, Jesus taught us to believe with the faith of a child. We need to stop questioning the reasoning and just trust God and with that we will get the ultimate reward, eternal life with our Lord and Savior.
                I am a Christian man in the Devil's land, spreading the gospel man to man.
                Have you laid your burdens down?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TrustingFollower View Post
                  So you are saying you do not believe the bible and that it is in fact the word of God. If you are going to throw out the story of the flood from Genesis then you in essence have to throw out the rest of the bible. Either it all is true or none of it is true.
                  This is the problem I have. If Genesis is faulty, Jonah, Joshua and the Wall, why not Messiah? There is very little secular history that affirms anything more than he existed. So when we pick and choose our way through scripture, we mold God into whatever image WE want to make him.

                  I have shared this enough times on other threads, but it is worthy of repeating. God made the world by saying, "Let there be." His Word came forth from his mouth and did not return to him void. The world he spoke into existence, came ready to use. That means tall trees, mountain ranges, oceans, life in all forms. Things science says take millions of years to evolve into, was in that established form when God said so. Adam even, at two minutes old, was not a babe in need of breastmilk, but a man ready to eat what God said was good for food. So a ready to use earth means it came with the appearance of age.

                  2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

                  Bible believing, Messiah following, men of God are not who developed the idea that the universe was 15 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, and man millions, it was those who gave no regard to God. Yet, bible believing, Messiah following, men of God have leaned on the understanding of these that gave no regard to God, and accept that logic over God's stated Word.

                  In these days, when deception according to scripture runs rampant, that is a scarey thought.

                  Bosco

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TrustingFollower View Post
                    Look at it this way, God said the flood covered the whole world. Who are you to call God a liar? God said it covered the world so I take His word at it rather than a sinner saying it don't line up with science. People are dumb in the scope of God's wisdom so it makes it a rather easy choice on who I will follow.

                    God said the whole world was flooded, some scientist says it could not be the whole world. You and the bible say Noah claim the entire world, but science says no. Why do you take the word of a sinner over the word of God who created all of the world? This is what faith is all about my friend, believing God and trusting Him. If you can't trust Him in this simple matter how are you going to trust Him in the eternal matters?

                    So to answer your question, yes the whole world means the whole world. God said it happened and neither you or I were there to see it so we take His word for it. I choose to have faith in this and everything the bible says rather than risk the consequences of unbelief. This is not a hard concept, Jesus taught us to believe with the faith of a child. We need to stop questioning the reasoning and just trust God and with that we will get the ultimate reward, eternal life with our Lord and Savior.
                    There are numerous passages in both the old and new testaments that use the phrase 'whole world' and the like when it's obvious that it doesn't mean every single person on planet earth or the whole of the planet. If you say the flood didn't cover every inch of the earth, you are not calling God a liar.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BrckBrln View Post
                      There are numerous passages in both the old and new testaments that use the phrase 'whole world' and the like when it's obvious that it doesn't mean every single person on planet earth or the whole of the planet. If you say the flood didn't cover every inch of the earth, you are not calling God a liar.
                      Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
                      Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
                      Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
                      Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
                      Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

                      Not to be argumentative, but I see little wiggle room in these verses to allow of a regional event. All flesh died on the Earth, all high hills under the whole heaven covered.

                      Bosco

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bosco View Post
                        Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
                        Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
                        Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
                        Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
                        Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

                        Not to be argumentative, but I see little wiggle room in these verses to allow of a regional event. All flesh died on the Earth, all high hills under the whole heaven covered.

                        Bosco
                        “I will utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. “I will sweep away man and beast; I will sweep away the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, and the rubble with the wicked. I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. Zephaniah 1:2-3

                        What do you make of this passage? It says explicitly that God was going to cut off mankind from the face of the earth.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BrckBrln View Post
                          There are numerous passages in both the old and new testaments that use the phrase 'whole world' and the like when it's obvious that it doesn't mean every single person on planet earth or the whole of the planet. If you say the flood didn't cover every inch of the earth, you are not calling God a liar.
                          I am with bosco here. I do not see the wiggle room in God's word. Either we take God at his word or we don't believe in what he says. Each and everyone of us have to make that choice as to which camp we are in. This is just like it will be in the end times either we take the mark or we don't, no fence sitting on this. Believe in all of the word of God or just throw the entire thing out the window and be blown where ever the wind blows you.
                          I am a Christian man in the Devil's land, spreading the gospel man to man.
                          Have you laid your burdens down?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TrustingFollower View Post
                            I am with bosco here. I do not see the wiggle room in God's word. Either we take God at his word or we don't believe in what he says. Each and everyone of us have to make that choice as to which camp we are in. This is just like it will be in the end times either we take the mark or we don't, no fence sitting on this. Believe in all of the word of God or just throw the entire thing out the window and be blown where ever the wind blows you.
                            And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. 1 Kings 10:24

                            Do you believe every single person on earth sought out Solomon?
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rebel777 View Post
                              I made this a new thread because the subject would be total off-topic in the thread I snipped the above text.

                              Can you give an URL of what's stated in the bold sentence? The subject has my interest.
                              I sincerely apologize, but I made a mistake in that statement. It was not Ezekiel mocking the king of Tyre, but rather, it was Isaiah mocking the king of Babylon. (I wrote that point from memory, and I got the two passages between Ezekiel and Isaiah mixed up.)

                              Here are the two passages, from Isaiah, and from the Epic of Gilgamesh:

                              Isaiah 14:4, 9-17
                              ... you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: ... "Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. All of them will answer and say to you: 'You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!' Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers. How you are fallen from heaven, o shining one, son of dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of Zaphon; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?'

                              Epic Of Gilgamesh, Tablet 7
                              "Then he... and turned me into a dove, so that my arms were feathered like a bird. Seizing me, he led me down to the House of Darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla, to the house where those who enter do not come out, along the road of no return, to the house where those who dwell, do without light, where dirt is their drink, their food is of clay, where, like a bird, they wear garments of feathers, and light cannot be seen, they dwell in the dark, and upon the door and bolt, there lies dust. On entering the House of Dust, everywhere I looked there were royal crowns gathered in heaps, everywhere I listened, it was the bearers of crowns, who, in the past, had ruled the land, but who now served Anu and Enlil cooked meats, served confections, and poured cool water from waterskins. In the house of Dust that I entered ... there sat Ereshkigal, the Queen of the Netherworld. Beletseri, the Scribe of the Netherworld, knelt before her, she was holding the tablet and was reading it out to her Ereshkigal. She raised her head when she saw me—'Who has taken this man?'"

                              If you have your own Bible open, look at Isaiah 14:13. Your translation likely says "I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north" or something similar. The Hebrew word that finishes off that sentence is tsaphon. The sentence is literally saying "I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of tsaphon," or "Zaphon". Just as Mount Olympus was the mountain where the gods assembled in Greek religion, Mount Zaphon is the Ugaritic equivalent; Mount Zaphon was the "mount of assembly" for the Ugaritic gods... and the Epic Of Gilgamesh is an Ugaritic myth. Isaiah is not referring to some random "mount of assembly" when he is taunting the king of Babylon... he is specifically mocking the king of Babylon with his own religious beliefs and his own culture's Epic myths. This would be no different than if Isaiah were told to mock the king of Greece, saying something like, "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of Olympus.'"

                              Isaiah in his mockery of the king of Babylon, and Enkidu within the Epic each specifically refer to these things:
                              • The abode of the dead (Isaiah: "sheol"; Enkidu: "house of dust")
                              • Mention of men who were formerly kings (Isaiah: "the leaders of the earth", "all who were kings of the nations"; Enkidu: "the bearers of crowns, who, in the past, had ruled the land")
                              • The individual has been made low by their death (Isaiah: "you are cut down to the ground", "you are brought down to Sheol"; Enkidu: "he led me down to the House of Darkness")
                              • The people in the abode wonder at the new arrival (Isaiah: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble?"; Enkidu: "Who has taken this man?")
                              To This Day

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X