| Revision as of 18:58, 7 August 2024 editOnlyloss6973 (talk | contribs)36 edits →Josephus claims: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:05, 8 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,118 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 14) (bot |
| (47 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
| Line 63: |
Line 63: |
|
{{Archives|archivelist=/archivelist}} |
|
{{Archives|archivelist=/archivelist}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
== Page needed issue == |
|
== Gilgamesh flood was only written 7th-9th centuary bc == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] recently tagged reference number 2 as needing a page number, and fair enough--but it's actually listed (page 2), it is simply not appearing. I am weak on ISBN cites; does anyone know offhand how to fix this? On a related note, my reading of the source is that the flood myths go back to the Early Dynastic II period rather than the Old Babylonian. If anyone feels like double checking me on that, I would appreciate it. Cheers and Happy Friday to all. ] (]) 23:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Gilgamesh flood myth is vopied from the atrahasis epic the bible has no evidence of literally borrowing and flood myths aren’t unique ] (]) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I noticed this with other sources I have recently tagged. |
|
:What do you want to specifically change in the article, and what ] can you cite to support such change?s ] 21:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:@] @] @]?] (]) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::The are several major mistakes in the current page. The Bible did not 'borrow' from the Gilgamesh saga. If you actually read the earliest texts you will see there are significant differences between the Biblical narrative and the Gilgamesh saga. |
|
|
|
::{{re|CycoMa2}} Your attempt to ping {{ping|tgeorgescu}} didn't work. Ping only works when you save your edit with a new signature, as I am doing here. ] 17:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Secondly, the Biblical account was written before the saga of Gilgamesh. |
|
|
|
:For any cite template, shortened footnotes (sfn), or harvard citations (harv), you have to use the <code><nowiki>|page</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>|p</nowiki></code> parameter to add page numbers. I have tagged some with needing page numbers due to the lack of easy verification of the claim in the article. It’s best practice to add a page number when adding any book or journal source. I do not write articles, I just fix the sources in articles. Thank you, {{Smiley}} <span style="font-family:Arial;background-color:#fff;border:2px dashed#69c73e">] - ]</span> 19:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Thirdly there is copious amount of evidence showing that a cataclysmic flood occurred and indeed covered the world. Mass fossil graveyards show animals bent into positions that are reminiscent of drowning. The fact that so many creatures were buried alive, shows the event was singular and incredible amounts of liquid materials were involved. |
|
|
::The current page is nothing but a one-sided attack on Christian content. ] (]) 14:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::IP, while you are correct that the current standard version of ] is that from the ], and therefore dates to the first millennium BCE, if you refer to our page on the Epic, you will see that there is evidence for a cohesive narrative version dating back to the Old Babylonian tablets (ca. 1800 BCE), and evidence for fragmentary poems and bits of narrative dating farther back to the ]. Whatever one's thoughts about faith, I know of no scholars who contend that the biblical narrative was composed anything like this early. I'll leave the flood for another day, but suffice it to say that there is not a scholarly consensus for the position you put forward. Cheers. ] (]) 14:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'll deal with that standard YEC nonsense. See . |
|
|
::::That should be the end of this discussion as talk pages aren't meant for discussing the Ark, floods, etc. ] ] 15:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Josephus claims == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why are Josephus claims considered pseudoarchaeological? He was a secular historian. ] (]) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, but not an ]. Much of his narrative about the distant past is basically 1st-century ]. ] (]) 22:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Josephus came from a priestly family, and while his stated approach to history (essentially, being even-handed) is laudable, there is no doubt he has a particular slant and emphasis to his accounts. He even says in ''Antiquities'' that he is, in essence, repeating Jewish records. He was certainly ahead of the curve, but I don't think he can be accurately described as a "secular historian." Cheers. ] (]) 23:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So Antiquities of the Jews shouldn't be considered historically accurate because it has Jewish records about their own history? Doesn't make any sense what you say. Why he can't be considered secular he literally worked for the Roman Emperor which didn't take very kindly to their monotheistic religion which in turn lead to the Jewish Roman wars and destruction of Second Temple. Do you think the Romans would take kindly to Josephus writing Judaic religious polemics considering what they have done to the Jews? R ] (]) 04:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Roman Empire wasn't a secular state that is certain so all it's historians shouldn't be considered secular because of that? ] (]) 04:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::My point is more that Josephus tells us quite explicitly that he bases his accounts, ''inter alia'', on "Hebrew scriptures." Moreover, ] is not, and was not meant to be, a neutral account of events. His goal was to legitimize the Jewish tradition in the eyes of what we might broadly call the European world. None of this invalidates Josephus in any way, but it does mean we should be careful to keep his works in their proper context. Cheers. ] (]) 14:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So all Roman history should be considered non neutral too because it was written by Roman themselves? What about germanics or Gauls they were all written by the Romans since none could write should they be considered non historical? ] (]) 16:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Again, not "non historical," but Roman historians too have to be used with great care, No one believes Tacitus was on hand to hear the speech delivered by ], for instance. Cheers. ] (]) 16:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::It is not impossible that Calgacus actually gave a speech before a battle. If he gave a speech before battle with Agricola we don't know for sure though it isn't impossible, it is certain the speech is not true since Tacitus didn't know Celtic but he could still have given a speech. Opposing troops weren't that far from eachother in battles before modern warfare so it not a far fetched claim. Generals and kings always gave speeches before battle. Josephus claims shouldn't be considered pseudoarchaeological but unknown to be true or false. I gave a great counter argument to what Dimadick said and still I haven't got an answer. ] (]) 17:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I disagree that you have a valid counter argument, but if you can establish consensus for a change, then by all means make it. Cheers. ] (]) 17:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You disagree by giving no argument. Wow what a nice disagreement. Clearly not biased. Shows again how reliable Misplaced Pages is with people like you being editors. At least Misplaced Pages itself acknowledges it is not a reliable source of information so that is good, at least it will not induce people in error. Also he still didn't answer in what capacity you are to defend his claims? ] (]) 18:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::You also didn't even give arguments to even defend it is claims you just said no and left giving no argument lol. You are literally like a meme refusing to elaborate and leaving. ] (]) 18:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You also didn't even respond to what I said. You ignored all my arguments and everything I said you gave no argument nothing. You basically said no and left lol. You are pathetic. You act like a literal meme and please stop saying cheers like you won the argument you didn't even argue in order to win an argument with me ok? It is annoying. Everytime you said something I came with an argument which you have zero absolutely zero answer to give and you refuse everything I said without giving any argument. ] (]) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::So if he got his information from an archaeologist the information shouldn't be considered accurate? We certainly don't know where he got his information so I don't know why you say he got it from folklore that is your own assumptions without any proof of them. But considering his social status it isn't impossible that he got his information from an archaeologist. Why should we deny the information just because he wasn't an archaeologist? ] (]) 04:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)