Can someone explain why the Christians adhere to the O/T, when the O/T is a rip off of the Sumerian texts?

Let's say your belief is right there (which it is not ) the Bible goes on to say the Messiah would come AND gives the exact year he would arrive.(Daniel 9:24-26). Also, from the OT book of Daniel are the empires that would rule the earth from the time of Babylon until Rome, written 650 BC (confirmed in DSS), before Rome ever existed. The Roman Church is then found in Revelation before it ever existed.



Sumeria is located in the Land of Kish (Kush or Cush) founded by son of Noah's son Ham after the global flood.

"Kish was occupied beginning in the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 BC), gaining prominence as one of the pre-eminent powers in the region during the early dynastic period.

The Sumerian king list states that it was the first city to have kings following the deluge, beginning with Jushur."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

"Cush, son of Ham. The Empire of Kush to the south of Egypt is known from at least 1970 BC, but this name has also been associated by some with the Kassites who inhabited the Zagros area of Mesopotamia, the Sumerian city of Kish in the Land of Kish."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]


The fact is nothing confirms the Sumer tablets. They are a fictional pagan account of the true biblical record compiled by Moses from tablets or some record handed down from the very time of Adam.(Wiseman Theory)
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Most who quote this Sumer tablet nonsense have no original sources and jumble up translations with Sitchin's fringe interpretation. They have no original source documents for the proper translation and do not even know what it says.
[link to creation.com]

The same critics use to also claim Babylon never existed: the only record of the empire was in the Bible; Then it was unearthed in Iraq.
[link to amazingdiscoveries.org]


Claim:
The Sumer tablets are the oldest text.

Reply:
Understand how TEXT dating is done: the physical dating of an archaeological relic does not date the original TEXT, which is dated by events and characters in the text then confirmed with the sciences.

"The oldest known tablets written in stone" means little as original biblical texts were copied to parchment repeatedly and the originals destroyed as they were used to the point of being worn out and useless. But by this time there were thousands of copies so originals were unimportant.

Older manuscript/tablet has no more credibility over the majority text in agreement: Majority coming from different parts of the world, all in agreement. This is what is found with the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament and Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament, King James Version manuscripts. Oldest known does not mean more credible or reliable in textual criticism, just means the originals were destroyed, lost or possibly being kept from us.

The pagan Sumer tablets do not tell of real events, while the books of the Bible are confirmed repeatedly with HISTORY and SCIENCE.

Genesis tells histories long before Babylon and the flood, compiled by Moses including many prophecies precluding anything but divinely inspired Word of GOD!

Should they not be following the original texts and not some plagiarized work??? Yet, would that not be admitting that they still believe in a "pagan" work? Either way, their Bible is based 100% on PAGAN texts...

The Sumerian texts are nothing but a nephilim created monkey hybrid races explanation of Genesis 6.

Carbon dating has been proven to be faulty. Besides Parchment texts rot and decay, stone does not so just because the stone is "older", than the most recent surviving copies of parchment, means nothing.

It predates Genesis you stupid retard!

Should they not be following the original texts and not some plagiarized work??? Yet, would that not be admitting that they still believe in a "pagan" work? Either way, their Bible is based 100% on PAGAN texts...