From:
Is the Old Testament plagiarized from the Zoroastrian scriptures?
"Is the Old Testament plagiarized from the Zoroastrian scriptures?
Quite simply, no. Many wild theories are thrown about by theologians looking for something to put into their ThD theses, and this is one of these ideas. The Zend Avesta is the principle scripture of Zoroastrianism, the pseudo-monotheistic sun-worshiping religion
which began in Persia in about the seventh century BCE. One principal problem with this theory is that most of the Old Testament was written long before the Zend Avesta.
The origins of the Zend Avesta are obscure, but the earliest evidence for its existence comes from about 600 BCE. Assuming that there are parallels between the Old Testament and the Zend Avesta which require one to conclude that one borrowed from the other (and this is a big assumption)
the logical implication would be that the Persian scripture borrowed from the one which preceded it?the Old Testament! The reason theologians are not attracted to this theory is that it would not provide an interesting and controversial ThD thesis topic.
Another problem with this theory is that most of the original Zend Avesta has been completely lost. In fact, it is difficult to prove that Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra) himself is even an historical person, as his origins and even the time of his life are controversial. The
Zoroastrians now rely principally on the Gathas, which are supposed sayings of Zoroaster. I say supposed sayings of Zoroaster
because this book was written hundreds of years after the Zend Avesta when most of the original writings had already been lost to posterity. For this reason, it is difficult to say what was in the Zend Avesta in the first place. This would make it hard to prove either that the Bible writers borrowed from the Zoroastrian scripture or vice versa. With little solid evidence in either direction, much room is left for those who like to speculate and who make a living out of finding supposed problems with the Bible. You
would do well to be extremely skeptical of such claims. You should look for some sort of solid evidence to back up the claim that the Bible writers borrowed from Zoroastrian scripture. To date, I have seen no reliable evidence to support the claim, but if you find something, I would request you send the information my way. I will not be holding my breath."
-------
Most, if not all of the claims of ancient religious writings pre-dating the Bible are based upon radiocarbon dating, which is sometimes thousands of years off and thus totally unreliable as the sole means of dating an artifact.
Over two-thirds of the Bible is prophecy*, over 99% of which has been fulfilled in exact and minute detail. Only a fool would look at that track record and question the historical accuracy of the Bible, or that the remaining >1% of the prophecies will not similarly be fulfilled in exact and minute detail.
*prophecy is
future history, revealed in advance of it happening
The
logical approach to any perceived differences between the Bible and secular "scientific" dating methods would be to assume the scientific dating methods are in error, as they have been proven to be time after time. But we live in a Godless world, where people will desperately do whatever they can to preserve and defend their fragile ego-boundaries, which is why the Bible is both the most attacked text on Earth as well as the most accurate historical text there is.
The Bible makes it crystal clear that those who refuse to accept its truth and follow its
Commandments will burn. Why? Because following our Creator's Commandments, i.e. His Law, is the
ONLY Way for everyone to live in true peace, harmony and prosperity, with liberty and justice for all. Respecting and
truly loving one another can only happen when we all learn to
always place the greater, common-good above our own selfish desires and aims.
We've all been given 6000 years to learn this simple and
immutable truth. The rest, as is said, is
HIS STORY.
