What do you think of this link related to Babylon? Is there archaeological evidence?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

Do you think the religion has influenced current religions?

Answer 1

The evidence is within your article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon#Archaeology_of_Babylon

Just learned about the Mesopotamian, and Babylonian through Hellenistic eras of this region in my art history class. Very interesting!

Edit: I think all current religions are influenced by past religions, some influenced by a large number of religions.Of course I'm also sure that religions today are practiced much differently than they were in the past. But the influences are there.

Answer 2

There is archaeological proof that a few locations within the Bible existed, real. This, nevertheless, is the identical as announcing that Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes existed for the reason that there's archaeological proof of London. There could be very little proof of any unique parties within the Bible, and far towards (e.g., towns intended to were conquered by means of Joshua didn't exist on the time, and many others.). Bible prophecies are indistinct adequate that they are able to be fulfilled a few occasions, and nonetheless be claimed as "evidence" of alternative matters. There is not anything unique. And many non-clinical details as good. There are not any trustworthy non-Biblical account of Jesus. People will die for matters they consider are real, although they are no longer. People had been inclined to die for Jim Jones, David Koresh, and a goodly quantity of alternative lunatics. Koresh, in certain, claimed he was once the go back of Christ. If individuals had been inclined to die for him, does that imply he was once proper? The few locations wherein the New Testament would be matched to historic parties, it has failed miserably (e.g., start dates for Jesus ten years aside, Nazareth did not even exist on the time, no list of a bloodbath or the discharge of prisoners on the Passover, and many others. and many others. and many others.) Given an not going occasion such because the spontaneous resurrection and assumption into heaven of a man or woman, the easiest assumption isn't that the resurrection and assumption occurred, however that any individual made up a tale, stole a frame, and many others. Occamk's razor says the certainly tale is correct, no longer the least most probably. If this assumption had been to be right, then each lacking man or woman would be stated to have died, resurrected, and been assumed physically into heaven. Hey, there is not any evidence it did not occur, so it have to be real, proper? Your last declaration is established on colossal "if", and round common sense. More most probably he readily believed he was once the Son of God. There are tons of individuals at the streets of New York at present who consider that - if you do not consider them, why consider in a Judean anarcho-communist hippie?