Genesis is a plagiarized myth

Yoder777 said:

The Book of Genesis is largely based on the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.

Click to expand...

The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish were never copyrighted. Not saying that Creationism should be taught in schools at all, it's a silly notion, rather "plagiarism" is a contemporary notion not an ancient one.

Hoghead1 said:

Incidentally, the Pentateuch never claimed that Moses was its author.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact it did, but I will let you research that for yourself. And many books of the Bible do not have the writer telling us that he wrote that book. So what?

Not my own work but something I am using for a paper in my first level studies in Canon Law dealing with the Historical accuracy of the Book of Exodus:

Summary: Moses most likely wrote large parts of the Pentateuch as YHWH commanded him to (they spent a lot of time together up there on the Mountain, you know...). Those sections of the Torah or the Pentateuch were later arranged by subsequent editors who added additional material. Scribes passed this information down and further editing was made until we have the books we have that Jesus quoted from. The 19th century textual criticism is a bunch of bunk...but interesting bunk that is easy to discredit.


Although the author of Genesis is not identified in the book, its integral part in the Pentateuch (Genesis— Deuteronomy) suggests that the author of these five books was the same person. The books of the Pentateuch give evidence of unity through their common plot, theme (divine promises), central figure (Moses), and literary interconnections. Jewish and Christian traditions attribute the Pentateuch to Moses, whose life paralleled the events of Exodus— Deuteronomy (cp. 2 Ch 23: 18; Lk 16: 29,31; Ac 28: 23). Passages in Exodus— Deuteronomy testify that Moses authored diverse materials (Ex 17: 14; 24: 4-8; Nm 33: 2; Dt 31: 9,22). Although we cannot be certain about the contents of the "book of the law [of Moses]" (Jos 1: 7-8; 8: 31; 23: 6; 2 Kg 14: 6), its association with Moses established a "psychology of canonicity" that set the pattern of divinely authoritative writings (Nm 12: 6-8; Dt 18: 15; 34: 10). Scholars have usually recognized that minor post-Mosaic contributions must exist in the Pentateuch, such as the report of Moses' death (Dt 34). Some have contended that the first-person (" I") sections were written by Moses and that another author set them in a third-person (" Moses") narrative frame. Prior to the nineteenth century, the consensus remained that Moses wrote the essential whole, probably during the wilderness sojourn.

Since the events of Genesis preceded Moses, this raises the question of where he got his information. For most of the Christian era, the principal explanation was divine revelation coupled with the availability of written records, such as genealogies and stories. Gradually, though, by the nineteenth century, a new consensus arose among "critical" scholars. They believed that the Pentateuch was the product of a series of unnamed Jewish editors who progressively stitched together pieces of preexisting sources dating from the tenth to the sixth centuries b.c. Instead of being Mosaic, the Pentateuch was viewed as a mosaic. Such scholars today often view the stories in the Bible's first five books as fabrications conceived hundreds of years after the supposed events, perhaps during the exile. There is significant evidence, however, that Genesis reflects the political and cultural setting of the second millennium b.c. The structure and contents of chapters 1– 11 generally parallel the Babylonian epic Atrahasis (c. 1600 b.c.). Social and religious practices among the patriarchs correlate better with the earlier period than with the first millennium BC. For example, Abraham's marriage to his half-sister Sarah was prohibited under the Mosaic law (20: 12; Lv 18: 9). It is unlikely that the Jews of the exilic period would have fabricated offensive events or preserved such stories unless these were already well-entrenched traditions. Also the prevalent use of the El compounds for the name of God (e.g., God Almighty– El Shaddai, 17: 1) in Genesis contrasts with their virtual absence in first-millennium B.C. texts. The tolerant attitude toward Gentiles and the unrestricted travels of the patriarchs do not suit the later setting. The evidence, when considered as a whole, supports the position that Genesis remembers authentic events.

Genesis and Ancient Myths

The parallels between chapters 1– 11 and creation and flood myths have elicited the question, Is the Bible merely a Hebrew version of myths about beginnings? When weighing the importance of parallels, these principles should be kept in mind. First, not all parallels are equally significant, since minor ones can be attributed to common content. Second, the identity of who is borrowing from whom cannot be definitively concluded. Often it is best to assume a universal memory as the source. Third, the functions of the stories are much different. For example, the flood story of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic is incidental to the main idea of telling how Gilgamesh sought immortality. In the Bible, by contrast, the flood narrative is central to the development of the theme. That the Bible's theology is divergent from the polytheism of antiquity argues against the Bible's dependence on sources from other cultures. The author of Genesis was aware of the cultural context of the nations and often crafted his accounts to counter the prevailing view. The historical framework of chapters 1– 11 (e.g., "these are the records of," 2: 4; 5: 1) and the genealogies (chaps. 4– 5; 10– 11) indicate that the author presented a historical account, not a literary myth.

Job8 said:

This is such a pathetic attempt to discredit the Bible that it needs no further comment.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.
The way the OP is written it is not merely an incorrect opinion, it's a bold faced lie. Beyond that, it's a lie that has been discredited time and again.
Why is it a lie?
As it has been pointed out repeatedly, multiple accounts of a single event do not constitute plagiarism. However, the OP DOES reach the threshold of libel, because the OP is stating unequivocally that the author, God, plagiarized the story from an earlier human author. The OP cannot possibly know this, and yet here we have a thread attacking the Bible because the OP doesn't believe the flood actually happened.

Frankly, I don't care. That doesn't justify lying, and this thread is a lie. Had the OP suggested an opinion instead of pretending to know something they do not know it would have been different.

Many people disbelieve the Bible's miracles. What I want to know is, which of the 333 miracles do you believe, an why do you believe them and not the others? How does one pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures to accept and which to deny? Which parts of the Bible did Jesus tell us were not true? Isn't it true that He said man should live by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God?

It's amazing! Some people pretend that science can account for the spontaneous auto-creation of everything from nothing, but deny that God is capable of ding the same thing.

Hoghead1 said:

P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. .

Click to expand...

Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux: God created the universe by speaking.

Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebræ erant super faciem abyssi: He created the Universe out of nothing, what we with our limited understanding might call chaos.

Dixit quoque Deus: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum: et dividat aquas ab aquis. Et fecit Deus firmamentum, divisitque aquas, quæ erant sub firmamento, ab his, quæ erant super firmamentum. Et factum est ita. Vocavitque Deus firmamentum, Cælum: et factum est vespere et mane, dies secundus: God took that chaos and with what we might call his "hands" and began to form the Universe.

Dixit autem Deus: Fiant luminaria in firmamento cæli, et dividant diem ac noctem, et sint in signa et tempora, et dies et annos: ut luceant in firmamento cæli, et illuminent terram. Et factum est ita: God speaks into existence the laws of space and time.

Genesis isn't solely based on ancient Babylonian myth. To be perfectly frank we have absolutely no idea in which context the author/s of Genesis understood the text to be read or performed and we do not know the identity off the community or communities to which it is addressed. Part of the agenda of Genesis appears to be to provide a foundation for a community based on shared descent from ancient ancestors. However given the diversity of Second Temple Judaism, it could be argued that Genesis and the Pentateuch have been crafted for use by multiple communities. This is likely given that Genesis exists in three recensions: Masoretic, Septuagint and Samaritan. As far back as we have evidence, Genesis has always existed in plurality and further Genesis also existed alongside a variety of extra-canonical and pseudepigraphal "origins" (Jubilees, 2 Enoch, etc) all claiming to provide foundations for people claiming Israelite identity. The Genesis creation account seems much more interested in establishing the religious cult of the Temple religion. The intertextuality between the seven days of creation in Genesis 1 and the seven speeches to Moses detailing the instructions for the Tabernacle construction and its personnel (Exodus 25:1-30; 30:11-16; 17-21; 22-33 34-38; 31:1-11; 31:12-17) gives the impression that the Creation poem situated the establishment of the Temple cult with cosmic balance and a chaoskampf motif. This actually makes very much sense in the context of ancient Temple religions; Temples were understood to represent the meeting place of heaven and earth, the universe itself in a microcosm. It's not altogether necessary to look to Babylon to find the mythological background to Genesis when the text already contains hints at its mythology.

Papias said: ↑
Christians who hide from, deny, or oppose reality hurt our credibility and hence our mission. Saint Augustine made that clear over 1,000 years ago.

It's an objective fact that Genesis is indeed plagiarized, and indeed a myth. That's OK.

pat34lee said:

Ok for who? Not me. I don't believe in a god who lies and tells fairy tales.

Click to expand...

Symbolic and poetic language is not a lie nor a fairy tale. We both agree there is symbolic language in Genesis, such as Gn 3:15, right?

God says right in your Bible that He lies - both in the old testament (such as 1kg 22:22) as well as the new (such as 2 thes 2:11).

pat34lee said:

My God made the universe and everything in it, including us.

Click to expand...

Of course. But that does't mean that He did so by poofing things into existence. He could have used evolution as his way to create.

pat34lee said:

Why worry about who found the older manuscripts? The vast majority of
old books are dust or ash. Prove there was never an older copy of Genesis.

Click to expand...

Historians and Biblical scholars can tell the dates by a number of means, not just the oldest copies. For instance, a book talking about Chicago could not have been written in the year 1400. These scholars are mostly Christian, btw.
In Christ-
Papias

Papias said:

It's an objective fact that Genesis is indeed plagiarized, and indeed a myth. That's OK.

Click to expand...

You call it an objective fact, I call it a blatant lie. It's a lie because multiple references to a singular event substantiate that event. A global flood would be a very significant event that most cultures would record; as in fact they did. Since most civilizations record a great flood and animals saved on a raft of some kind, it requires a special kind of foolishness to conclude that they all read the Epic of Gilgamesh and were so entranced by it that they carved the events on the walls of their caves. This is why the claim is not just an error, but a deliberate lie. Honest people don't make such claims.

Symbolic and poetic language is not a lie nor a fairy tale. We both agree there is symbolic language in Genesis, such as Gn 3:15, right?

Click to expand...

Not very much symbolism there, I'm afraid. It sounds like a pretty straightforward curse to me.

God says right in your Bible that He lies - both in the old testament (such as 1kg 22:22) as well as the new (such as 2 thes 2:11).

Click to expand...

God does NOT lie and it's blaspheme to say He does!
Your lack of understanding does not make god a liar.
Read the commentary on Verse 11.
Verse 11 The people did not receive the love of the truth. Therefore, God will cause a power to work in them so that they believe the lie. There is here a moral principle that God has made. It is the rule of life that those who refuse the truth will go further into error. A power works in those who will not accept the truth. That power causes them to believe a lie.

The Man of *Sin actually attracts them to trust in what is false. He is the agent of *Satan for this purpose. *Satan is the author of all that is false. But God will send a power to persuade those who refused the truth to accept *Satan’s lies. The final error is to believe that God is not God.

Of course. But that does't mean that He did so by poofing things into existence. He could have used evolution as his way to create.

Click to expand...

Not a single verse in the Scriptures agrees with evolution. In fact, the Fourth Commandment specifically states that God created the world in 6 days. Those who reject everything else in the bible usually at least agree that the Ten Commandments are God's instruction.

Anthony1970 said:

Proof?

Click to expand...

How many stories of ancient floods would you like me to post?

On the other hand you have absolutely no evidence that the biblical flood occurred. None.

Anthony1970 said:

Do you have a measurement of Everest during each eon of geological development? Was Everest always 29k feet? Was there a time when Everest was perhaps 20k feet? Was there a time when Everest was below sea level? Proof?

Click to expand...

Everest did not grow from below sea level to 29,000 feet in the last 6,000 years. It took about 60 million years. Everest is the result of plate tectonics, not of volcanic growth.



The biblical genealogies clearly show the time from Noah to the present to be less than 6000 years. If you want to take Genesis as evidence for the flood, then you have to take the genealogies of evidence for when it occurred.

Interesting topic, I heard about this before but at that time I wasn't able to find much on it. This time I ran across what I consider an interesting read, for people who'd care to read something a little longer in length. http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/babylonbaghdad.pdf

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish were never copyrighted. Not saying that Creationism should be taught in schools at all, it's a silly notion, rather "plagiarism" is a contemporary notion not an ancient one.

Click to expand...

The word "plagiarism" has Greek origins. Therefore the concept is not a new one. Copyright is a relatively new term. One can plagiarize material that is or is not copyrighted. The difference is, if one plagiarizes copyrighted material, there are legal implications.

ecco said:

Everest did not grow from below sea level to 29,000 feet in the last 6,000 years. It took about 60 million years. Everest is the result of plate tectonics, not of volcanic growth.



The biblical genealogies clearly show the time from Noah to the present to be less than 6000 years. If you want to take Genesis as evidence for the flood, then you have to take the genealogies of evidence for when it occurred.

Click to expand...

You went to Bible school? You know the Bible that well? 6000 years?
Prove it.

ecco said:

How many stories of ancient floods would you like me to post?

On the other hand you have absolutely no evidence that the biblical flood occurred. None.

Click to expand...

You have no proof. You're just making this stuff up!

KWCrazy said:

Many people disbelieve the Bible's miracles. What I want to know is, which of the 333 miracles do you believe, an why do you believe them and not the others? How does one pick and choose which parts of the Scriptures to accept and which to deny?

Click to expand...

This sounds like an excellent idea for a thread of its own. Especially the "how does one pick and choose " part. As an atheist, I've often wondered about that.

ecco said:

This sounds like an excellent idea for a thread of its own. Especially the "how does one pick and choose " part. As an atheist, I've often wondered about that.

Click to expand...

I've often wondered about this too. I cannot understand how people can dismiss certain parts of the Bible (or any book) without undermining the validity of the rest of the text. How do you pick and choose? And why bother with the Bible at all then?

Reasoning said:

I've often wondered about this too. I cannot understand how people can dismiss certain parts of the Bible (or any book) without undermining the validity of the rest of the text. How do you pick and choose? And why bother with the Bible at all then?

Click to expand...

Give me some examples. I don't always agree with the Bible personally, but I try to follow it contextually.

I've got an anecdotal example: a friend of mine is a christian and he dismisses hell because he cannot see why a loving god would send billions of people (all non-believers) to hell for eternity, just on the basis of their own choice (and I don't see why anyone wouldn't agree with that) Therefore, he excludes the hell part from the Bible, but his faith in God and Jezus etc is still based upon the same book that he chooses to dismiss partly.

Since the book itself is the only evidence to back itself up (and therefore not evidence but that's besides the point), the very least I would demand to keep it credible is it to never be wrong.

Same goes for other topics like homosexuality for example. Some think it is fine, some think it is not, but opponents are especially vocal about this specific point. But what scripture says about divorce is much less taboo and is dismissed by many people. How do you pick and choose what's good and what's bad? And why then still use the bible?

Reasoning said:

I've got an anecdotal example: a friend of mine is a christian and he dismisses hell because he cannot see why a loving god would send billions of people (all non-believers) to hell for eternity, just on the basis of their own choice (and I don't see why anyone wouldn't agree with that) Therefore, he excludes the hell part from the Bible, but his faith in God and Jezus etc is still based upon the same book that he chooses to dismiss partly.

Since the book itself is the only evidence to back itself up (and therefore not evidence but that's besides the point), the very least I would demand to keep it credible is it to never be wrong.

Same goes for other topics like homosexuality for example. Some think it is fine, some think it is not, but opponents are especially vocal about this specific point. But what scripture says about divorce is much less taboo and is dismissed by many people. How do you pick and choose what's good and what's bad? And why then still use the bible?

Click to expand...

You do understand that most Christians do not interpret the Bible literally, don't you? Only fundamentalists do that. Most Christians interpret the Bible contextually. The Bible contains history, fiction, allegory, hyperbole....

KWCrazy said:

You call it an objective fact, I call it a blatant lie. It's a lie because multiple references to a singular event substantiate that event. A global flood would be a very significant event that most cultures would record; as in fact they did. Since most civilizations record a great flood ....

Click to expand...

That's like saying that because all cultures have legends of a great king in their past, there must have been a single great king who ruled the earth as one country in the distant past.

People live by rivers for water, food, transportation, etc. That's why major cities are by rivers. Rivers flood. So of course every culture will have flood stories.

KWCrazy said:

Not very much symbolism there, I'm afraid. It sounds like a pretty straightforward curse to me.

Click to expand...

Here is the verse:
And God said to the serpent:
"I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your seed and hers
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Oh, so that's not Satan, but just a snake? And her seed is not Jesus? So she literally has a seed, like from a plant, and that seed will crush the snake's head? This has nothing to do with Jesus conquering Satan?

KWCrazy said:

God does NOT lie and it's blaspheme to say He does!
Your lack of understanding does not make god a liar.

Click to expand...

My "lack of understanding" doesn't make God a liar, but rather a straightforward reading of those verse does. Your "commentary" can dance around the obvious all it wants to, but that doesn't change what it says.

1Kn 22:22 :
“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’
“So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

2 Thes 2:11 :

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie.

Your own commentary confirms that.

KWCrazy said:

Not a single verse in the Scriptures agrees with evolution.

Click to expand...

Just like not one single verse agrees with the idea that the earth goes around the sun? Or that things are made of atoms? So those are false too, right?

Besides, some verses are related, like this one:

For land creatures were changed into water creatures,

and those that swam went over on land. (Wis 19:19)

And of course John 5:17

in Christ Jesus-

Papias