Im confused about the "genesis" Sumerian, Epics of Gilgamesh, stuff

[DemunHunter]

Umm i take in the new testament completly. I believe every word , but the old testament, i do ,but things like this bother me.... stuff like "sons of God" ?? who?? some say angels but i dont think so...

But mostly what about this???? try to read as much as you can and help me understand!

http://www.bibleorigins.net/genesisgenesis.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehsBovineFormsImages.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/sabbathorigins.html

 

[gluadys]

Umm i take in the new testament completly. I believe every word , but the old testament, i do ,but things like this bother me.... stuff like "sons of God" ?? who?? some say angels but i dont think so...

But mostly what about this???? try to read as much as you can and help me understand!

http://www.bibleorigins.net/genesisgenesis.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehsBovineFormsImages.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/sabbathorigins.html

Are there specifics in the articles you want to discuss?
Or is it the basic concept that some biblical stories are re-writings of Sumerian myths?

 

[mystery4]

Umm i take in the new testament completly. I believe every word , but the old testament, i do ,but things like this bother me.... stuff like "sons of God" ?? who?? some say angels but i dont think so...

But mostly what about this???? try to read as much as you can and help me understand!

http://www.bibleorigins.net/genesisgenesis.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/YahwehsBovineFormsImages.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/sabbathorigins.html

I have read a little bit of each of those pages, from what I read however all its trying to do is show a perspective denying the divine inspiration and accredit it to "prettying up" the stories of the Babylonians.
I also had a look at the homepage of the website and it states that through archeology the stories of the OT were dated to be first compiled in 7th Century BC.

I personally believe the OT to be as trustworthy as the NT. My understanding is with people like this, they do not want to believe some of the stuff written there or it doesn't seem logical to them, so they will search for things until they find something that seems to make more sense to them. Read about the author and find out what his perspectives are more aligned towards.

If you want someone to explain things to you about the OT, its best not to look to him for answers if he is biased against the divine inspiration and authority of the OT.

Another thing to be aware of, is that on this earth there will be many things that we will not understand or know. Do not be discouraged by them or allow them to discredit your faith in Jesus. God has given enough evidence in the Bible for the ones who truly want to seek him, yet not enough to remove all doubt, lest people believe for the wrong reasons. Talk to Jesus, ask Him to give you understanding through the Holy Spirit and guide you into all truth. if there are things that are troubling you, ask for His comfort and peace to help you not worry about them but to focus on all the promises He has fulfilled.

Allow the Bible to be its own interpreter, it does that. I will be praying for you. If you want to PM me to ask any specific questions, I will do my best to answer them but I cannot promise you all the answers or if I do, it does not mean you will be happy with them. The main thing, is to turn to Jesus and rely on your relationship with Him.

 

[DemunHunter]

Here are some cut and pastes of the discussion,,,

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]​

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]1) According to the Bible man is made by God and placed in the garden of Eden to till and keep the garden. Some Mesopotamian myths understand that man was created to till and tend the [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]earthly garden belonging to the Anunnaki gods[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]. The products of this garden were originally tended and tilled by the Igigi gods, who objected to the working conditions. To prevent a revolt by the Igigi, man is made by the god Enki to replace them. So, both Mesopotamia and the Bible understand man's _first appearance on earth is in a garden belonging to gods or a god_, his job being to tend and till it. In this myth man is made of clay over the [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]apsu[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] (a freshwater source of all rivers, a spring) belonging to the god Enki who dwells at Eridu in Sumer. Please note that Eridu lies on a great plain or steppe, which in Sumerian is called E.din and in Akkadian/Babylonian Edinu.So, man is made at Eridu _in_ E.din, of its clay or earth, thus Eridu and vicinity is the FIRST PROTOTYPE OF EDEN.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2) Another CONTRADICTING Mesopotamian myth has man created of clay and placed in the steppe or plain called in Sumerian E.din and in Akkadian (Babylonian) Edinu. He wanders this E.din NAKED, and animals are his companions; he eats grass and laps water like an animal. Eventually the gods take pity on man's "hard life" in the steppe, roaming about with naked animals and take him from E.din and "civilize him."[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]​

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]3) The notion that Adam and Eve ate of forbidden food from a tree is drawn from -in part- the myth about Enki and Ninhursag in the earthly garden of Dilmun. He eats without his goddess-wife's permission eight of her plants, in order to "know" them; enraged, she curses him with death. She later relents, asking him what body part ails him and thereupon makes either a god or goddess to heal that part. When he complains of his rib aching, she makes Nin-Ti, a goddess to heal his rib (Sumerian [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]ti [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]means rib). In Sumerian Nin-ti can mean "Lady of the rib" and "Lady that makes live." One of Enki's epithets was En-Ti, "Lord of the Rib."A number of profesional scholars have suggested that Eve's being made of Adam's rib is drawing from this myth, as well as her name Eve, Hebrew Kavvah/Havvah meaning "mother of life" located at Dilmun.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] Genesis' God, Yahweh-Elohim, is to some degree, a reformatting and transformation of the Sumerian god called Enki, "Lord-Earth," later called by the Babylonians Ea, "House of Water," according to some scholars.
[/font] [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Enki/Ea shares several attributes with Yahweh-Elohim:
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]1) Both are credited with creating man.
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]2) Both make man naked and leave him in that state for an undetermined period of time.
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]3) [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Both place man in their fruit-tree garden to tend and till it[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif].
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]4) Both create man in a place whose names are similar in sound, Enki makes man in the city of Eridu in edin-the-floodplain, Yahweh in Eden.
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]5) [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Both warn a pious man of a Flood which will destroy mankind[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], telling this individual to save himself, family and animals by building a boat.
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]6) [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Both cause the one language of mankind to be transformed into a babel of languages[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif].
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]7) Both deny man immortality.
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]8) [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Both deny man knowledge of right and wrong ("good and evil")[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif].
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]9) Both provide man with bread to eat.
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Enki speaking to the goddess Ninmah:
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Of him whom thy hand has fashioned, I have decreed the fate,
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Have given him bread to eat;
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Do thou decree the fate of him whom my hand has fashioned,
[/font]
[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Do thou give him bread to eat.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Once, then, there was no snake, there was no scorpion, there was no hyena, there was no lion, there was no wild dog, no wolf, there was no fear, no terror human had no rival. Once then, the lands of Shubur-Hamazi, polyglot Sumer, that land great with the me of lordship, Uri, the land with everything just so, the land of Martu, resting securely, [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the whole world- the people as one- to Enlil in one tongue gave voice[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]. Then did the contender- the [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]en[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], the contender- the master, the contender- the king, [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Enki, the contender[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]...[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]en[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] of cunning, the shrewd one of the land, sage of the gods, gifted in thinking, the [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]en[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] of Eridu, [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]changed the speech of their mouths[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], he having set up contention in it, in [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the human speech that had been one.[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]" (pp.88-89. "The Enigmatic Enki."[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]he Epic of Gilgamesh notes that Baal Hadad (alternately, Adad) is portrayed as a god who dwells with the darkness of a thundercloud, whose thunder is his voice, and whose rains, initiate the Flood which destroys all mankind. [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The Bible aslo relates that [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Yahweh was called Baal [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]by some Israelites-
[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]​

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif](Hosea 2:16)
[/font]​

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/font]​

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"And in that day, says the Lord, you will call me, 'My Husband,' and [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]no longer will you call me, 'My Ba'al.' [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]For I will remove the names of the Ba'als from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more."[/font]

 

[Biliskner]

that's sad.

does not the NT say that ALL Scripture is God breathed and utility is to "teach, correct, rebuke and admonish?"

*sigh*

i've seen the twisting of Scripture like that above as to justify same sex marriages.

*sigh* x2

 

[DemunHunter]

its true.....but i think they attack subjects that are confusing to some christians to make it even more confusing....


like what is the sons of God? Why are there so many similarites? [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]no longer will you call me, 'My Ba'al.' [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]For I will remove the names of the Ba'als from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more." <

what does that mean??

ohh well i still trust the word in faith.!!! just get worrried for a short time and have to fight it off....
[/font]

 

[artybloke]

does not the NT say that ALL Scripture is God breathed and utility is to "teach, correct, rebuke and admonish?"

Unfortunately, it a) doesn't specify what it means by Scripture (the canon of the NT certainly hadn't been decided upon, and neither, actually, had the OT canon. These weren't decided till years later.)

b) neither does it say that "it is useful for telling you things about ancient history and science." Hardly surprising, as none of the writers of the Bible were scientists or ancient historians.

c) neither, note, does it say "and everything in it is factually accurate in every single detail." Not surprising, really, as it's only a post-entlightenment view of truth that thinks that factual accuracy is the only basis for truth (so all poets, story-tellers and a lot of creative writers must be liars, huh...?)

 

[Biliskner]

Unfortunately, it a) doesn't specify what it means by Scripture (the canon of the NT certainly hadn't been decided upon, and neither, actually, had the OT canon. These weren't decided till years later.)

one may assume that Peter meant the OT. (if you say the OT canon hadn't been formulated until years after the disciples died, then fine, for argument's sake i'll just assume you are correct - so that leaves us... with just the Torah then. oooo... Genesis is IN the Torah!)

b) neither does it say that "it is useful for telling you things about ancient history and science." Hardly surprising, as none of the writers of the Bible were scientists or ancient historians.

true. but the science you know today spawns from Bible believing Creation Scientists who knew the literal truth of the Word of God when they saw it. Here's a small list:

Young Earth Creation Scientists:

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay, Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz, Tsteno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder, Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler, Descartes,
writer CS Lewis.
reformers Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Simeon.

point?

c) neither, note, does it say "and everything in it is factually accurate in every single detail." Not surprising, really, as it's only a post-entlightenment view of truth that thinks that factual accuracy is the only basis for truth (so all poets, story-tellers and a lot of creative writers must be liars, huh...?)

Does it NEED to say that "and everything in it is factually accurate in every single detail" for you to believe it ? Would you? There are not many historical books that say that actually, so why ascribe the silly concept to the Bible as a whole?

Actually, John does say that at the end of his Gospel... go John! (and God)

 

[artybloke]

writer CS Lewis.

CS Lewis was not a creationist. CS Lewis was not even a fundamentalist. He was an Anglo-Catholic. All the rest of your list were long dead before the overwhelming physical evidence in favour of evolution was able to be analysed. And believe you me - the evidence is pretty overwhelming, despite what the people at AIG and other creationist sites might tell you.

As for whether I believe Genesis: I do. Just not as literal historical/scientific "fact." I believe its theology.

 

[PaladinValer]

When was CS Lewis a scientist in the relevent field of biology? Fallacy of Appealing to Authority on all those scientists if they have their expertise in an entirely different field.

 

[gluadys]

true. but the science you know today spawns from Bible believing Creation Scientists who knew the literal truth of the Word of God when they saw it. Here's a small list:

Young Earth Creation Scientists:

Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay, Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz, Tsteno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder, Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler, Descartes,
writer CS Lewis.
reformers Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Simeon.

Actually, a good many of these were not young earth creationists. For example, Cuvier was a creationist and a catastrophist, but held to geological time scales. Agassiz was a student of Cuvier, also held to geological time scales, and provided the final nail in the coffin of global flood theory by showing the last major earth-shaping event was the Pleistocene Ice Age. (It had been previously shown that no earlier stratum could have been laid down by a global flood.)

We might also note that Newton, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all contributed to proving the bible was wrong about the earth being the motionless centre of the universe. So they definitely were not literalists holding every statment of the bible to be "fact".

 

[Vance]

Did someone mention C.S. Lewis? This quote happens to be right on point here:

"I have been suspected of being what is called a Fundamentalist. That is because I never regard any narrative as unhistorical simply on the ground that it includes the miraculous. Some people find the miraculous so hard to believe that they cannot imagine any reason for my acceptance of it other than a prior belief that every sentence of the Old Testament has historical or scientific truth. But this I do not hold, any more than St. Jerome did when he said that Moses described Creation "after the manner of a popular poet" (as we should say, mythically) or than Calvin did when he doubted whether the story of Job were history or fiction. The real reason why I can accept as historical a story in which a miracle occurs is that I have never found any philosophical grounds for the universal negative proposition that miracles do not happen. I have to decide on quite other grounds (if I decide at all) whether a given narrative is historical or not. The Book of Job appears to me unhistorical because it begins about a man quite unconnected with all history or even legend, with no genealogy, living in a country of which the Bible elsewhere has hardly anything to say; because, in fact, the author quite obviously writes as a story-teller not as a chronicler.

I have therefore no difficulty in accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical. We must of course be quite clear what "derived from" means. Stories do not reproduce their species like mice. They are told by men. Each re-teller either repeats exactly what his predecessor had told him or else changes it. He may change it unknowingly or deliberately. If he changes it deliberately, his invention, his sense of form, his ethics, his ideas of what is fit, or edifying, or merely interesting, all come in. If unknowingly, then his unconscious (which is so largely responsible for our forgettings) has been at work. Thus at every step in what is called--a little misleadingly--the "evolution" of a story, a man, all he is and all his attitudes, are involved. And no good work is done anywhere without aid from the Father of Lights. When a series of such retellings turns a creation story which at first had almost no religious or metaphysical significance into a story which achieves the idea of true Creation and of a transcendent Creator (as Genesis does), then nothing will make me believe that some of the re-tellers, or some one of them, has not been guided by God.

Thus something originally merely natural--the kind of myth that is found amongst most nations--will have been raised by God above itself, qualified by Him and compelled by Him to serve purposes which of itself would not have served. Generalising this, I take it that the whole Old Testament consists of the same sort of material as any other literature--chronicle (some of it obviously pretty accurate), poems, moral and political diatribes, romances, and what not; but all taken into the service of Gods word. Not all, I suppose, in the same way. There are prophets who write with the clearest awareness that Divine compulsion is upon them. There are chroniclers whose intention may have been merely to record. There are poets like those in the Song of Songs who probably never dreamed of any but a secular and natural purpose in what they composed. There is (and it is not less important) the work first of the Jewish and then of the Christian Church in preserving and canonising just these books. There is the work of redactors and editors in modifying them. On all of these I suppose a Divine pressure; of which not by any means all need have been conscious."

 

[artybloke]

Thanks, Vance, for exposing yet another creationist lie.

 

[Biliskner]

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.

 

[Biliskner]

We might also note that Newton, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all contributed to proving the bible was wrong about the earth being the motionless centre of the universe. So they definitely were not literalists holding every statment of the bible to be "fact".

Genesis says nothing about the Earth being motionless at the centre of the universe. Please don't confuse the general population with cut and paste facts from Scripture to turn them towards TE. If they want to be a TE, let it be based on your doctrine of the Origins World, not on what you think what literally was taken from Genesis (or for this matter, was NOT taken from Genesis.)

The post topic is "Im confused about genesis" (emphasis added.)

Thank You.

 

[PaladinValer]

Problem: Reading Genesis without any background is like reading The Two Towers before The Fellowship of the Ring.

The Hebrew cosmology is important to have in the back of your head when you read the Bible (or at least the OT). It is based of that mindset their are writing Genesis, not under what we know today.

 

[Biliskner]

Problem: Reading Genesis without any background is like reading The Two Towers before The Fellowship of the Ring.

The Hebrew cosmology is important to have in the back of your head when you read the Bible (or at least the OT). It is based of that mindset their are writing Genesis, not under what we know today.

Genesis IS "the fellowship of the ring"

Genesis definition:

• 
  [size=-1][size=-1]
• a coming into being
• the firstbook of the Old Testament: tells of creation; Adam and Eve; the Fallof Man; Cain and Abel; Noah and the flood; God's covenant with Abraham; Abraham and Isaac; Jacob and Esau; Joseph and his brothers[/size][/size]

if anything, Genesis IS THE Book of the Bible. Without it, how can you possibly understand the NEED for Christ dying for your sins ?!?!????!! Or even WHY He died?!?!?!??!?! (c.f. ROMANS 5)

 

[Biliskner]

[size=-1]Genesis (Greek: &#915;&#941;&#957;&#949;&#963;&#953;&#962;, having the meanings of "birth", "creation", "cause", "beginning", "source" and "origin"; translated from Hebrew &#1489;&#1512;&#1488;&#64298;&#1497;&#1514; Bereshit or B&#601;r š th) is the first book of the Torah (five books of Moses) and hence the first book of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible; it is also the first book of the Christian Old Testament.
[/size]

 

[Biliskner]

CS Lewis was not a creationist. CS Lewis was not even a fundamentalist. He was an Anglo-Catholic. All the rest of your list were long dead before the overwhelming physical evidence in favour of evolution was able to be analysed. And believe you me - the evidence is pretty overwhelming, despite what the people at AIG and other creationist sites might tell you.

You believe Charles Darwin came up with this theory of Darwinism in his lifetime? mmmm.... historically incorrect. sorry.

As for whether I believe Genesis: I do. Just not as literal historical/scientific "fact." I believe its theology.

What is the theology of Genesis? I really do not understand your point of view.

What is literal and what is not? (my motivation is "was Adam literal"?)

 

[Biliskner]

We might also note that Newton, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all contributed to proving the bible was wrong about the earth being the motionless centre of the universe. So they definitely were not literalists holding every statment of the bible to be "fact".

so that makes them ... mmm... not YECs? again historically incorrect (your logic skips a few steps and i've infered what you meant). These dudes were YECs, as we now call it....