I read the article you posted on here. Pretty crazy the similarities that are abundant within it. You are right, specifically in the conclusion of the article they state, "This suggests that Genesis 1 was not originally composed, not as a scientific treatise, but as a theological polemic against the ancient Egyptian model of creation". That being said, what are your views on this?The similarity to other creation stories is surely not a coincidence. If, as I assume, the Hebrews had no independent knowledge about how the earth was created, it's not surprising if they used accounts from the most sophisticated cultures around them -- most likely cultures from which their ancestors had come. But they used them as a framework for a story with a rather different message. (I've compared it at times with theistic evolution. It accepts the scientific account of creation, but sees it as part of God's plan.) Note that this may well not have been done by a single author. It's quite likely that the accounts were passed on in oral tradition, and thus developed over time. Here's an article describing similarities to Egyptian creation accounts, but also showing the differences: http://www.kevinstilley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Creation-Myths.pdf. Like many scholars, the author regards the creation story as polemic, as an attack on the polytheistic concepts behind Egyptian and Mesopotamian versions of the story. Note that there are enough similarities that you'll find similar articles comparing it with Babylonian creation stories.
Upvote
0