The challenge for Theistic Evolutionists

[Sayre]

This is such rubbish I don't know where to start. It ain't literal, but that doesn't mean it has no value.
Rubbish...now that doesn't seem to loving to say to a fellow Christian when that is what your goal was, now is it? Just sayin...

Yes and no. I could be kinder, but I am not really a fellow Christian by most people's definition of Christian. Just a “Christian seeker” and a Theist. That doesn't mean I can't “call it what it is” - uninformed opinion, not grounded in any scholarly research or fact. Is that kinder?

First of all, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are very different writings and are written for different views of the creation. I think to claim that "it ain't literal" is going outside of your knowledge and certainly has no evidence to support it. You may believe it is not literal and that of course is your interpretation and you have every right to believe what you do. However, to point blank claim that it is not literal is only based on your interpretation or opinion and is no more accurate than those of us who claim we feel it to be literal.[bless and do not curse]

Uh – no. Evolution pretty much puts to bed the notion of a literal Adam and Eve. It is a foregone conclusion that a literal scientific reading of Genesis is in error. That isn't stepping outside of my knowledge (how do you know what I know???) and there is a phenomenal amount of evidence to support my position. Fact doesn't care what your opinion is, and not all opinions are created equal.

I find it interesting that you claim that not all Jews considered it literal when in fact, Jews and Christians are in the same boat...we are reading a history of the universe written by those who claim it is a literal rendering of the history of the universe.

Just to be clear – who claim it is a literal rendering of the history of the universe? Are you talking about Moses? If so, where does the bible say that Moses considered the creation accounts to be literal history rather than mythic history or divinely inspired pre-history?
I think you would benefit from doing a study of the creation accounts that were floating around during the time of the ancient hebrews – it might help put in context what they were used for. In particular, creation accounts were a vehicle for theology (especially amongst the polytheistic religions), defining their gods and how their gods related to each other and to mankind. The recipients of these alternative creation accounts were not reading them as science (I note here that science didn't even exist back then!) but as epic stories.

Do we accept that or do we question it? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are written in different structures to distinguish between the creation of man and the creation of the spiritual man. Now of course this is my interpretation, my view and so it is only to be viewed in that way.

They were two entirely different creation accounts that were glued together by redactors, so of course they have different emphasis and structure. So far so good.

However, I know that Jesus felt that Genesis 1 was a correct literal view of Creation and I go with Him.

How do you know that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal (and by literal I assume you mean scientific?). Jesus quoted the Scriptures in Genesis as truth, but He never spoke about what His view was on the genre of literature that Genesis should be read as. Am I missing some hermeneutic sermon from Jesus???

Both are literal in that Genesis 1 refers to the creation of the universe in steps and actions taken. Genesis 2 speaks of the spiritual birth of man from mankind.[bless and do not curse]

Genesis chapter 2:1[bless and do not curse]And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.[bless and do not curse]

As you see in Genesis 2 all is done.

Genesis 2:1-3 belong to chapter 1. The second creation account starts in verse 4.

Finally, it is NOT written in literal Hebrew style. The structure of writing in Hebrew means as much as the words written. The structure in Genesis 1 is paired - have a look at the framework hypothesis. You cannot see a framework so strongly in Genesis 1 and then tell me that it is literal, or that we should read it the same way we read a modern science textbook.

Why would it put it in that manner? IF it were not a step by step type of detail of the process why make it appear to be that way?

It doesn't appear as a step by step type of detail. There is no mention of molecules or atoms or chemical reactions or gene mutations. There is no science there at all. What there is, is a very rigid structure (read about the Framework Hypothesis!) that declares God to be the Creator of the earth, sky and sea and all that full it. This is in direct contrast to the polytheism of the day that had a god of the earth, a god of the sea, and a god of the sky, and each of these gods were creatures (rather than Creators). It is theolog, not science.

Do you think the ancients were dumb? Do you think they would not notice that in the first two chapters of their holy book, there are (if read literally) glaring contradictions?

There ya go, why would they not find that odd if it were not a literal interpretation in both chapters? It is not contradictions but different viewpoints of the Creation of man and mankind.

Neither of the creation accounts are to be read literally. They are both to be read as theology.

Don't you think they would have edited those errors out, or hidden them, or deleted one of the two creation stories?

Exactly. But that is not due in my opinion to a lack of literal interpretation but of actual literal interpretations of two different views... the natural and the supernatural spiritual birth of man.

I don't understand what you mean here.

They weren't dumb people, and nor were the later redactors who came along to glue Genesis together into one story. There are two creation accounts there precisely because they aren't literal and each story tells and important tale about the Hebraic God and how He interacts with His people.

Which would be?

Huh? The theology in the first two chapters of Genesis is about the doctrine of sin, the fall of man, the relationship between God and man, foreshadowing of future redemption, and of sacrifice and blood.

What really really gets on my goat about young earth creationists is that they do damage to the text of Genesis. Genesis as properly understood is a fascinating book. But to force it into a modern mold and pretend it isn't infused with Hebraic literary styles, poetry, mythicism, ANE cosmology, written and edited with human hands, is to take a great piece of ancient art and claim it's a graph.

While I agree that YEC is at times damaging to the spreading of the gospel of Christ, it isn't due to a literal reading that causes the problems.

Yes, yes it is.

Your ignorance of the subject matter is glaringly obvious.

I have a hard time remembering when seeing this that you are a fellow Christian wishing only to love creationists. It could be just me but.... .

See the first part of this post. That wasn't an insult. It really is evident that you haven't studied this topic much and just parrot back the same answers I'd find in AiG.

 

[Sayre]

Note - I used a text editor to get the quotes right so your font colour has disappeared.

Where did Jesus say "these stories were actual events"? He referenced them, yes, but I reference stories to make didactic points all the time.

Mark 10:6[bless and do not curse]"But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[bless and do not curse]This means refers to Adam and Eve; real people created by God; not evolved from anything.

I don't agree and I don't understand where this assumption comes from. I can quote from Star Wars, and that doesn't mean I consider Star Wars to be literal history. Quoting a passage tells us nothing about how the person understands the literary genre of the passage quoted, other than that it is quote worthy. That Jesus believed the Scriptures is not being debated. What is being debated is whether Jesus took the Scriptures to be literal in a scientific wooden literalism sense. You have not proved this to be the case, you have just assumed it is the case because He quoted them. Prove that quotation implies scientific literalism and you will have a point, but don't just assume it.

Luke 11:51[bless and do not curse]"From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all."[bless and do not curse]This demonstrates that Cain and Able were real people, just like Adam and Eve.

Or it proves that the author of Luke is making a didactic point using characters in a story.

John 5:45[bless and do not curse]“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”[bless and do not curse]Moses wrote the Torah, a book which you call a man made work of fiction. As Jesus said in His own words,[bless and do not curse]"Since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"[bless and do not curse]You're the one rejecting the word of God, not I and not any YEC.

Not really, not in my opinion. If I give my daughter a book (to continue the theme, let's say I give her a book of “the boy who cried wolf”) and I tell my daughter that it is important to me that she believes this book – how do I assess her belief in the book? Do I only take her to be a believer if she believes in a real life wolf and a real flesh and blood boy? Or do I take her to be a believer if she comes to understand that faking cries for help will lead people to question genuine cries later on?

The Torah delivered some pretty powerful theology that I think is correct. But this theology was clothed in ANE cosmology. When you assess whether or not someone believes in the words of Moses, are you testing whether or not they believe in the theology (the moral of the story in the above analogy) or whether or not they believe in the ANE cosmology (a literal wolf and boy). I reject ANE cosmology and accept the theology.

In Exodus 20:11, God Himself wrote on a stone tablet,[bless and do not curse]"11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."These are the words of the Creator, whom you do not believe created the world as He said.

I believe in a Creator, but I don't think He acted in six days, and nor does science. I think He took 13 billion years, plus a bit more. Exodus is teaching a theology, not science.

Jesus affirmed all that was written in the Old Testament, INCLUDING the Great Flood (he called Noah by name), manna from heaven, the Exodus, the story of Lot, the miracles of Elijah and Jonah in the belly of the great fish (whale?).

It's not the YEC who deny the Scriptures, it's you.

This is the same point you made above so I'm just going to copy and paste my answer.

Quoting a passage tells us nothing about how the person understands the literary genre of the passage quoted, other than that it is quote worthy. That Jesus believed the Scriptures is not being debated. What is being debated is whether Jesus took the Scriptures to be literal in a scientific wooden literalism sense. You have not proved this to be the case, you have just assumed it is the case because He quoted them. Prove that quotation implies scientific literalism and you will have a point, but don't just assume it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let's have a look at what happens in Genesis 2.

Verse 7 – God is the Creator of man
Verse 9 – God is the Creator of plants
Verse 22 – God is the Creator the woman

Beginning with verse 5. "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."

This was prior to day six. Specifically, since the plants trees and grass was formed on day three the first watering event came about somewhere between day three and day six. Since aquatic life was formed on day five and aquatic life requires water, most likely the streams discussed came about on day three or four.

7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
This happened on day six.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
The garden HAD been created prior to the creation of man, which means prior to day six or early on day six.
9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
This statement is not saying that the trees were created afterward, but that they were created by God.

Genesis 2 is clearly portrayiing God as the Creator. If that isn't a “creation account” then what on earth IS a creation account?

The entire Bible could be called a creation account, but only the first chapter does into detail about how God created the world, how long he took to do it, and how he spoke the universe into existence. Genesis two tells the story of the first man and woman and their life in Eden prior to the fall. Chapter three deals with the fall of man. They teach different lessons. They don't give differing accounts of the the first lesson.

What is your definition of a creation account?

A creation account tells the story of creation. Genesis two tells about the early life of man, not about how the universe was created.

You may be confused. When people talk about the creation account of Genesis 2, they refer to the passages that begin with Gen 2:4.

Genesis two is not a creation account.

See? Man, then plants. A sequence! Ta da!

Genesis 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
The garden was created before Adam was, which is why Adam was placed in the garden after he was created. Genesis two is not exactly sequential. It references things as they become relevant, not as in a particular sequence. Genesis 2 does NOT mean that the plants were created after man. That's a common distortion that atheists frequently use to try and discredit the Scriptures. Unfortunately, their distortions have made inroads into the religious community so that now many who do not study the Scriptures closely believe it as well.

Genesis 1 has woman created at the same time as man.

No.

Man was created in God's image. Woman has the same image, so He created them, male and female, in His image. Even just came along later. Genesis one does NOT say that Eve was created on day six. In fact, there is no mention of how long man existed before Eve was created.

I only need to point to the passages in Deuteronomy that describe Moses death and burial to prove that he can't have been the sole author.

He wasn't the sole author. He was the primary author. The other passages were added after his death to complete the account of his life and death.

I point to scholarly research to demonstrate substantial evidence that he was one of many authors (if he was an author at all), and that there were multiple redactors / editors who put the Torah together.

Jesus credited Moses with writing the Torah as inspired by God. He may not have been the only contributor, but the Old Testament laws were called the laws of Moses because they were transcribed by Moses.

Why would God dictate a creation account that is heavily steeped in ancient near east cosmology?

Who would have come first, the first man created or ancients from the east?
In all the generations from Adam to Moses, is it your opinion that there would be no oral history of the creation account? After all, Adam knew it well, and I'm sure his descendants would be interested. Moses probably wasn't the first to write about the creation, but he was the only one to receive the teaching directly from God.

Jesus spoke in parables.

Exodus 20:11 proves the creation account is no parable. Jesus spoke in parables when discussing principles that the common people could never understand.

In essence, “the bible is true, and some of it actually happened”.

That's where we part ways. I believe the word of God. I believe the Scriptures are correct. The Bible is a book where parables are easily identifiable and the six day creation is written as a historical fact.

I think it is time to acknowledge that scientific wooden literalism is not the only type of literature that can convey truth.

The Bible is not a science book. The laws of physics are violated 333 times in the Scriptures, so if anything it's anti-science.

 

[KWCrazy]

Prove that quotation implies scientific literalism and you will have a point, but don't just assume it.

Scientific literalism? We are discussing the Scriptures. Science is the study of the creation, not the Creator. Science and literalism have nothing whatever to do with each other.
When you are trying to evaluate what Jesus thought about the Scriptures you have to look at the totality of what is written. If you would like to educate yourself about what Jesus believed, read this compilation of verses.

Or it proves that the author of Luke is making a didactic point using characters in a story.

So Luke is a liar, in your opinion.

The Torah delivered some pretty powerful theology that I think is correct.

How could the theology be correct if you think the Scriptures are false?

I believe in a Creator, but I don't think He acted in six days, and nor does science.

Lucifer ALSO believes in a creator, and in fact knows that creator to be God. If you want to put your faith in the creation and not the Creator that's entirely your decision, but if you limit what you believe to what the laws of science say is possible then you are lost. There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible, each of which is by definition scientifically impossible. Among them is the miracle of the death and resurrection of Christ. That's the one miracle you can't reject if you expect to avoid destruction.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes and no. I could be kinder, but I am not really a fellow Christian by most people's definition of Christian. Just a “Christian seeker” and a Theist. That doesn't mean I can't “call it what it is” - uninformed opinion, not grounded in any scholarly research or fact. Is that kinder?

Perhaps, however do you know that there is not scholarly research that the person knows of that you might not?

Uh – no. Evolution pretty much puts to bed the notion of a literal Adam and Eve. It is a foregone conclusion that a literal scientific reading of Genesis is in error. That isn't stepping outside of my knowledge (how do you know what I know???) and there is a phenomenal amount of evidence to support my position. Fact doesn't care what your opinion is, and not all opinions are created equal.

Well I disagree. Evolution does nothing of the kind. In fact, there is evidence that there is indeed one male and one female that all modern humans are descended from.

Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time : Nature News & Comment

Just to be clear – who claim it is a literal rendering of the history of the universe? Are you talking about Moses? If so, where does the bible say that Moses considered the creation accounts to be literal history rather than mythic history or divinely inspired pre-history?

Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

Jesus also said that if they had believed what Moses wrote they would have believed who He was.

John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

I think you would benefit from doing a study of the creation accounts that were floating around during the time of the ancient hebrews – it might help put in context what they were used for.

You are always so ready to assume that someone who disagrees with you does so without any "reason". I am aware of the other creation accounts. The Mesopotamian accounts to the Norse. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that Historians have concluded that the Biblical narrative was not a borrowed account. FYI.

In particular, creation accounts were a vehicle for theology (especially amongst the polytheistic religions), defining their gods and how their gods related to each other and to mankind. The recipients of these alternative creation accounts were not reading them as science (I note here that science didn't even exist back then!) but as epic stories.

So?

They were two entirely different creation accounts that were glued together by redactors, so of course they have different emphasis and structure. So far so good.

Glued together? Perhaps you would like to give the evidence for that statement? What evidence do you have that the two chapters were not given to Moses passed down through the hands of the patriarchs?

How do you know that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal (and by literal I assume you mean scientific?). Jesus quoted the Scriptures in Genesis as truth, but He never spoke about what His view was on the genre of literature that Genesis should be read as. Am I missing some hermeneutic sermon from Jesus???

I said and will repeat that in my opinion I find a literal interpretation of Genesis is supported by not only Moses and Jesus's words but the evidence of the universe.

Genesis 2:1-3 belong to chapter 1. The second creation account starts in verse 4.

Evidence?

It doesn't appear as a step by step type of detail. There is no mention of molecules or atoms or chemical reactions or gene mutations. There is no science there at all. What there is, is a very rigid structure (read about the Framework Hypothesis!) that declares God to be the Creator of the earth, sky and sea and all that full it. This is in direct contrast to the polytheism of the day that had a god of the earth, a god of the sea, and a god of the sky, and each of these gods were creatures (rather than Creators). It is theolog, not science.

It is not a scientific document but it should if literal be able to be evaluated with our scientific methods.

Neither of the creation accounts are to be read literally. They are both to be read as theology.

In your opinion.

I don't understand what you mean here.

I am saying that they didn't see it as a contradiction due to not being literal but that they were literal accounts of two things, the natural creation and the supernatural spiritual birth of man.

Huh? The theology in the first two chapters of Genesis is about the doctrine of sin, the fall of man, the relationship between God and man, foreshadowing of future redemption, and of sacrifice and blood.

Yes?

Yes, yes it is.

See the first part of this post. That wasn't an insult. It really is evident that you haven't studied this topic much and just parrot back the same answers I'd find in AiG.

Well then you would be completely wrong.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
You are always so ready to assume that someone who disagrees with you does so without any "reason". I am aware of the other creation accounts. The Mesopotamian accounts to the Norse. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that Historians have concluded that the Biblical narrative was not a borrowed account. FYI.
...

Not according to biblicalheritage.org :

For many years scholars have been pointing out the numerous similarities between the Mesopotamian story and the opening section of Genesis. There is not only a striking correspondence in various details, but what is even more significant, the order of events is the same. This makes the likelihood of coincidence very small.

 

[Sayre]

Scientific literalism? We are discussing the Scriptures. Science is the study of the creation, not the Creator. Science and literalism have nothing whatever to do with each other.
When you are trying to evaluate what Jesus thought about the Scriptures you have to look at the totality of what is written. If you would like to educate yourself about what Jesus believed, read this compilation of verses.

When people read Genesis 1 and conclude that the earth was created in 6 days, they are reading it as literal scientific piece of literature. I have no clue what you mean when you say that science and literalism have nothing to do with each other. Are you saying that Genesis 1 is not scientific? If so, I agree with you.

So Luke is a liar, in your opinion.

Making a didactic point does not make Luke a liar. He (appropriately) used a character in a story to build an argument. Why do you think that making a didactic point is equivalent to lying?

How could the theology be correct if you think the Scriptures are false?

Returning to the example of the story of the boy who cried wolf - the story is just that, a story... it never happened. But the moral of the story is true. Just like in Scripture. There are things that never happened (e.g. Eve did not eat the fruit) and yet the theology of the fall is true. Scripture does not need to be scientific, literal, real history in order to convey true theology.

If you think that true theology cannot be conveyed unless Scripture is absolutely literal, tell me how you think parables work? How about the sword coming out of Jesus mouth - is that going to be literal as well? Is Jesus literally a tree root (of Jesse)?

Most Christians are happy to grant a non-literal (non-Scientific) reading of those verses, claiming they are metaphors or prophetic imagery, and yet still claim the Scripture is correct. Why not allow that for Genesis 1, especially in light of scientific evidence?

Lucifer ALSO believes in a creator, and in fact knows that creator to be God. If you want to put your faith in the creation and not the Creator that's entirely your decision, but if you limit what you believe to what the laws of science say is possible then you are lost. There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible, each of which is by definition scientifically impossible. Among them is the miracle of the death and resurrection of Christ. That's the one miracle you can't reject if you expect to avoid destruction.

What on earth? Where did I say I put faith in creation? This is crazy and you know it. I believe in a Creator and that Creator made the physical laws that govern our universe. In that sense, His creation is supernatural and a miracle. There are some things that cannot be touched by science, and the miracle of the resurrection is included in that set. However, understanding how He chose to bring forth the diversity of species is done through science and leads us to evolution. There is no conflict there at all.

You've put a lot of words in my mouth in your posts and I don't appreciate it at all.

1 - I did not call Luke a liar.
2 - I did not say Scripture is false.
3 - I did not say I was putting faith in creation rather than a Creator.

If this repeats itself I will not interact with you any further. Have a little honestly please.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not according to biblicalheritage.org :

For many years scholars have been pointing out the numerous similarities between the Mesopotamian story and the opening section of Genesis. There is not only a striking correspondence in various details, but what is even more significant, the order of events is the same. This makes the likelihood of coincidence very small.

K.A. Kitchen: "The individual themes of creation and flood ... recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called 'Babylonian creation' in most books), completed by circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Gen. 1-2. But despite the reiterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship. Thus the word tehom/thm is common to both Hebrew and Ugaritic (north Syria) and means nothing more than 'deep, abyss.' It is not a deity, like Ti'amat, a goddess in Enuma Elish. In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon. The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the only peculiarity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and Enuma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet. Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments." [OT:OROT, p.424ff; Note: His footnote mentions/references J.V. Kinnier-Wilson, W. G. Lambert, A. R. Millard, T. Jakobsen, with this intro: "Assyriologists generally reject any genetic relationship between Gen. 1-2 and the Mesopotamian data because of the considerable differences".]




Then, Jeffrey Tigay, one of the leading experts on the Epic of Gilgamesh:
"The Eden narrative affinities with primitive folklore and other biblical and Ancient Near Eastern, especially Mesopotamian, compositions are many, yet there is no single piece of ancient literature which resembles the narrative as a whole, either in its details or theological significance."
"Yet another paradise narrative is the Sumerian tale of "Enki and Ninhursag" (Pritchard, texts 37-41), which describes the land (or island) of Dilmun, east of Sumer, as a pure, clean, and bright land, where there is neither sickness nor death, and where the animals live in harmony. One episode in the narrative involves the sun-god's watering Dilmun with fresh water brought up out of the earth, thus making it fertile. The earth-goddess Ninhursag gives birth to eight plants, which the water-god Enki proceeds to devour. This leads Ninhursag to curse Enki; this nearly causes the latter's death, but ultimately Ninhursag is made to heal him. Aside from the Eden narrative's manifest similarities to these stories, the differences are also significant; most notable is the far more natural configuration of the narrative in Genesis 2-3, in contrast with the fantastic or supernatural nature of the other accounts..."
"Not all details of the relationship of the Myth of Adapa to the Eden narrative are clear or necessarily convincing, but some relationship does seem indicated. The contrasts, aside from obviously wide divergence in details and plots, are most profound and characteristic in the area of underlying religious outlook."
"The above survey has led many scholars to the conclusion that the biblical Eden narrative has roots in Ancient Near Eastern literature. Yet, as stated above, these parallels are fragmentary, dealing with only a few motifs each, and the discrepancies in detail are often great. How these gaps were bridged cannot be said with certainty, presumably because of ignorance of the process of transmission of Ancient Near Eastern literature to the Bible." [Ency. Judacia, s.v. "Paradise", 13:82]



John Walton:
"This sort of maximalist position would see the biblical authors as working directly from Mesopotamian exemplars as they carried out theological transformations. Though this sort of conclusion is common, the summary of comparative literary studies of Genesis 1-11 offered by R. S. Hess in the introduction to 'I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood' demonstrates that [the maximalist's] conclusions are far from universally held. D. Tsumura's introduction in the same volume details the rejection of dependence on the Babylonian materials by such well-known Assyriologists as W. G. Lambert and A. Sjoberg....Nevertheless, given the complexity of the transmission of tradition and culture in the ancient world literary dependence is extremely difficult to prove." [OTictOT5, s.v. Creation"]
"Similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish have been frequently cited in great detail. While superficial parallels may be noted and do exist, the only substantial similarity occurs in the dividing of the body of Tiamat by Marduk to create the two separated spheres of water. This is comparable to God's dividing the waters of the firmament on the second day of creation...In summary, then, it is difficult to discuss comparisons between Israelite and Mesopotamian literature concerning creation of the cosmos because the disparity is so marked. Differences include basic elemental issues such as theogony verus cosmogony, polytheism versus monotheism, and emphasis on organization versus emphasis on creative act. Similarities are either linguistic in nature or, as in most cases, due to the fact that the accounts are descriptive of the cosmos of which both are a part." [AILCC, 26f]
"The two differing perspectives given concerning the creation of man are that either he sprang from the ground (Creation of the Pickax) or that he was formed from a clay mixture using the blood of a slain deity. From these details, it is clear that there are several differences between Mesopotamian and biblical beliefs concerning the creation of man." [AILCC, p27ff; Note: Walton then lists/discusses the major points of discontinuity--material used, relationship to the Divine nature, monogenesis versus polygenesis (tn: humanity was created en masse in the ANE lit--not an original pair), and purpose of humanity]
"The similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish are too few to think that the author of Genesis was in any way addressing the piece of literature we know as Enuma Elish." [AILCC, p.34]
"The second possibility, that the Israelite account was borrowed from the Babylonians, has enjoyed an overabundance of popularity. In reality, there is nothing that would lend substantiating credence to this belief. The fact that Israel on occasion exhibits cultural characteristics assimilated from Babylon, as did most of the Ancient Near East, can in no way serve as independent proof that any given item was borrowed. Each potential case of borrowing must be studied on its own merits, for it is clear that there are several cultural elements from Mesopotamia that Israel rejected... The only evidence that can be produced to support the case for Israelite borrowing is the similarities we have already identified. These are hardly convincing, in that most of the similarities occur in situations where cosmological choices are limited. For example, the belief in a primeval watery mass is perfectly logical and one of only a few possibilities... Since there is little to suggest direct borrowing on the part of the Israelites, we would be inclined to accept a more cautious position..." [AILCC, p. 37]




Alan R. Millard:
"Reconstruction of a process whereby Babylonian myths were borrowed by the Hebrews, having been transmitted by the Canaanites, and 'purged' of pagan elements remains imaginary. It has yet to be shown that any Canaanite material was absorbed into Hebrew sacred literature on such a scale or in such a way...However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly. Differences between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions can be found in factual details of the Flood narrative (form of the Ark; duration of the Flood, the identity of the birds and their dispatch) and are most obvious in the ethical and religious concepts of the whole of each composition. All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing. If there was borrowing then it can have extended only as far as the "historical" framework, and not included intention or interpretation. The fact that the closest similarities lie in the Flood stories is instructive. For both Babylonians and Hebrews the Flood marked the end of an age. Mankind could trace itself back to that time; what happened before it was largely unknown. The Hebrews explicitly traced their origins back to Noah, and, we may suppose, assumed that the account of the Flood and all that went before derived from him. Late Babylonian sages supposed that tablets containing information about the ante-diluvian world were buried at Sippar before the Flood and disinterred afterwards. The two accounts undoubtedly describe the same Flood, the two schemes relate the same sequence of events. If judgment is to be passed as to the priority of one tradition over the other, Genesis inevitably wins for its probability in terms of meteorology, geophysics, and timing alone. In creation its account is admired for its simplicity and grandeur, its concept of man accords well with observable facts. In that the patriarch Abraham lived in Babylonia, it could be said that the stories were borrowed from there, but not that they were borrowed from any text now known to us. Granted that the Flood took place, knowledge of it must have survived to form the available accounts; while the Babylonians could only conceive of the event in their own polytheistic language, the Hebrews, or their ancestors, understood the action of God in it. Who can say it was not so?" [[ISI, "A New Babylonian 'Genesis' Story", p.126f]


Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit



There are more if you wish to see them.

 

[Sayre]

My point is getting lost in the debate about whether or not Genesis 2 deserves the label of a creation account (it makes claims about creation if you read it scientifically) and about the Mosaic authorship of the Torah. I am going to skip past your comments and return to them if you request, because our core issue is much much deeper than how to define a creation account and Mosaic authorship.

Our core issue surrounds the nature of truth and whether or not Scripture must be "literal" in order to be true.

I've highlighted the three quotes of yours I believe best get to the core of our disagreement.

In all the generations from Adam to Moses, is it your opinion that there would be no oral history of the creation account? After all, Adam knew it well, and I'm sure his descendants would be interested.

That's where we part ways. I believe the word of God. I believe the Scriptures are correct. The Bible is a book where parables are easily identifiable and the six day creation is written as a historical fact.

The Bible is not a science book. The laws of physics are violated 333 times in the Scriptures, so if anything it's anti-science.

I agree with you that the bible is NOT a science book, it is a theology book, a book of redemption. The laws of physics (well, not just physics ) are violated because the book describes a supernatural God who is not bound by physics.

However, given it is NOT a science book, and does not teach any science, I cannot say that it is anti-science. If a book does not cover a topic, then it must be neutral to that topic by default. It is the way people interpret the bible as if it were scientific that generates disagreements between the bible and science.

Can you please clarify how you can read the bible as if it were not a science book, and yet still gain scientific precision about how the earth was created in 6 days?

This implies that the bible is true and yet not scientific. If that is what you meant, then we finally agree. Truth need not be wrapped in scientific literalism.

I believe the Word of God is true as well. But I do not read it as a science book and so I don't force it to be scientifically accurate. This is not the same as saying it is wrong - it means I recognise the genre of literature for what it is.

I believe there was an oral tradition that was passed down from a man Moses (let's leave the "real" Moses for another debate) through oral tradition to the Hebrews and later scribed (probably by Ezra). But I do not believe in a literal Adam and hence I don't believe oral tradition started with Adam.

I hope that helps bring some clarity. I'm happy to go back to the other two issues but I don't think they will bring any agreement until we agree on the nature of truth.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

K.A. Kitchen: "The individual themes of creation and flood ... recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called 'Babylonian creation' in most books), completed by circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Gen. 1-2. But despite the reiterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship. Thus the word tehom/thm is common to both Hebrew and Ugaritic (north Syria) and means nothing more than 'deep, abyss.' It is not a deity, like Ti'amat, a goddess in Enuma Elish. In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon. The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the only peculiarity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and Enuma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet. Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments." [OT:OROT, p.424ff; Note: His footnote mentions/references J.V. Kinnier-Wilson, W. G. Lambert, A. R. Millard, T. Jakobsen, with this intro: "Assyriologists generally reject any genetic relationship between Gen. 1-2 and the Mesopotamian data because of the considerable differences".]




Then, Jeffrey Tigay, one of the leading experts on the Epic of Gilgamesh:
"The Eden narrative affinities with primitive folklore and other biblical and Ancient Near Eastern, especially Mesopotamian, compositions are many, yet there is no single piece of ancient literature which resembles the narrative as a whole, either in its details or theological significance."
"Yet another paradise narrative is the Sumerian tale of "Enki and Ninhursag" (Pritchard, texts 37-41), which describes the land (or island) of Dilmun, east of Sumer, as a pure, clean, and bright land, where there is neither sickness nor death, and where the animals live in harmony. One episode in the narrative involves the sun-god's watering Dilmun with fresh water brought up out of the earth, thus making it fertile. The earth-goddess Ninhursag gives birth to eight plants, which the water-god Enki proceeds to devour. This leads Ninhursag to curse Enki; this nearly causes the latter's death, but ultimately Ninhursag is made to heal him. Aside from the Eden narrative's manifest similarities to these stories, the differences are also significant; most notable is the far more natural configuration of the narrative in Genesis 2-3, in contrast with the fantastic or supernatural nature of the other accounts..."
"Not all details of the relationship of the Myth of Adapa to the Eden narrative are clear or necessarily convincing, but some relationship does seem indicated. The contrasts, aside from obviously wide divergence in details and plots, are most profound and characteristic in the area of underlying religious outlook."
"The above survey has led many scholars to the conclusion that the biblical Eden narrative has roots in Ancient Near Eastern literature. Yet, as stated above, these parallels are fragmentary, dealing with only a few motifs each, and the discrepancies in detail are often great. How these gaps were bridged cannot be said with certainty, presumably because of ignorance of the process of transmission of Ancient Near Eastern literature to the Bible." [Ency. Judacia, s.v. "Paradise", 13:82]



John Walton:
"This sort of maximalist position would see the biblical authors as working directly from Mesopotamian exemplars as they carried out theological transformations. Though this sort of conclusion is common, the summary of comparative literary studies of Genesis 1-11 offered by R. S. Hess in the introduction to 'I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood' demonstrates that [the maximalist's] conclusions are far from universally held. D. Tsumura's introduction in the same volume details the rejection of dependence on the Babylonian materials by such well-known Assyriologists as W. G. Lambert and A. Sjoberg....Nevertheless, given the complexity of the transmission of tradition and culture in the ancient world literary dependence is extremely difficult to prove." [OTictOT5, s.v. Creation"]
"Similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish have been frequently cited in great detail. While superficial parallels may be noted and do exist, the only substantial similarity occurs in the dividing of the body of Tiamat by Marduk to create the two separated spheres of water. This is comparable to God's dividing the waters of the firmament on the second day of creation...In summary, then, it is difficult to discuss comparisons between Israelite and Mesopotamian literature concerning creation of the cosmos because the disparity is so marked. Differences include basic elemental issues such as theogony verus cosmogony, polytheism versus monotheism, and emphasis on organization versus emphasis on creative act. Similarities are either linguistic in nature or, as in most cases, due to the fact that the accounts are descriptive of the cosmos of which both are a part." [AILCC, 26f]
"The two differing perspectives given concerning the creation of man are that either he sprang from the ground (Creation of the Pickax) or that he was formed from a clay mixture using the blood of a slain deity. From these details, it is clear that there are several differences between Mesopotamian and biblical beliefs concerning the creation of man." [AILCC, p27ff; Note: Walton then lists/discusses the major points of discontinuity--material used, relationship to the Divine nature, monogenesis versus polygenesis (tn: humanity was created en masse in the ANE lit--not an original pair), and purpose of humanity]
"The similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish are too few to think that the author of Genesis was in any way addressing the piece of literature we know as Enuma Elish." [AILCC, p.34]
"The second possibility, that the Israelite account was borrowed from the Babylonians, has enjoyed an overabundance of popularity. In reality, there is nothing that would lend substantiating credence to this belief. The fact that Israel on occasion exhibits cultural characteristics assimilated from Babylon, as did most of the Ancient Near East, can in no way serve as independent proof that any given item was borrowed. Each potential case of borrowing must be studied on its own merits, for it is clear that there are several cultural elements from Mesopotamia that Israel rejected... The only evidence that can be produced to support the case for Israelite borrowing is the similarities we have already identified. These are hardly convincing, in that most of the similarities occur in situations where cosmological choices are limited. For example, the belief in a primeval watery mass is perfectly logical and one of only a few possibilities... Since there is little to suggest direct borrowing on the part of the Israelites, we would be inclined to accept a more cautious position..." [AILCC, p. 37]




Alan R. Millard:
"Reconstruction of a process whereby Babylonian myths were borrowed by the Hebrews, having been transmitted by the Canaanites, and 'purged' of pagan elements remains imaginary. It has yet to be shown that any Canaanite material was absorbed into Hebrew sacred literature on such a scale or in such a way...However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly. Differences between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions can be found in factual details of the Flood narrative (form of the Ark; duration of the Flood, the identity of the birds and their dispatch) and are most obvious in the ethical and religious concepts of the whole of each composition. All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing. If there was borrowing then it can have extended only as far as the "historical" framework, and not included intention or interpretation. The fact that the closest similarities lie in the Flood stories is instructive. For both Babylonians and Hebrews the Flood marked the end of an age. Mankind could trace itself back to that time; what happened before it was largely unknown. The Hebrews explicitly traced their origins back to Noah, and, we may suppose, assumed that the account of the Flood and all that went before derived from him. Late Babylonian sages supposed that tablets containing information about the ante-diluvian world were buried at Sippar before the Flood and disinterred afterwards. The two accounts undoubtedly describe the same Flood, the two schemes relate the same sequence of events. If judgment is to be passed as to the priority of one tradition over the other, Genesis inevitably wins for its probability in terms of meteorology, geophysics, and timing alone. In creation its account is admired for its simplicity and grandeur, its concept of man accords well with observable facts. In that the patriarch Abraham lived in Babylonia, it could be said that the stories were borrowed from there, but not that they were borrowed from any text now known to us. Granted that the Flood took place, knowledge of it must have survived to form the available accounts; while the Babylonians could only conceive of the event in their own polytheistic language, the Hebrews, or their ancestors, understood the action of God in it. Who can say it was not so?" [[ISI, "A New Babylonian 'Genesis' Story", p.126f]


Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit



There are more if you wish to see them.

And apparently many that refute your argument. From religioustolerance.org

The story is a legend with spiritual significance. However there was no actual worldwide flood. The story is a myth, derived largely from the earlier Babylonian account. It was picked up by the ancient Israelites as an oral tradition

Their references are:

1. Susan M. Pojer, "The great flood -- two different versions," HistoryTeacher.net, at: http://www.historyteacher.net/ This is a PDF file.
2. Numbers 14:34
3. Alexander Heidel, "The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels". Univ. of Chicago, Chicago IL (1949)
4. Werner Keller, "The Bible as History", W. Morrow, New York, NY, (1956)
5. Schofield Reference Bible. Genesis, chapters 6 to 9
6. C.M. Laymon, ed., "The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible", Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN (1991)
7. Frank Lorey, Impact #285: The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh", Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA (1997) Online at: Publications
8. "Myths of the flood: The flood narrative from the Gilgamesh epic," at: http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/restrict/
9. 
   N. K. Sandars, translator, "The Epic of Gilgamesh," Penguin. Various editions are available from Amazon.com at prices ranging from $6.33 plus shipping to $499 for the 1972 edition! Read reviews or order the year 1960 version of this book safely from Amazon.com online book store

 

[PhantomGaze]

You have all missed my point. I'm asking how theistic eevolution folk can be more loving towards creationists and respect the end goal, which is faith in Christ, not winning this debate.

I've kinda had this issue as well. I'd say try and blow it off if you can, and focus your attention on things you have in common. Eventually you'll both grow to accept each other's differences... or at least that's how it worked for me.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

K.A. Kitchen: "The individual themes of creation and flood ... recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called 'Babylonian creation' in most books), completed by circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Gen. 1-2. But despite the reiterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship. Thus the word tehom/thm is common to both Hebrew and Ugaritic (north Syria) and means nothing more than 'deep, abyss.' It is not a deity, like Ti'amat, a goddess in Enuma Elish. In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon. The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the only peculiarity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and Enuma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet. Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments." [OT:OROT, p.424ff; Note: His footnote mentions/references J.V. Kinnier-Wilson, W. G. Lambert, A. R. Millard, T. Jakobsen, with this intro: "Assyriologists generally reject any genetic relationship between Gen. 1-2 and the Mesopotamian data because of the considerable differences".]




Then, Jeffrey Tigay, one of the leading experts on the Epic of Gilgamesh:
"The Eden narrative affinities with primitive folklore and other biblical and Ancient Near Eastern, especially Mesopotamian, compositions are many, yet there is no single piece of ancient literature which resembles the narrative as a whole, either in its details or theological significance."
"Yet another paradise narrative is the Sumerian tale of "Enki and Ninhursag" (Pritchard, texts 37-41), which describes the land (or island) of Dilmun, east of Sumer, as a pure, clean, and bright land, where there is neither sickness nor death, and where the animals live in harmony. One episode in the narrative involves the sun-god's watering Dilmun with fresh water brought up out of the earth, thus making it fertile. The earth-goddess Ninhursag gives birth to eight plants, which the water-god Enki proceeds to devour. This leads Ninhursag to curse Enki; this nearly causes the latter's death, but ultimately Ninhursag is made to heal him. Aside from the Eden narrative's manifest similarities to these stories, the differences are also significant; most notable is the far more natural configuration of the narrative in Genesis 2-3, in contrast with the fantastic or supernatural nature of the other accounts..."
"Not all details of the relationship of the Myth of Adapa to the Eden narrative are clear or necessarily convincing, but some relationship does seem indicated. The contrasts, aside from obviously wide divergence in details and plots, are most profound and characteristic in the area of underlying religious outlook."
"The above survey has led many scholars to the conclusion that the biblical Eden narrative has roots in Ancient Near Eastern literature. Yet, as stated above, these parallels are fragmentary, dealing with only a few motifs each, and the discrepancies in detail are often great. How these gaps were bridged cannot be said with certainty, presumably because of ignorance of the process of transmission of Ancient Near Eastern literature to the Bible." [Ency. Judacia, s.v. "Paradise", 13:82]



John Walton:
"This sort of maximalist position would see the biblical authors as working directly from Mesopotamian exemplars as they carried out theological transformations. Though this sort of conclusion is common, the summary of comparative literary studies of Genesis 1-11 offered by R. S. Hess in the introduction to 'I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood' demonstrates that [the maximalist's] conclusions are far from universally held. D. Tsumura's introduction in the same volume details the rejection of dependence on the Babylonian materials by such well-known Assyriologists as W. G. Lambert and A. Sjoberg....Nevertheless, given the complexity of the transmission of tradition and culture in the ancient world literary dependence is extremely difficult to prove." [OTictOT5, s.v. Creation"]
"Similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish have been frequently cited in great detail. While superficial parallels may be noted and do exist, the only substantial similarity occurs in the dividing of the body of Tiamat by Marduk to create the two separated spheres of water. This is comparable to God's dividing the waters of the firmament on the second day of creation...In summary, then, it is difficult to discuss comparisons between Israelite and Mesopotamian literature concerning creation of the cosmos because the disparity is so marked. Differences include basic elemental issues such as theogony verus cosmogony, polytheism versus monotheism, and emphasis on organization versus emphasis on creative act. Similarities are either linguistic in nature or, as in most cases, due to the fact that the accounts are descriptive of the cosmos of which both are a part." [AILCC, 26f]
"The two differing perspectives given concerning the creation of man are that either he sprang from the ground (Creation of the Pickax) or that he was formed from a clay mixture using the blood of a slain deity. From these details, it is clear that there are several differences between Mesopotamian and biblical beliefs concerning the creation of man." [AILCC, p27ff; Note: Walton then lists/discusses the major points of discontinuity--material used, relationship to the Divine nature, monogenesis versus polygenesis (tn: humanity was created en masse in the ANE lit--not an original pair), and purpose of humanity]
"The similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish are too few to think that the author of Genesis was in any way addressing the piece of literature we know as Enuma Elish." [AILCC, p.34]
"The second possibility, that the Israelite account was borrowed from the Babylonians, has enjoyed an overabundance of popularity. In reality, there is nothing that would lend substantiating credence to this belief. The fact that Israel on occasion exhibits cultural characteristics assimilated from Babylon, as did most of the Ancient Near East, can in no way serve as independent proof that any given item was borrowed. Each potential case of borrowing must be studied on its own merits, for it is clear that there are several cultural elements from Mesopotamia that Israel rejected... The only evidence that can be produced to support the case for Israelite borrowing is the similarities we have already identified. These are hardly convincing, in that most of the similarities occur in situations where cosmological choices are limited. For example, the belief in a primeval watery mass is perfectly logical and one of only a few possibilities... Since there is little to suggest direct borrowing on the part of the Israelites, we would be inclined to accept a more cautious position..." [AILCC, p. 37]




Alan R. Millard:
"Reconstruction of a process whereby Babylonian myths were borrowed by the Hebrews, having been transmitted by the Canaanites, and 'purged' of pagan elements remains imaginary. It has yet to be shown that any Canaanite material was absorbed into Hebrew sacred literature on such a scale or in such a way...However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly. Differences between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions can be found in factual details of the Flood narrative (form of the Ark; duration of the Flood, the identity of the birds and their dispatch) and are most obvious in the ethical and religious concepts of the whole of each composition. All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing. If there was borrowing then it can have extended only as far as the "historical" framework, and not included intention or interpretation. The fact that the closest similarities lie in the Flood stories is instructive. For both Babylonians and Hebrews the Flood marked the end of an age. Mankind could trace itself back to that time; what happened before it was largely unknown. The Hebrews explicitly traced their origins back to Noah, and, we may suppose, assumed that the account of the Flood and all that went before derived from him. Late Babylonian sages supposed that tablets containing information about the ante-diluvian world were buried at Sippar before the Flood and disinterred afterwards. The two accounts undoubtedly describe the same Flood, the two schemes relate the same sequence of events. If judgment is to be passed as to the priority of one tradition over the other, Genesis inevitably wins for its probability in terms of meteorology, geophysics, and timing alone. In creation its account is admired for its simplicity and grandeur, its concept of man accords well with observable facts. In that the patriarch Abraham lived in Babylonia, it could be said that the stories were borrowed from there, but not that they were borrowed from any text now known to us. Granted that the Flood took place, knowledge of it must have survived to form the available accounts; while the Babylonians could only conceive of the event in their own polytheistic language, the Hebrews, or their ancestors, understood the action of God in it. Who can say it was not so?" [[ISI, "A New Babylonian 'Genesis' Story", p.126f]


Genesis merely a rip-off of other ANE lit



There are more if you wish to see them.

And apparently many that refute your argument. There doesn't seem to be consensus on the issue. From religioustolerance.org

(According to Liberal Christians) The story is a legend with spiritual significance. However there was no actual worldwide flood. The story is a myth, derived largely from the earlier Babylonian account. It was picked up by the ancient Israelites as an oral tradition

The references used in writing the entire article are:

1. Susan M. Pojer, "The great flood -- two different versions," HistoryTeacher.net, at: http://www.historyteacher.net/ This is a PDF file.
2. Numbers 14:34
3. Alexander Heidel, "The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels". Univ. of Chicago, Chicago IL (1949)
4. Werner Keller, "The Bible as History", W. Morrow, New York, NY, (1956)
5. Schofield Reference Bible. Genesis, chapters 6 to 9
6. C.M. Laymon, ed., "The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible", Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN (1991)
7. Frank Lorey, Impact #285: The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh", Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA (1997) Online at: Publications
8. "Myths of the flood: The flood narrative from the Gilgamesh epic," at: http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/restrict/
9. 
   N. K. Sandars, translator, "The Epic of Gilgamesh," Penguin. Various editions are available from Amazon.com at prices ranging from $6.33 plus shipping to $499 for the 1972 edition! Read reviews or order the year 1960 version of this book safely from Amazon.com online book store

 

[Sayre]

Yes and no. I could be kinder, but I am not really a fellow Christian by most people's definition of Christian. Just a “Christian seeker” and a Theist. That doesn't mean I can't “call it what it is” - uninformed opinion, not grounded in any scholarly research or fact. Is that kinder?

Perhaps, however do you know that there is not scholarly research that the person knows of that you might not?[bless and do not curse]

If you are citing AiG to me, you are not grounded in any scholarly research. That is FACT. You can have an opinion all you like, but AiG is not scholarly research.

Uh – no. Evolution pretty much puts to bed the notion of a literal Adam and Eve. It is a foregone conclusion that a literal scientific reading of Genesis is in error. That isn't stepping outside of my knowledge (how do you know what I know???) and there is a phenomenal amount of evidence to support my position. Fact doesn't care what your opinion is, and not all opinions are created equal.

Well I disagree. Evolution does nothing of the kind. In fact, there is evidence that there is indeed one male and one female that all modern humans are descended from.[bless and do not curse]

Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time : Nature News & Comment

Let me quote some of that article!

“The biblical reference is a bit of a misnomer because this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time.” Not quite the biblical account!

(I will point out that if someone is a biblical literalist, then they believe in a global flood and the genetic bottleneck should appear with Noah and his sons, not with Adam and Eve. But let's move along, shall we?)

Here is what they said about Eve. “This woman, the researchers concluded, probably lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago." Still not the literalist biblical account!

But wait... there's more.

“Yet comparable studies later found that Adam, the common ancestor of the portion of the Y chromosome that passes from father to son, lived roughly 100,000 years ago. It’s possible that Adam and Eve lived aeons apart, and geneticists have come up with a number of explanations as to why." Nothing like the biblical account. Where did the hundreds of thousands of years come from? Why did you bother linking me to this?

Here is the conclusion of the article
“Yet Hammer sees the discrepancy between the age of the Y-Adam and that of the mitochondrial eve as a “red herring”, and he, as many other population geneticists, bristles at the use of biblical names. Because of the random nature of genealogy, he says, two different genetic lineages are unlikely to have common ancestors who lived in the same population at the same time."

Just to be clear – who claim it is a literal rendering of the history of the universe? Are you talking about Moses? If so, where does the bible say that Moses considered the creation accounts to be literal history rather than mythic history or divinely inspired pre-history?

Moses in[bless and do not curse]Exodus 20:11[bless and do not curse]states:[bless and do not curse]“For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”[bless and do not curse]

Jesus also said that if they had believed what Moses wrote they would have believed who He was.[bless and do not curse]

John 5:45–47, Jesus says,[bless and do not curse]“Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Jesus made a great didactic point, did He not? You still have not argued how a reference to a passage implies the referee takes the passage to have modern scientific literalism.

I think you would benefit from doing a study of the creation accounts that were floating around during the time of the ancient hebrews – it might help put in context what they were used for.

You are always so ready to assume that someone who disagrees with you does so without any "reason". I am aware of the other creation accounts. The Mesopotamian accounts to the Norse. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that Historians have concluded that the Biblical narrative was not a borrowed account. FYI.

If you have studied them – why are you continuing to quote AiG and suggest that creation accounts are about science? Show me, in your history of studying other creation accounts, where any of the recipients of these accounts interpreted their accounts the way we interpret modern science?

I am aware that there are some significant differences in the content of the biblical creation accounts compared to the other accounts, and these differences are often glossed over. However, the vehicle by which these stories are told is the same – creation accounts were a common and easily remembered way to teach what we now call theology.

In particular, having a Creator God who is monotheistic is significantly different from the other creation accounts. God is no longer a God of the sea and sky and earth but the Creator of those things – and the creatures are not God but are made by God. This should point out the real message of the biblical creation account which is largely anti polytheism.

In particular, creation accounts were a vehicle for theology (especially among the polytheistic religions), defining their gods and how their gods related to each other and to mankind. The recipients of these alternative creation accounts were not reading them as science (I note here that science didn't even exist back then!) but as epic stories.

So?

What do you mean “So?”? That is a huge point and you have glossed over it. If the intended audience didn't read it as science and couldn't have understood it as science, why are you reading it as science?

They were two entirely different creation accounts that were glued together by redactors, so of course they have different emphasis and structure. So far so good.

Glued together? Perhaps you would like to give the evidence for that statement? What evidence do you have that the two chapters were not given to Moses passed down through the hands of the patriarchs?

Not a problem.

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A common hypothesis among[bless and do not curse]biblical scholars[bless and do not curse]is that the first major comprehensive draft of the[bless and do not curse]Pentateuch[bless and do not curse](the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with[bless and do not curse]Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the[bless and do not curse]Yahwist[bless and do not curse]source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the[bless and do not curse]Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today.[6][bless and do not curse](In the creation narrative the two sources appear in reverse order:Genesis 1:1–2:3[bless and do not curse]is Priestly and[bless and do not curse]Genesis 2:4–24[bless and do not curse]is Yahwistic).[7][bless and do not curse]Borrowing themes from[bless and do not curse]Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to Israel's[bless and do not curse]belief in one God,[8][bless and do not curse]the combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.[9][bless and do not curse]Robert Alter[bless and do not curse]described the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to[bless and do not curse]monotheistic[bless and do not curse]ends".[10]

How do you know that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal (and by literal I assume you mean scientific?). Jesus quoted the Scriptures in Genesis as truth, but He never spoke about what His view was on the genre of literature that Genesis should be read as. Am I missing some hermeneutic sermon from Jesus???

I said and will repeat that in my opinion I find a literal interpretation of Genesis is supported by not only Moses and Jesus's words but the evidence of the universe.

There is evidence in the universe for a Creator (see Natural Theology) but not for a creation in 6 days.

The only way to mash Jesus' words into support for a young earth is to assume that by quoting a passage He implies the passage is physical-literal. You haven't proven this to be the case or even attempted to defend it.
The same criticism goes for massaging Moses' words into support for a 6 day creation.

Genesis 2:1-3 belong to chapter 1. The second creation account starts in verse 4.

Evidence?

Same link again.

Find me one biblical scholar who puts the end of the Genesis 1 account anywhere other than Genesis 2:3. I'm sorry but this is really an embarrassing error on your behalf. Even the most literal fundamentalist biblical scholars put the break at Gen 2:3.

Here is a link for you to browse:

Texts of Genesis: J, E, and P

The text reaches its conclusion in Genesis 2:1, where the narrative voice announces,[bless and do not curse]"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array."[bless and do not curse]Finis. The end. However, a[bless and do not curse]second[bless and do not curse]introduction appears in Genesis 2:4:[bless and do not curse]"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth . . . ."[bless and do not curse]This initially seems a little redundant--at least on the surface of things. It seems to suggest a second creation story rather than one alone.

I understand that JEPD is a little out of vogue at the moment but the concept remains the same – that the second creation account is introduced with a second “introduction” verse at v4.

They may not conclude there were four authors, or the number of redactors, or the locale from which each contributor came from (the tenants of JEPD) but modern biblical scholarship still firmly acknowledges the multiple authors and editors contributing to the text as we currently have it.

It doesn't appear as a step by step type of detail. There is no mention of molecules or atoms or chemical reactions or gene mutations. There is no science there at all. What there is, is a very rigid structure (read about the Framework Hypothesis!) that declares God to be the Creator of the earth, sky and sea and all that full it. This is in direct contrast to the polytheism of the day that had a god of the earth, a god of the sea, and a god of the sky, and each of these gods were creatures (rather than Creators). It is theolog, not science.

It is not a scientific document but it should if literal be able to be evaluated with our scientific methods.

What a mess. I don't even understand what this means. If you are acknowledging that it isn't a scientific document WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU READING IT AS IF IT IS SCIENTIFIC???

Are you now saying it isn't literal???

 

[Black Akuma]

Oh, wow. Tell me he did not try to use Mitochondrial Eve as evidence for the Biblical account.

Just...wow.

 

[KWCrazy]

When people read Genesis 1 and conclude that the earth was created in 6 days, they are reading it as literal scientific piece of literature.

Please remove the word "scientific," because it is not applicable. Science is the study of the physical world. Genesis is the related word of a supernatural God that describes a supernatural creation which had specific characteristics that we call natural law. The Scriptures cannot be studied "scientifically" with any degree of accuracy. It is the revelation of the Holy Spirit that opens the words of our Lord to us, not a repeated study of verbiage and punctuation. We read the Bible as if it is the word of God, which his what we believe it to be. The 333 miracles spoken of in the Scriptures violate the laws of science and give us repeated evidence that God who created the universe is not in any way bound by the physical laws of that universe. Science is not a synonym for truth, and scientific does not mean indisputably validated. To accept the word of God one must accept that God is Lord of the universe and able to do with His creation as he pleases. if that means reversing the rotation of the earth tomorrow, the Lord can do so.

Are you saying that Genesis 1 is not scientific? If so, I agree with you.

There are a number of references in the Scriptures to things science only more recently discovered, like that the earth hangs on nothing (in space), that air has weight, that there are river (currents) in the oceans etc. There are entire articles written on the subject if it interests you. Still, it is not a science book. It doesn't teach or affirm the laws of physics. If anything, it subjugates those laws to the will of the Lord. Science is the study of the natural world. The Bible deals with the supernatural world. Science teaches us that many things are not possible. The Bible teaches us that with God ALL THINGS are possible.

Making a didactic point does not make Luke a liar. He (appropriately) used a character in a story to build an argument.

If the story is false then the argument is invalid. Again, parable and metaphors are used in the Bible, but in context they are easily identifiable. The fact that the Fourth Commandment is based on the six day creation is solid evidence that the six day creation is an integral part of creation. If God had used evolution or billions of years, He would not have told us otherwise. God does not lie. The Fourth Commandment is not based on a fable.

Why do you think that making a didactic point is equivalent to lying?

Jesus taught using parables. They were identified as such. He said that He used them so that the people who lacked the Holy Spirit could understand His message. Jesus also taught that the Great Flood actually happened.

There are things that never happened (e.g. Eve did not eat the fruit) and yet the theology of the fall is true.

Please provide Scriptural evidence of his claim. According to Genesis 3:6 "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." The fact is, God had only one law and both Eve and Adam violated it. That caused the fall of man. It's a VERY significant event in the Scriptures. It's NOT just some feel good story.

Scripture does not need to be scientific, literal, real history in order to convey true theology.

Scientific does not equal real. I think that's your biggest problem. You don't understand exactly what science is and you lack an understanding of its limitations. For example, science tells us that a man who has been dead for three days cannot return to life. However, Jesus brought back Lazarus after three days. Why? It's in no small part to add credibility to the fact that He would return on the third day. The death and resurrection of Lazarus had a number of witnesses and set the stage for the later resurrection of Jesus.

Science tells us that there are no demons and there is no demonic possession, yet Jesus cast out demons and even after His assention His disciples continued to do so. That means that His death and resurrection did NOT eliminate demonic possession. If it happened years after He was gone, then it can still happen today. Nothing has changed. Science is quite simply wrong.

If you think that true theology cannot be conveyed unless Scripture is absolutely literal

False assumption. The passages in Scripture that are written literally are to be taken literally, and the parables are to be taken as parables.

Why not allow that for Genesis 1, especially in light of scientific evidence?

Genesis 1 is not written as a metaphor, and the Fourth Commandment, written by the finger of God, states that He created the world in six days. It is not possible to get any more specific.

Where did I say I put faith in creation?

Faith in THE creation instead of the Creator. You state this repeatedly by interjecting "science" as if it were a synonym for "truth." Science studies the physical word, not the supernatural world.

I believe in a Creator and that Creator made the physical laws that govern our universe.

Great! Do you believe that these laws also govern the Creator?

There are some things that cannot be touched by science, and the miracle of the resurrection is included in that set.

Why do you pick and chose which miracles to believe, and how do you make that determination?

However, understanding how He chose to bring forth the diversity of species is done through science and leads us to evolution.

Evolution claims that all life evolved on its own without any supernatural intervention, and that man is merely a more evolved species. That gives man no special value. The Scriptures state that man was created by God on the sixth day of creation. Jesus, who was there to witness it, believed that the Scriptures told the truth. Evolution calls it all a lie and calls Jesus a liar as well. The Scriptures are the truth and serve the father of truth. Evolution is a lie that serves the father of lies. Choose which you will serve. Both cannot be equally served. Either you render the largest part of the Scriptures to be mythology and falsehood, or you acknowledge that God DID create the universe in six days and He allowed a mechanism by which species could go forth and multiply.

1 - I did not call Luke a liar.

You accused him of using a teaching device based on a myth, while Luke taught as factually. It he was teaching a myth as fact, he must have been lying.

2 - I did not say Scripture is false.

You said that genesis 1 could not be correct because the physical laws of the creation (science) said otherwise. In other words, you put the opinions of your science teacher over the word of your God. If that isn't calling the Scriptures false, then what is? In Exodus 20:11 the finger of God carved upon a stone tablet, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Science specifically states that those words are false. With whom to you place your faith?

3 - I did not say I was putting faith in creation rather than a Creator.

You didn't say the words, and yet you take the opinions of science over the word of God. You reject the creation because science says it was impossible. Which of the 333 miracles in the Bible do you believe? Water into wine? Calming the storm? Walking on water? Feeding the multitudes? Water from a stone? Parting the sea?

My posts are based on the Scriptures. What could be more honest than quoting the word of God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, wow. Tell me he did not try to use Mitochondrial Eve as evidence for the Biblical account.

Just...wow.

What is the problem with that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you are citing AiG to me, you are not grounded in any scholarly research. That is FACT. You can have an opinion all you like, but AiG is not scholarly research.

Is the you in this me? I have not used AiG in our conversation.

Let me quote some of that article!

“The biblical reference is a bit of a misnomer because this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time.” Not quite the biblical account!

I never implied that he was.

(I will point out that if someone is a biblical literalist, then they believe in a global flood and the genetic bottleneck should appear with Noah and his sons, not with Adam and Eve. But let's move along, shall we?)

There is reason to believe that the "global flood" is not a correct reading of the original Hebrew and that a local and very large flood occurred at the appropriate time and place. However, I have not researched all this so I am only putting that out there without having a determination of that hypothesis.

Here is what they said about Eve. “This woman, the researchers concluded, probably lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago." Still not the literalist biblical account!

Why not?

But wait... there's more.

“Yet comparable studies later found that Adam, the common ancestor of the portion of the Y chromosome that passes from father to son, lived roughly 100,000 years ago. It’s possible that Adam and Eve lived aeons apart, and geneticists have come up with a number of explanations as to why." Nothing like the biblical account. Where did the hundreds of thousands of years come from? Why did you bother linking me to this?

Looks like you are cherry picking here. This is a quote from the paper:

Meanwhile, a team led by Paolo Francalacci, a population geneticist at the University of Sassari, Italy, came to a similar conclusion by studying the Y chromosomes of 1,200 men from the island of Sardinia. The team identified nearly 7,000 previously unknown Y-chromosome variations and used that detail to create their own molecular clock. The clock helped to pinpoint key events in Sardinian history, such as the rise of Neolithic populations there and the arrival of Africans as part of the Roman slave trade. It also suggested that Adam lived 180,000–200,000 years ago, similar to initial estimates of Eve’s age2.

Here is the conclusion of the article
“Yet Hammer sees the discrepancy between the age of the Y-Adam and that of the mitochondrial eve as a “red herring”, and he, as many other population geneticists, bristles at the use of biblical names. Because of the random nature of genealogy, he says, two different genetic lineages are unlikely to have common ancestors who lived in the same population at the same time."

Emphasis mine.

If he has a problem with the use of biblical names we can assume him to be somewhat biased.

Jesus made a great didactic point, did He not? You still have not argued how a reference to a passage implies the referee takes the passage to have modern scientific literalism.

He made references to a literal Adam and Noah. Why would He do that?

If you have studied them – why are you continuing to quote AiG and suggest that creation accounts are about science? Show me, in your history of studying other creation accounts, where any of the recipients of these accounts interpreted their accounts the way we interpret modern science?

Where have I quoted AiG? I am still confused as to what you are referring to my quoting them.

The fact that others do not interpret their own creation models to modern science is of no concern to me and does nothing to how or why we should or shouldn't do so with the Christian Creation Narrative.

I am aware that there are some significant differences in the content of the biblical creation accounts compared to the other accounts, and these differences are often glossed over. However, the vehicle by which these stories are told is the same – creation accounts were a common and easily remembered way to teach what we now call theology.

The fact that there are other creation stories is again no concern to how or in what way we interpret ours.

In particular, having a Creator God who is monotheistic is significantly different from the other creation accounts. God is no longer a God of the sea and sky and earth but the Creator of those things – and the creatures are not God but are made by God. This should point out the real message of the biblical creation account which is largely anti polytheism.

You continue to make statements of fact when in reality you are using your own interpretations and opinions. That holds no authority for me.

What do you mean “So?”? That is a huge point and you have glossed over it. If the intended audience didn't read it as science and couldn't have understood it as science, why are you reading it as science?

I believe it is a narrative that describes the actions that God took in creating the universe and I believe that is what He intended. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Not a problem.

Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A common hypothesis among[bless and do not curse]biblical scholars[bless and do not curse]is that the first major comprehensive draft of the[bless and do not curse]Pentateuch[bless and do not curse](the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with[bless and do not curse]Deuteronomy) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the[bless and do not curse]Yahwist[bless and do not curse]source) and that this was later expanded by other authors (the[bless and do not curse]Priestly source) into a work very like the one we have today.[6][bless and do not curse](In the creation narrative the two sources appear in reverse order:Genesis 1:1–2:3[bless and do not curse]is Priestly and[bless and do not curse]Genesis 2:4–24[bless and do not curse]is Yahwistic).[7][bless and do not curse]Borrowing themes from[bless and do not curse]Mesopotamian mythology, but adapting them to Israel's[bless and do not curse]belief in one God,[8][bless and do not curse]the combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.[9][bless and do not curse]Robert Alter[bless and do not curse]described the combined narrative as "compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to[bless and do not curse]monotheistic[bless and do not curse]ends".[10]

I asked for evidence.

There is evidence in the universe for a Creator (see Natural Theology) but not for a creation in 6 days.

How much time was there in the six days of creation? Do you realize that yom in Hebrew has many meanings and that it can mean substantial periods of time?

The only way to mash Jesus' words into support for a young earth is to assume that by quoting a passage He implies the passage is physical-literal. You haven't proven this to be the case or even attempted to defend it.
The same criticism goes for massaging Moses' words into support for a 6 day creation.

There you go assuming once again. YEC is not necessary in a literal Genesis.

Same link again.

Find me one biblical scholar who puts the end of the Genesis 1 account anywhere other than Genesis 2:3. I'm sorry but this is really an embarrassing error on your behalf. Even the most literal fundamentalist biblical scholars put the break at Gen 2:3.

Here is a link for you to browse:

Texts of Genesis: J, E, and P

The text reaches its conclusion in Genesis 2:1, where the narrative voice announces,[bless and do not curse]"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array."[bless and do not curse]Finis. The end. However, a[bless and do not curse]second[bless and do not curse]introduction appears in Genesis 2:4:[bless and do not curse]"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth . . . ."[bless and do not curse]This initially seems a little redundant--at least on the surface of things. It seems to suggest a second creation story rather than one alone.

I understand that JEPD is a little out of vogue at the moment but the concept remains the same – that the second creation account is introduced with a second “introduction” verse at v4.

They may not conclude there were four authors, or the number of redactors, or the locale from which each contributor came from (the tenants of JEPD) but modern biblical scholarship still firmly acknowledges the multiple authors and editors contributing to the text as we currently have it.

What evidence do they use to make their conclusions?

What a mess. I don't even understand what this means. If you are acknowledging that it isn't a scientific document WHY ON EARTH ARE YOU READING IT AS IF IT IS SCIENTIFIC???

Do you think that if the creator of the Titanic were to give a over description of the crafting of the ship that it would be scientifically sound? I believe that the description of Genesis should be scientifically sound.

Are you now saying it isn't literal???

No.

 

[Black Akuma]

What is the problem with that?

Mitochondrial Eve isn't even a single individual , for starters.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mitochondrial Eve isn't even a single individual , for starters.

Yes, she is.

In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 140,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person.

SOURCE

 

[Black Akuma]

Yes, she is.


SOURCE

I should specify. It's not one, set individual. It changes as time goes. In the past it was a different person, and it'll be different in the future.