Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I doubt that the author(s) took the creation accounts as literal because this narrative came from ancient Babylon almost 2000 years prior to the writing of Genesis, so what appears to have happened is that we took this narrative and reworked it to reflect our morals and values. All cultures do much the same, including modern American culture.

American Gods by Neil Gaiman was a great portrayal of this.

 

[metis]

American Gods by Neil Gaiman was a great portrayal of this.

Thanks, and I'll definitely have to check this out.

 

[Thief]

I doubt that the author(s) took the creation accounts as literal because this narrative came from ancient Babylon almost 2000 years prior to the writing of Genesis, so what appears to have happened is that we took this narrative and reworked it to reflect our morals and values. All cultures do much the same, including modern American culture.

They did take it literally.
It was taught verbally and had to be carefully delivered and held.
Genesis as a writing would make that easier.
Still literal.

Dogmatic in the days of Moses as 'proving' could not be dealt.

Belief is easier now. The science we have shows the possibility.

 

[Ouroboros]

I doubt that the author(s) took the creation accounts as literal because this narrative came from ancient Babylon almost 2000 years prior to the writing of Genesis, so what appears to have happened is that we took this narrative and reworked it to reflect our morals and values. All cultures do much the same, including modern American culture.

And creation stories tend to reflect what society they came from. Genesis leading to the punishment of tilling the earth for food shows it came from an agricultural society. All was great before when we all ran around hunting and gathering food in the forest, but because we wanted to be so smart about things and invent technology and methods to produce food, we're now stuck at this stupid plow...

 

[metis]

They did take it literally.
It was taught verbally and had to be carefully delivered and held.
Genesis as a writing would make that easier.
Still literal.

Dogmatic in the days of Moses as 'proving' could not be dealt.

Belief is easier now. The science we have shows the possibility.

There's absolutely no way possible that you could know they took it literally. Secondly, long before we knew anything about evolution, many Jewish sages realized that the creation accounts should probably be taken as allegory.

And the point at this time based on what we now know is that taking it literally makes not one iota of sense, especially since we also now know that the narrative was actually imported and revised.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There's absolutely no way possible that you could know they took it literally. Secondly, long before we knew anything about evolution, many Jewish sages realized that the creation accounts should probably be taken as allegory.

And the point at this time based on what we now know is that taking it literally makes not one iota of sense, especially since we also now know that the narrative was actually imported and revised.

What's even more interesting about these claims that people knew, ignores how little we actually knew about the life of Jews in those days.

Sidebar, I never took into importance that one of Jesus's disciples was called Simon the Zealot...

 

[Thief]

There's absolutely no way possible that you could know they took it literally. Secondly, long before we knew anything about evolution, many Jewish sages realized that the creation accounts should probably be taken as allegory.

And the point at this time based on what we now know is that taking it literally makes not one iota of sense, especially since we also now know that the narrative was actually imported and revised.

By this you are declaring the scenario of Chapter Two.....a lie?
That God is not allowed to do as Chapter Two indicates?

 

[metis]

By this you are declaring the scenario of Chapter Two.....a lie?
That God is not allowed to do as Chapter Two indicates?

Why would you call it a "lie"? The creation narrative just doesn't stop at the end of ch. 1.

Instead, try taking a different approach: what morals and values are being taught in, let's say, the first two chapters of Genesis? Now, I will state that this will take you much further than the road you're on, because it's the morals and values that are by far the most important items to pull out because it leaves us with something usable, and it's most likely these that the author(s) was injecting in their alteration of the Babylonian narrative, especially since the Babylonian story is mostly devoid of morals to be taught.

 

[Thief]

Why would you call it a "lie"? The creation narrative just doesn't stop at the end of ch. 1.

Instead, try taking a different approach: what morals and values are being taught in, let's say, the first two chapters of Genesis? Now, I will state that this will take you much further than the road you're on, because it's the morals and values that are by far the most important items to pull out because it leaves us with something usable, and it's most likely these that the author(s) was injecting in their alteration of the Babylonian narrative, especially since the Babylonian story is mostly devoid of morals to be taught.

I don't see it as a story of morality.
It's about how we got here.

 

[metis]

I don't see it as a story of morality.
It's about how we got here.

To take such as narrative as somehow being a description of how everything came into being really makes no sense, and at all different levels. It's short; it's poetic in the Hebrew; it's imported from another culture; it defies even the most basic science; it defies basic history; etc.

As far as the issue of morality and values are concerned, it basically covers as series of items, even if we just isolate just the creation aspects:

-there's one God, not many

-God's creation is "good", unlike that from the neighboring Ba'als

-the 7th day is a day of rest, even though it's not a requirement for us at that time

-no meat eating, later changed during the Flood narrative

-animals not on the same level as humans from God's point of view

-etc.

Then it goes into "the Fall" narrative, which is a continuation and which continues on with the teachings of morals and values.

When fundamentalists continue to claim that somehow these accounts are both scientific and historical, they make their perspective and even their denomination look quite foolish, thus chasing people away. I know because I was one of these "people", and there are plenty more like me with our experiences.

 

[metis]

And creation stories tend to reflect what society they came from. Genesis leading to the punishment of tilling the earth for food shows it came from an agricultural society. All was great before when we all ran around hunting and gathering food in the forest, but because we wanted to be so smart about things and invent technology and methods to produce food, we're now stuck at this stupid plow...

Yes, and we see the conflicts at the time these were written being injected into other stories so often. I don't know if you're familiar with "The Jewish Study Bible" by the JPS, but it does an excellent job of putting in both known history and cultural differences into the perspective of the biblical authors.

For a quick example, may Christian believe the Suffering Servant narrative found in deutero-Isaiah as being a reference to Jesus, but we know that it can't be because of what else is covered in the same chapters that very much predate him, as well as some of the teachings don't match because Isaiah reinforces the necessity of following the entire Law, which Christians don't follow. This is an overly simplified example, but one nevertheless that fits.

 

[greentwiga]

To take such as narrative as somehow being a description of how everything came into being really makes no sense, and at all different levels. It's short; it's poetic in the Hebrew; it's imported from another culture; it defies even the most basic science; it defies basic history; etc.

As far as the issue of morality and values are concerned, it basically covers as series of items, even if we just isolate just the creation aspects:

-there's one God, not many

-God's creation is "good", unlike that from the neighboring Ba'als

-the 7th day is a day of rest, even though it's not a requirement for us at that time

-no meat eating, later changed during the Flood narrative

-animals not on the same level as humans from God's point of view

-etc.

Then it goes into "the Fall" narrative, which is a continuation and which continues on with the teachings of morals and values.

When fundamentalists continue to claim that somehow these accounts are both scientific and historical, they make their perspective and even their denomination look quite foolish, thus chasing people away. I know because I was one of these "people", and there are plenty more like me with our experiences.

I love how you state that it came from Sumer with no proof. Sure there are a few similarities, but does Sumer come from the Biblical? Do they both come from a third? There is no way to choose from your facts. Also it couldn't have been written in Sumer 2,000 years before Moses unless you want to date Moses about 900 BC instead of ~1,400 BC, when The Bible states he lived.

Saying that, If it was evolving and written thousands of wears after the fact, it would have gotten the facts wrong. How did they know that wheat was domesticated at Mt. Karacadag? How did they know that it happened just at the end of the Younger Dryas? How did they know that sheep were domesticated at the same time, but cattle thousand + years later? What about being on a Volcano that erupted?

Sure it is a morality story from start to finish, That doesn't mean it got the facts wrong.

 

[metis]

I love how you state that it came from Sumer with no proof. Sure there are a few similarities, but does Sumer come from the Biblical? Do they both come from a third? There is no way to choose from your facts. Also it couldn't have been written in Sumer 2,000 years before Moses unless you want to date Moses about 900 BC instead of ~1,400 BC, when The Bible states he lived.

There's no evidence of Hebrew writing prior to roughly around 1000 b.c.e., plus the basic descriptions in the text of Genesis doesn't match eretz Israel but it does match ancient Babylon, which does also show up in early Genesis. A tablet found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis is the Babylonian account, and since I have a time problem today, I'll see if I can find this somewhere on line tomorrow.

BTW, this is also covered in the book "Walking the Bible" by Bruce Feiler, and you can find it here: Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses (P.S.): Bruce Feiler: 9780060838638: Amazon.com: Books (btw, I do not have stock in Amazon )

Saying that, If it was evolving and written thousands of wears after the fact, it would have gotten the facts wrong. How did they know that wheat was domesticated at Mt. Karacadag? How did they know that it happened just at the end of the Younger Dryas? How did they know that sheep were domesticated at the same time, but cattle thousand + years later? What about being on a Volcano that erupted?

Sure it is a morality story from start to finish, That doesn't mean it got the facts wrong.

It's not at all about getting anything "wrong", but that it appears we took the Babylonian text and modified it to teach what we wanted our people to understand. All societies do this, btw, so it's not a matter of being dishonest or careless in any way.

 

[greentwiga]

There's no evidence of Hebrew writing prior to roughly around 1000 b.c.e., plus the basic descriptions in the text of Genesis doesn't match eretz Israel but it does match ancient Babylon, which does also show up in early Genesis. A tablet found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis is the Babylonian account, and since I have a time problem today, I'll see if I can find this somewhere on line tomorrow.

BTW, this is also covered in the book "Walking the Bible" by Bruce Feiler, and you can find it here: Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses (P.S.): Bruce Feiler: 9780060838638: Amazon.com: Books (btw, I do not have stock in Amazon )

It's not at all about getting anything "wrong", but that it appears we took the Babylonian text and modified it to teach what we wanted our people to understand. All societies do this, btw, so it's not a matter of being dishonest or careless in any way.

The history of writing shows that even ancient Hebrew doesn't show up until 1000 BC. There are a couple examples of ProtoSinaitic writing, one in Sinai Mines, and one in a desert path in Egypt. Both are Semitic. Moses, writing in 1400 BC could only have written in ProtoSinaitic. The Jews of King David time would have had to translate it into their script. One indication that ProtoSinaitic was used is that, when talking about the ten commandments written on stone, they said the writing was the writing of God. It wasn't in the writing they were used to.

I have read Bruce Feller, and I don't agree with everything he says. Not everything is well researched.

I admit that there are some similarities between the Sumerian (much older than the Babylonian) and the Bible. I could argue that the snowshoe hare gets a white coat every December, and that is what causes the season to get cold. All you have shown is the similarity, not which caused which one. You have grown up in the information age and thus can't believe in the power of other methods. I have watched a woman repeat the whole Ramayana. We refuse to believe the power of memorizing and repeating word perfect, because it is not part of our culture. You are starting with the assumption that writing is the only way to preserve stories. Your whole case is built on this false assumption. Just ask the Native Australians about dreamtime, a memory of about 40,000 years ago.

 

[Thief]

To take such as narrative as somehow being a description of how everything came into being really makes no sense, and at all different levels. It's short; it's poetic in the Hebrew; it's imported from another culture; it defies even the most basic science; it defies basic history; etc.

As far as the issue of morality and values are concerned, it basically covers as series of items, even if we just isolate just the creation aspects:

-there's one God, not many

-God's creation is "good", unlike that from the neighboring Ba'als

-the 7th day is a day of rest, even though it's not a requirement for us at that time

-no meat eating, later changed during the Flood narrative

-animals not on the same level as humans from God's point of view

-etc.

Then it goes into "the Fall" narrative, which is a continuation and which continues on with the teachings of morals and values.

When fundamentalists continue to claim that somehow these accounts are both scientific and historical, they make their perspective and even their denomination look quite foolish, thus chasing people away. I know because I was one of these "people", and there are plenty more like me with our experiences.

Yeah well...I see....
A setup as if for experiment.....ideal living conditions....the garden.
A chosen specimen.
Some time spent making sure the specimen is worthwhile.
THEN anesthesia, surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation......SCIENCE!
( point finger to ceiling and wave it!)

After the alteration, further investigation.
Will the specimen now have curiosity greater than a fear of death?

Yes.

The specimens are then released into the environment.

Sounds right to me.

 

[metis]

You are starting with the assumption that writing is the only way to preserve stories. Your whole case is built on this false assumption.

Absolutely false. I'm an anthropologist who is very familiar with the process of oral traditions.

We have to remember how oral traditions work, and one of their distinct advantages as they can be altered to make room for new situations. Societies learn from other societies, therefore one should not at all be surprised that we apparently took Babylonian texts and then modified them to meet our own situations. All societies do that as far as we can tell, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It's only the "purists" who tend to believe that everything in their teachings somehow come from just their own sages.

BTW, I have also done some limited archaeological work over in Israel, although what I was working with was a dig dealing with the Roman period, which has nothing to do with our discussion.

 

[gnostic]

To greentwiga:

I think most people wouldn't know unless they choose to investigate that before Moses, the Canaanites had most likely known of the stories of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis (or Utnapishtim) in the mid-16th century BCE, because fragments of clay tablets were found in Megiddo.

The myths of Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian civilisations were confined in the Mesopotamia. They (clay tablets) were found were as far east as Elam (also known later as Persia or Iran) and as far west as the Hittite kindgom (in Anatolian Turkey) and in Egypt.

Such popularity of Akkadian-Babylonian deities and heroes that it is safe to assume the ancient Canaanites knew of these stories, then most likely the pre-Mosaic Hebrews or Israelites, because the presence of these tablets in Megiddo are evidences of this.

And like Metis said, people who used oral tradition have habits of borrowing and modifying stories from other cultures.

Also, in the Exodus, if we were to believe the story of Moses that the pharaoh were responsible of making Israelite building the cities of Pithom and Rameses, then Moses' exodus couldn't have happened in 1400 BCE.

The Egyptian King who was responsible for building Pithom and Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) was Ramesses II (reign 1279-1213), also known as Ramesses the Great; a king of the 19th dynasty, New Kingdom. During his reign, Canaan and parts of Syria were part of his empire. Pi-Ramesses was named after Ramesses himself.

If what Exodus say is true about Pithom and Rameses, then the exodus would have happen in the 13th century, not 15th or 14th century BCE.

But then again, there are no evidences to support the mass-freeing of slaves and mass-migration out of Egypt and the conquest or invasion into Canaan.

The only evidence that may have mentioned Israel is what is found in the Merneptah Stele. Merneptah was Ramesses' son and immediate successor. The stele mentioned destroying Israel for good - "Israel has been wiped out...its seed is no more."

 

[Thief]

To greentwiga:

I think most people wouldn't know unless they choose to investigate that before Moses, the Canaanites had most likely known of the stories of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis (or Utnapishtim) in the mid-16th century BCE, because fragments of clay tablets were found in Megiddo.

The myths of Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian civilisations were confined in the Mesopotamia. They (clay tablets) were found were as far east as Elam (also known later as Persia or Iran) and as far west as the Hittite kindgom (in Anatolian Turkey) and in Egypt.

Such popularity of Akkadian-Babylonian deities and heroes that it is safe to assume the ancient Canaanites knew of these stories, then most likely the pre-Mosaic Hebrews or Israelites, because the presence of these tablets in Megiddo are evidences of this.

And like Metis said, people who used oral tradition have habits of borrowing and modifying stories from other cultures.

Also, in the Exodus, if we were to believe the story of Moses that the pharaoh were responsible of making Israelite building the cities of Pithom and Rameses, then Moses' exodus couldn't have happened in 1400 BCE.

The Egyptian King who was responsible for building Pithom and Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) was Ramesses II (reign 1279-1213), also known as Ramesses the Great; a king of the 19th dynasty, New Kingdom. During his reign, Canaan and parts of Syria were part of his empire. Pi-Ramesses was named after Ramesses himself.

If what Exodus say is true about Pithom and Rameses, then the exodus would have happen in the 13th century, not 15th or 14th century BCE.

But then again, there are no evidences to support the mass-freeing of slaves and mass-migration out of Egypt and the conquest or invasion into Canaan.

The only evidence that may have mentioned Israel is what is found in the Merneptah Stele. Merneptah was Ramesses' son and immediate successor. The stele mentioned destroying Israel for good - "Israel has been wiped out...its seed is no more."

So are you supporting the notion of Man as a species made by God?
with an intervention having resemblance of a science experiment?

Or.....are you dismissing the notion altogether as myth...therefore....
Man as a complex chemical accident?

 

[gnostic]

So are you supporting the notion of Man as a species made by God?
with an intervention having resemblance of a science experiment?

Or.....are you dismissing the notion altogether as myth...therefore....
Man as a complex chemical accident?

What on Earth are you're talking about?

How did you get all that in my post?

I am talking of the story of Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim or that of Gilgamesh was very popular that it had spread - east and west, that the ancient Hebrew would have known of them, and borrowed the story of the Deluge, and embued them with meanings that suited their cultures.

That clay tablets existed in around mid-15th century BCE in Megiddo, are evidences to support that the story is known in the region that predated Moses, by several centuries.

But Greentwiga claimed that Moses flourished around the 14th century BCE, but that's not really possible because Pithom and Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) weren't built until the time of Ramesses II, one of Egypt's greatest kings.

Flavius Josephus claimed had identified Israelites with the Hyksos, but the Hyksos were never slaves, and there was no Pi-Ramesses in the 16th century BCE, when the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt.

 

[greentwiga]

To greentwiga:

I think most people wouldn't know unless they choose to investigate that before Moses, the Canaanites had most likely known of the stories of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis (or Utnapishtim) in the mid-16th century BCE, because fragments of clay tablets were found in Megiddo.

The myths of Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian civilisations were confined in the Mesopotamia. They (clay tablets) were found were as far east as Elam (also known later as Persia or Iran) and as far west as the Hittite kindgom (in Anatolian Turkey) and in Egypt.

Such popularity of Akkadian-Babylonian deities and heroes that it is safe to assume the ancient Canaanites knew of these stories, then most likely the pre-Mosaic Hebrews or Israelites, because the presence of these tablets in Megiddo are evidences of this.

And like Metis said, people who used oral tradition have habits of borrowing and modifying stories from other cultures.

Also, in the Exodus, if we were to believe the story of Moses that the pharaoh were responsible of making Israelite building the cities of Pithom and Rameses, then Moses' exodus couldn't have happened in 1400 BCE.

The Egyptian King who was responsible for building Pithom and Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) was Ramesses II (reign 1279-1213), also known as Ramesses the Great; a king of the 19th dynasty, New Kingdom. During his reign, Canaan and parts of Syria were part of his empire. Pi-Ramesses was named after Ramesses himself.

If what Exodus say is true about Pithom and Rameses, then the exodus would have happen in the 13th century, not 15th or 14th century BCE.

But then again, there are no evidences to support the mass-freeing of slaves and mass-migration out of Egypt and the conquest or invasion into Canaan.

The only evidence that may have mentioned Israel is what is found in the Merneptah Stele. Merneptah was Ramesses' son and immediate successor. The stele mentioned destroying Israel for good - "Israel has been wiped out...its seed is no more."

We both agree that there are other ancient creation stories around the Middle east that Moses could have read, though he was much more likely to be familiar with Egyptian. We have written copies of them that are far older thanthe writing date of Moses, whether it be ~1400 or ~1200. You still have not shown that the Biblical one came from either the Babylonian or the Sumerian. Just saying, "It seems logical to me that it came from one of them" doesn't prove anything. The accuracy of the Biblical account argues that it didn't.