Story of creation: Genesis.

[Doug Shaver]

The mistakes you see are what for example? Typically such supposed mistakes are matters of interpretation and disagreements on interpretations.

You know what mistakes I'm referring to, and so does everyone else reading this thread.

I agree that any passage in the Bible can be interpreted so as to resolve any apparent conflict with empirical reality. But so can any passage of any other document that anybody has ever written. With other documents, though, nobody tries to resolve the conflict because nobody claims that the author could not possibly have made a mistake. With rare and irrelevant exceptions, that assumption of infallible authorship is applied only to the Bible.

Since I have no reason to assume biblical inerrancy (because I have no reason to assume divine authorship), I have no reason to presuppose that any apparent mistake is not an actual mistake.

[shunyadragon]

Source for the bolded part?

There is a great deal of research detailing the fact that the oldest close parallels to the Genesis myths, laws of the OT, and parts of the psalms exist in Babylonian and pre=Babylonian cuniaform tablets, and there exists no Hebrew texts older then the Dead Sea scrolls other then a few short quotes from silver scrolls dated about 600 BC.

[Kbertsche]

There is a great deal of research detailing the fact that the oldest close parallels to the Genesis myths, laws of the OT, and parts of the psalms exist in Babylonian and pre=Babylonian cuniaform tablets, and there exists no Hebrew texts older then the Dead Sea scrolls other then a few short quotes from silver scrolls dated about 600 BC.

But there is ALSO a fair bit of research pointing out an Egyptian influence on the Pentateuch, and parallels between the Egyptian and Gen 1 creation accounts. How do you explain this if the texts are as late as you claim?

[shunyadragon]

But there is ALSO a fair bit of research pointing out an Egyptian influence on the Pentateuch, and parallels between the Egyptian and Gen 1 creation accounts. How do you explain this if the texts are as late as you claim?

There is also a possible influence of Egyptian on Genesis, because of the long history of trade and Egyptian control of the region, but the earliest primary source, including verbatim parts of the Psalms is cuneiform tablets. My dating is based on the direct evidence of the existing documents and the earliest evolution of the Hebrew language.

[MaxVel]

Here's one:
"Comparing two creation stories: from Genesis and Babylonian pagan sources," http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htmThe American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

Thanks for that. However, I'm looking for some source that shows that "it's generally agreed" that the Genesis accounts borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology, which was Tassman's claim.

[MaxVel]

You know what mistakes I'm referring to, and so does everyone else reading this thread.

I agree that any passage in the Bible can be interpreted so as to resolve any apparent conflict with empirical reality. But so can any passage of any other document that anybody has ever written. With other documents, though, nobody tries to resolve the conflict because nobody claims that the author could not possibly have made a mistake. With rare and irrelevant exceptions, that assumption of infallible authorship is applied only to the Bible.

Since I have no reason to assume biblical inerrancy (because I have no reason to assume divine authorship), I have no reason to presuppose that any apparent mistake is not an actual mistake.

Don't you think that the bolded part goes a bit too far? If any written document can be validly interpreted to mean just about anything, then I agree with your post above - JimL should buy us all pizza. (Isn't this where we would end up if we took your idea to it's ultimate conclusion - no possibility of real communication because the link between expression and intended meaning has been severed?)


While I agree that interpreting the Bible is not easy - and particularly with passages like the early parts of Genesis - it can be done, and there are methodologies and consistent approaches that should be employed.

[Tassman]

Thanks for that. However, I'm looking for some source that shows that "it's generally agreed" that the Genesis accounts borrowed from Mesopotamian mythology, which was Tassman's claim.

who are not conservative Evangelicals that the sources behind the Genesis creation narratives borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and adapted them to their monotheistic viewpoint.

[MaxVel]

who are not conservative Evangelicals

Do you have a source for that?

that the sources behind the Genesis creation narratives borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and adapted them to their monotheistic viewpoint.

[Kbertsche]

who are not conservative Evangelicals that the sources behind the Genesis creation narratives borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and adapted them to their monotheistic viewpoint.

Maybe you should add, "and are not Egyptologists" to your qualification above.

[shunyadragon]

Do you have a source for that?

Actually showmeproof's thread Ugarit at; http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...php?136-Ugarit goes into considerable detail with references on this issue ad the polytheism in the Pentateuch, related to pre-Babylonia and Canaanite origins of much of the Pentateuch.

The following is a good specific reference;

Developments in Ancient Israelite Religion as a Tool for Dating Hebrew Bible Authorship

[JimL]

Don't you think that the bolded part goes a bit too far? If any written document can be validly interpreted to mean just about anything, then I agree with your post above - JimL should buy us all pizza. (Isn't this where we would end up if we took your idea to it's ultimate conclusion - no possibility of real communication because the link between expression and intended meaning has been severed?)


While I agree that interpreting the Bible is not easy - and particularly with passages like the early parts of Genesis - it can be done, and there are methodologies and consistent approaches that should be employed.

Really Max? Interpret this: the universe, our portion of it at least, the part you believe to be the creation, is approximately 14 billion years old, the earth on the other hand is only approximately 4 billion years old. There are billions and billions of galaxies with billions and billions of solar systems that existed in this universe for billions and billions of years previous to the existence of the earth. Why does Genesis portray the earth to have been formed at the beginning rather than nearer the end of creation? And why do you suppose God would create 10 billion years of humanless existence if humans were the purpose of his creation? Excuse my error, humans have only recently come into existence, closer to the very end of the 14 billion years of the total existence of the universe.

[OingoBoingo]

Really Max? Interpret this: the universe, our portion of it at least, the part you believe to be the creation, is approximately 14 billion years old, the earth on the other hand is only approximately 4 billion years old. There are billions and billions of galaxies with billions and billions of solar systems that existed in this universe for billions and billions of years previous to the existence of the earth. Why does Genesis portray the earth to have been formed at the beginning rather than nearer the end of creation? And why do you suppose God would create 10 billion years of humanless existence if humans were the purpose of his creation? Excuse my error, humans have only recently come into existence, closer to the very end of the 14 billion years of the total existence of the universe.

"An exegetical word study on the Hebrew word reshit, translated 'beginning' in Genesis 1:1 shows that Winter's interpretation of Genesis 1:1, in which he sees the 'beginning' as one among many new beginnings, is compatible with the meaning of the word. Reshit (Strong's number 7225) often refers to the indefinite period of time at the beginning of a sequence of events rather than to a specific starting point (for which another Hebrew word exists)...'no time limitations are placed on that period.'" (Ancient World: Reader, 5th ed., Winter)

This concept is also expounded upon in Gordon Wenham's Genesis 1-15 commentary.

[Kbertsche]

Really Max? Interpret this: the universe, our portion of it at least, the part you believe to be the creation, is approximately 14 billion years old, the earth on the other hand is only approximately 4 billion years old. There are billions and billions of galaxies with billions and billions of solar systems that existed in this universe for billions and billions of years previous to the existence of the earth. Why does Genesis portray the earth to have been formed at the beginning rather than nearer the end of creation? And why do you suppose God would create 10 billion years of humanless existence if humans were the purpose of his creation? Excuse my error, humans have only recently come into existence, closer to the very end of the 14 billion years of the total existence of the universe.

What does any of this have to do with the interpretation of Genesis? (Except, maybe, to underscore that Gen 1 is not a scientific account of creation.) The human author knew nothing of the Big Bang or any other modern science, so why would you expect him to talk about these things?

[JimL]

What does any of this have to do with the interpretation of Genesis? (Except, maybe, to underscore that Gen 1 is not a scientific account of creation.) The human author knew nothing of the Big Bang or any other modern science, so why would you expect him to talk about these things?

Exactly my point. Genesis is not the word of God, though many here claim God himself to be the author. Genesis is merely a fable created by men not a history told by God. Who told the authors about Adam and Eve and the original sin that led to the fall of all mankind? Was God the author of that part, or was that made up as well?

[Tassman]

Do you have a source for that?

Maybe you should add, "and are not Egyptologists" to your qualification above.

Are you arguing that most Egyptologists do NOT consider the Genesis creation narratives borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and adapted them to their monotheistic viewpoint? Evidence please?