|
Way back in post #683 essay wrote: 1. Both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4ff are adaptations (polite word for plagiarisms) of pagan myths, from different sources, using different words for God, completely incompatible in the order and manner of creation. The original source material can still be obtained in any good library or bookstore, including the Epic of Gilgamesh, the clearly fictional flood story from which the Biblical flood story was borrowed. In #686 she said Genesis 1 is that a narrative that was 'cribbed' from a non-Biblical source in the first place In #687 it was Within this very building one can read the various Sumerian and Babylonian creation legends which served as source material for Genesis 1 and 2. They are very easily dated to pre-Biblical times. Various similar statements recur in various posts. Since essay never gave a specific reference for the "source material" that was "plagiarized" I finally looked up her source material for the assertion, and found that the supposed source for Genesis 1:1-2:4a is a Sumerian-Babylonian myth now called the Enuma Elish. It is much too long to post here, but if there is anyone curious about what Genesis 1 is supposed (by the critical scholars) to have been copied from, here is a link to the standard translation English translation of Enuma Elish.
Enuma Elish in English
Pay close attention, especially to "Tablet 4" or you may miss the parts that are supposed to have been the source for Genesis 1. Be sure to also notice the creation of man in "Tablet 6." There are reasons why I am skeptical of the firm conclusions of this kind of "scholarship."
Incidentally, not that the skeptics would believe it, but the Bible firmly places the Exodus from Egypt, and the writing of the Law, in the 15th century B.C., while the archaeologists and historians place the Enuma Elish in the 12th century B.C.
|
