PDA

View Full Version : Genesis account copy from Sumerian creation account



Jeffinator
Jan 16th 2009, 10:07 PM
Not sure if anyone heard about how the Genesis account is just a copy of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian account of creation. The Meso account, written 2000-4000 B.C., says how there were 7 days of creation, and man and woman were created as well as a tree of life and even mentions a flood. Not sure of all the details but this is the oldest writing found containing a creation account. But their creation account mentions gods and goddesses including Gilgamesh. Anyone have any opinions on the Genesis account being a copy of older written myths?

And for those who blow off this idea how do you explain away the similarities of the two accounts?

Athanasius
Jan 16th 2009, 10:13 PM
My opinion? It's not.

shepherdsword
Jan 16th 2009, 11:03 PM
I am not surprised by the similarities. Since Noah's sons repopulated the earth it's only natural to assume that Noah would have passed down the creation story to his sons and they to their descendants. This is probably why many different cultures have a flood "myth" as well.

RZ06
Jan 16th 2009, 11:06 PM
I JUST posted about this!

Let me find my post and link you to it...I basically asked the same question as you.

RZ06
Jan 16th 2009, 11:07 PM
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=155011

Romber
Jan 16th 2009, 11:30 PM
The secular world of course would say the Bible stole from Sumerian account. However, we know what the truth is ;)

Biastai
Jan 17th 2009, 03:33 AM
Not sure if anyone heard about how the Genesis account is just a copy of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian account of creation. The Meso account, written 2000-4000 B.C., says how there were 7 days of creation, and man and woman were created as well as a tree of life and even mentions a flood. Not sure of all the details but this is the oldest writing found containing a creation account. But their creation account mentions gods and goddesses including Gilgamesh. Anyone have any opinions on the Genesis account being a copy of older written myths?

And for those who blow off this idea how do you explain away the similarities of the two accounts?

Are you getting this from a published work? I've read a translation of Assyrian copies of Babylonian tablets by George A. Smith. I wonder if you're referring to this work. The creation account is in expectedly fragmentary form and only has records of the "formless and empty" chaos in the beginning and creation of heavenly bodies. Other badly mutilated tablets show some things on creation of the deep, dry land, and possibly land animals. The flood account is strikingly similar however. If you're getting this from another book, please let me know as I would like to take a gander at it myself.

Sumerian origins don't deter me one bit. It actually would confirm what I would suspect. The Mesopotamian valley is central in many parts of Genesis i.e. Eden(?), Babel, flood(?), Abraham's Chaldean origins, Melchizidek's also(?).

Old Earther
Jan 17th 2009, 03:37 AM
Yes, the Sumerian cosmogeny antedates the Hebrew cosmogeny, and the parallels are undeniable. As Christians, we need not deny facts such as these in order to keep the faith.

shepherdsword
Jan 17th 2009, 03:55 AM
Yes, the Sumerian cosmogeny antedates the Hebrew cosmogeny, and the parallels are undeniable. As Christians, we need not deny facts such as these in order to keep the faith.

I wouldn't deny that. However the Sumerian account is simply a corrupted version passed down from Shem to his descendants. Since the flood predates the God inspired Mosaic account in Genesis it's not surprising at all to see various corrupted versions of it. Ones that have been changed by being passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. However, since the critique of German liberal theologians has been BLOWN AWAY by the dead sea scroll discovery,we know that Gods word remains unchanged;)

Old Earther
Jan 17th 2009, 06:05 PM
shepherdsword, why do you say that the older Sumerian version is more corrupt than the newer Hebraic version?

Romber
Jan 18th 2009, 01:29 PM
Yes, the Sumerian cosmogeny antedates the Hebrew cosmogeny, and the parallels are undeniable. As Christians, we need not deny facts such as these in order to keep the faith.

How do you respond to the fact that it can easily be said the Bible stole from the Sumerian accounts then? How would that stack up to God's word being inspired? What would that say about God in general?

shepherdsword
Jan 18th 2009, 01:48 PM
shepherdsword, why do you say that the older Sumerian version is more corrupt than the newer Hebraic version?


Because the Hebraic version was inspired by the Spirit of God. The Sumerian version was a word of mouth account passed from generation to generation.

Eaglenester
Jan 18th 2009, 03:37 PM
Because the Hebraic version was inspired by the Spirit of God. The Sumerian version was a word of mouth account passed from generation to generation.

TRUE

But remember, satan can relay the creation account onto men - thought he won't do it with accurate completeness, it will be incomplete and corrupted.

shepherdsword
Jan 18th 2009, 11:20 PM
TRUE

But remember, satan can relay the creation account onto men - thought he won't do it with accurate completeness, it will be incomplete and corrupted.
:agree:

Oh yeah, so true

Romber
Jan 18th 2009, 11:27 PM
That reminds me of the Islam religion forming. Muhammad was literally revealed how to set it up from Demons-even though this guy has no experience or knowledge of such a thing.

Biastai
Jan 19th 2009, 12:27 AM
Because the Hebraic version was inspired by the Spirit of God. The Sumerian version was a word of mouth account passed from generation to generation.

Just wanted to make sure I read you correctly here...

Therefore, there are no oral traditions in the Hebraic version. Is this what you are stating in other words?

shepherdsword
Jan 19th 2009, 06:32 AM
Just wanted to make sure I read you correctly here...

Therefore, there are no oral traditions in the Hebraic version. Is this what you are stating in other words?

I am well aware of the Talmud and the oral tradition. I am saying that the Genesis account as penned by Moses is the God inspired revelation on how the universe was created.

ServantofTruth
Jan 19th 2009, 08:21 AM
In the begining God .......

Before creation there was God, then we read everything important that happened since. Why does it matter what is written elsewhere? People will repeat fact, what they have seen or what they have heard. Sometimes they will come closer to truth, other times pure fiction.

Luckily we have a Spiritually perfect account. God bless, SofTy.

crawfish
Jan 19th 2009, 02:48 PM
I think what people miss is that it's more than just a copy of a story. The reason I think the idea has resonance - that the Genesis account is, in part, a response to the invented creation accounts of the time - is not that it matches their content, but that it supports their cosmology.

The belief of the ancient Mesopotamians about the nature of the earth - a solid firmament, creation from chaos, waters above/waters below, is fairly well documented. We have to ask - if God wanted to provide the truth about how He created things, why would he do so in a way that fed the misunderstandings of the surrounding cultures (of which the Israelites would be intimately familiar with)? Why wouldn't He provide a clear deliniation not only between the nature of the elements of creation (pagan accounts held each as divine in its on right, Genesis holds each as created things), but also between the reality of how the universe is?

No, I believe that the Genesis account wasn't compiled to declare the scientific reality, but to tell them in an easily understood fashion (using the "scientific" understanding of the day) what the place of God and man is in the universe.

Benaiah
Jan 19th 2009, 07:36 PM
the only thing that can honestly be said about the Mesopotamian stories is that they were put into writing before the Hebrews wrote theirs.

The first account put into writing does not automatically make it the true or most accurate account. Ancient peoples held to oral traditions long before they committed these to writing.

parker
Jan 20th 2009, 06:22 AM
Not sure if anyone heard about how the Genesis account is just a copy of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian account of creation. The Meso account, written 2000-4000 B.C., says how there were 7 days of creation, and man and woman were created as well as a tree of life and even mentions a flood. Not sure of all the details but this is the oldest writing found containing a creation account. But their creation account mentions gods and goddesses including Gilgamesh. Anyone have any opinions on the Genesis account being a copy of older written myths?

And for those who blow off this idea how do you explain away the similarities of the two accounts?God "wires" all of our brains the same way so our understandings are going to have similarities. The reason we all have "Top 10 Lists" or "...the top 10 reasons," etc. is because we have 10 fingers. Genesis did not "copy" the Meso account as much as both accounts resonate with the same Creator.

shepherdsword
Jan 20th 2009, 07:38 AM
Not sure if anyone heard about how the Genesis account is just a copy of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian account of creation. The Meso account, written 2000-4000 B.C., says how there were 7 days of creation, and man and woman were created as well as a tree of life and even mentions a flood. Not sure of all the details but this is the oldest writing found containing a creation account. But their creation account mentions gods and goddesses including Gilgamesh. Anyone have any opinions on the Genesis account being a copy of older written myths?

And for those who blow off this idea how do you explain away the similarities of the two accounts?

Something to kep in mind in regard to this is a classic fallacy of logic called
"Argumentum ad antiquitatem" Something isn't truer just because it is older

Advocatus Dei
Jan 20th 2009, 12:57 PM
the Sumerian account is simply a corrupted version passed down from Shem to his descendants...it's not surprising at all to see various corrupted versions of it. Ones that have been changed by being passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation

Be careful. That argument can be used against you. It's a generalisation that someone could use as a critique against the bible.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant (so don't waste time by arguing its validity with me). Corruption via the same method is a recognised atheistic tool to question the validity of the scriptures.

RZ06
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:19 AM
the only thing that can honestly be said about the Mesopotamian stories is that they were put into writing before the Hebrews wrote theirs.

The first account put into writing does not automatically make it the true or most accurate account. Ancient peoples held to oral traditions long before they committed these to writing.

I asked this in my own thread, but if everyone came from Noah's line, and oral traditions were upheld therefore the Mesopotamians would have heard the Hebrew account and know the importance of keeping truth orally, why is their story different from the Hebrews?

I don't know why this part of Genesis confuses me, but it does...Everything after the flood makes sense to me, but from the garden of eden to the flood, it's hard to figure out.

Some things my study bible pointed out was that the other stories vs. the biblical account, would go to extremes to elevate their god of a particular shrine over any other god, to which that other gods shrine or city was located. Also, some common themes are spontaneous generation of gods, sexual reproduction among them and deification of nature (sun, moon, etc). The myths focus on geographic & other elements unique to the shrine.

Humans are also created in the other myths to perform the god's dirty work. Like being a slave who has to feed the god the sacrifice.

The Genesis account rejects the central theme of pagan religion: deification of nature. It doesn't try to put the Hebrew God over other gods. No conquest of monsters or other gods and there isn't a shrine or city that is said to be the place that God began his creation.

As it states in the book (couldn't think of a way to break it down): The genesis account challenges claims of these ancient creation myths by affirming God's unity & sovereignty, by portraying the heavenly bodies & great sea creatures as his creations and by presenting humans as God's stewards- and image bearers- rather than as an after thought born of divine need or laziness.

RZ06
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:25 AM
I wouldn't deny that. However the Sumerian account is simply a corrupted version passed down from Shem to his descendants. Since the flood predates the God inspired Mosaic account in Genesis it's not surprising at all to see various corrupted versions of it. Ones that have been changed by being passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. However, since the critique of German liberal theologians has been BLOWN AWAY by the dead sea scroll discovery,we know that Gods word remains unchanged;)

According to my history bible, the Sumerians are not from Shem. They weren't Semites (they weren't Hebrew, Assyrians, Arameans, or Arab) and the identity of the group they belong to is not known.

shepherdsword
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:27 AM
Be careful. That argument can be used against you. It's a generalisation that someone could use as a critique against the bible.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant (so don't waste time by arguing its validity with me). Corruption via the same method is a recognised atheistic tool to question the validity of the scriptures.

I think comparisons of the Aleppo and Leningrad Codex with the Dead Sea scrolls blow that argument out if the water.
.


P.S.
recognised should be recognized but who's counting?;)

shepherdsword
Jan 22nd 2009, 11:05 PM
According to my history bible, the Sumerians are not from Shem. They weren't Semites (they weren't Hebrew, Assyrians, Arameans, or Arab) and the identity of the group they belong to is not known.


We do know that the Israelites were descendants of Shem. They are listing as one of the Semitic people in Wiki. Even if the Semites are descended from one the other sons(Ham or Japeth) they would have still gotten the story by word of mouth.

Ancient Semitic peoples

The following is a list of ancient Semitic peoples.


Akkadians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadians) — migrated into Mesopotamia in the late 4th millennium BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC) and amalgamate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamation_%28history%29) with non-Semitic Mesopotamian (Sumerian) populations into the Assyrians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria) and Babylonians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia) of the Late Bronze Age.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#cite_note-2)
Eblaites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eblaites) — 23rd century BC
Aramaeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaeans) — 16th to 8th century BC[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#cite_note-4) / Akhlames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhlame) (Ahlamu) 14th century BC[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#cite_note-5)
Ugarites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugarit), 14th to 12th centuries BC
Canaanite language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages) speaking nations of the early Iron Age:

Amorites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorites)
Ammonites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_%28nation%29)
Edomites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edomites)
Hebrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews) — founded the kingdom of Israel and Judah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah), the remnants of which became the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews) and Samaritans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans)
Knanaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knanaya)
Moabites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabites)
Phoenicians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicians) — founded Mediterranean colonies including Carthage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthage)


Old South Arabian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_South_Arabian) speaking peoples

Sabaeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaeans) of Yemen — 9th to 1st c. BC


Ethio-Semitic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Semitic_languages) speaking peoples

Aksumites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum) — 4th c. BC to 7th c. AD


Arabs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs), Old North Arabian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_North_Arabian) speaking Bedouins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouins)

Gindibu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gindibu)'s Arabs 9th c. BC
Lihyanites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lihyan) — 6th to 1st c. BC
Thamud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thamud) people — 2nd to 5th c. AD
Ghassanids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) — 3rd to 7th c. AD
Nabataeans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans) — adopted Arabic in the 4th century AD

BroRog
Jan 22nd 2009, 11:18 PM
The fact that the Biblical account might be newer doesn't bother me. After all, Moses isn't claiming to have been an eyewitness of the creation story. What the Bible claims is that, given all the accounts out there that might exist, Moses' version is the inspired version, which gives us the definitive word on what actually happened.

RZ06
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:59 AM
We do know that the Israelites were descendants of Shem. They are listing as one of the Semitic people in Wiki. Even if the Semites are descended from on the other sons(Ham or Japeth) they would have still gotten the story by word of mouth.


Yeah, I thought about it after I posted that it didn't matter if they weren't from Shem as they had to be from one of the brothers.

Soupy
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:06 PM
P.S.
recognised should be recognized but who's counting?;)

actually no ... 's' instead of 'z' is fine depending on country. ;)

Advocatus Dei
Jan 24th 2009, 05:26 AM
recognised should be recognized

We're not all Born In The USA, mate. You do know that other countries don't do all things exactly the same as yours?


but who's counting?

Apparently you are, Shep. I'll throw a couple of deliberate mistakes into some posts every now and then to see if you're paying attention.

PilgrimPastor
Jan 24th 2009, 06:13 AM
And for those who blow off this idea how do you explain away the similarities of the two accounts?

I would suggest that all other creation accounts are in fact spin-off accounts from the people groups who were scattered at the Tower of Babel. In other words, the earliest people knew what had been passed to them orally from past generations. When the people at Babel were dispersed, out of rebellion and increasing loss of truth, in time the accounts of non-Yahweh worshiping descendants morphed to suit their pseudo-religions and pagan ideas.

So the accounts you mention would - in this scenerio - be generated post biblical account and not prior. This view is consitent with a solidly biblically based world view.

shepherdsword
Jan 24th 2009, 06:45 AM
Apparently you are, Shep. I'll throw a couple of deliberate mistakes into some posts every now and then to see if you're paying attention.

Wow, with one fell sweep you negate all your future typos under the thinly veiled guise of "testing" my observations.;)

shepherdsword
Jan 24th 2009, 06:48 AM
I would suggest that all other creation accounts are in fact spin-off accounts from the people groups who were scattered at the Tower of Babel. In other words, the earliest people knew what had been passed to them orally from past generations. When the people at Babel were dispersed, out of rebellion and increasing loss of truth, in time the accounts of non-Yahweh worshiping descendants morphed to suit their pseudo-religions and pagan ideas.

So the accounts you mention would - in this scenerio - be generated post biblical account and not prior. This view is consitent with a solidly biblically based world view.

Hmmmmm, now where have I heard THAT before?:lol: