I started this topic because in another thread about Genesis, it was brought up that the creation story had a lot of similarities to earlier creation stories from the Sumerians, the Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and others. If this topic has been covered before, forgive me, but it hasn't been recently and I am not a fan of necroposting.

The things I want to touch on in this thread are what the stories (and respective peoples) that are so similar to Genesis are. The creation story is not the only one, there are many stories of a great deluge that sound a lot like Noah's Flood from Genesis as well. There is also reference to a deity creating different languages, a lot like the story of the Tower of Babel from the Christian bible.

Would it be sacrilegious for a Christian to believe that these stories all have roots in the same events, or that the original teller of these tales was the one inspired by God to know these things? If so, how coincidental is it that these stories seem so alike, but only the Biblical one is the truth?

Do the earlier stories point more towards discrediting the Bible, or do they help to prove the Biblical stories to be more believable?

Here is the Sumerian account for comparison:

The Eridu Genesis is a Sumerian text. It covers the creation of the world, invention of cities and the flood. After the universe was created out of the chaos of the sea, the gods evolved and they in turn created mankind to farm, herd and worship them. Cities and kingship was created but the gods decided to destroy mankind with a flood. Ziusudra (Upnapishtim) from Eridu was instructed by Enki (Ea) to build a boat to survive the flood blown up by Enlil. After the flood he worshipped (prostrated) himself before An (Anu) and Enlil (Bel) and was given immortality for his godly life.


Nintur was paying attention:
Let me bethink myself of my humankind,
all forgotten as they are;
and mindful of mine,
Nintur's creatures let me bring them back
let me lead the people back from their trails.

May they come and build cities and cult places,
that I may cool myself in their shade;
may they lay the bricks for the cult cities in pure spots
and may they found places for divination in pure spots!

She gave directions for purification and cries for clemency,
the things that cool divine wrath,
perfected the divine service and the august offices,
said to the surrounding regions: "Let me institute peace there!"
When An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaga
fashioned the dark-headed people
they had made the small animals that come up from out of the earth,
come from the earth in abundance
and had let there be, as it befits it, gazelles
wild donkeys, and four-footed beasts in the desert.

...and let me have him advise;
let me have him oversee their labor,
and let him teach the nation to follow along
unerringly like cattle!

When the royal scepter was coming down from heaven,
the august crown and the royal throne being already
down from heaven,
he (the king) regularly performed to perfection
the august divine services and offices,
laid the bricks of those cities in pure spots.
They were named by name and allotted half-bushel baskets.

The firstling of those cities, Eridu,
she gave to the leader Nudimmud,
the second, Bad-Tibira, she gave to the prince and the sacred one,
the third, Larak, she gave to Pabilsag,
the fourth, Sippar, she gave to the gallant Utu.
The fifth, Shuruppak, she gave to Ansud.

These cities, which had been named by names,
and had been allotted half-bushel baskets,
dredged the canals, which were blocked with purplish
wind-borne clay, and they carried water.
Their cleaning of the smaller canals
established abundant growth.

[lost account of the antediluvian rulers, and how human noise vexed the chief god Enlil so much that he persuaded the divine assembly to vote the destruction of man by the deluge] ...


Remainder of the account Here

I will continue posting more but I dont want to completely flood out the thread.

Kindly,

Hairston

I dont think it would be sacreligious for a christian to believe that many of the stories in the bible came from the Jewish Exile in Babylon. There are distinct similarities between many of the stories, i.e. there is a flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh that is similar to Noah's story, and Hamurabi's code is very similar to the laws of Moses. There is nothing wrong with treating christianity from a more... liberal (for lack of a better word i suppose) stand point. I personally believe that Christianity would make a much better life philosophy than a religion, because I think Christianity has some good ideas (Love thy neighbor... its kindve hard to beat that though Freud would say its impractical)

*SIDENOTE: Why do people always associate things that have to do with the Bible to be "Christian". They don't have a monopoly on the Bible or on God.*

I think that it's most likely that the reason there's similarities is because of the Truth of the stories. All ancient cultures with similar stories concerning the way major events happened. I think it gives the stories more credibility.

Im thinking along the lines that there was a universal truth to these stories, as you say, and that is reflected in the stories of the different cultures. This means that there was an interpretation of that truth then put into human words. What do you feel gives the bible more credence than these other stories alike?. Either the God of the bible did it or it was Enki and Ninmah's story that was the real account or another or non of the above. I think that most that follow the bible are using a circular argument to say that the bible is the REAL account and the other extremely similar accounts are from those that got it wrong or from demons that were sent to deceive. We can only presume genesis is true theologically (and by faith), not historically as other parallel creation stories existed prior. If we cross that boundary we tend to fall prey to a fallacious anachronism.

Hairston

Apologies, but I consider most of the followers of the Abrahamic Bible to be Christians. What else should I say to include all people who believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth regarding religion?

I choose the Bible as the most credible because of my personal experiences and my choice of religion.


Umm.....no? I don't believe that those other stories were given by demons. If we truly believe that the Bible is true then we must accept that the events that happened in it are very likely to be recorded in other religions' books considering the fact that most of the recorded events in the Bible are quite spectacular.


Bible-believers? I mean, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all accept the Bible or parts of it.

I am not implying that this was your belief.

Hairston

OH....my apologies.

Okay, bible-believers it is. I wasn't trying to exclude or isolate any group or individual. From now on, in this topic I will use bible-believers instead of Christian.

Which part? OT NT or both?

Hairston

Any of it. LOL.

For the sake of this topic:

Bible-believers: a person of any faith who believes that any portion of the bible was inspired by god, and is the true and ultimate account of historical and spiritual events.

Now that all that's over with, is there anything else anyone wants to add to the original topic? Bible-believer or not?

I would like to make note in regards to the creation accounts. In the sumerian account it seems that the purpose for creating man was so that the Gods didnt have to do all the work they were doing on the earth. They couldnt make their own clothing so they created man to do so. In a way, these God's were a little better than animals which is almost as illogical as making the claim that Gods image is that of a triangular circle. In the Genesis you see that God created man in His own image, also with a purpose. This account classified man was a special creation. His intentions for creating man were not selfish (though some might argue that there could be a form of selfishness involved), like the sumerian account. God gave man dominion over all of the creation. He was considered the ruler. I believe this is where we make the decision as to which one is true, if any. Man was not created to be a slave but to be free (except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil of course). So the reasons for creation are different and this is where I think the biblical account seperates itself from the sumerian accounts and this is where you can find my reasoning for believing in such. I believe science answers the how and the bible answers the WHY, but this is just my own opinion.

Hairston

Not only is the Genesis story and edited version of the Sumerian text, but from the following, it seems that the Book of Revelation has also "borrowed" from the words of Enki to speak about the ending of this current age and the comming of the Age of Enlightenment. It also seems that Enki was fully aware that many would be deceived into thinking that it was not Enki himself who said these words, making it clear that they would be chosen by the INTENTION of thier hearts. After all, it is not the fault of the believer, but the fault of those who KNOW and continue the agenda. So few preachers (if any) know of the root of the stories they have been raised to believe as coming from the Biblical god, are in fact, far older Sumerian text. The Sumerians were also aware of every planet in the Solar System, their size and color, and all the time cycles of the Universe. Science is now just re-learning what they always knew. Here is the text in the words of Enki himself, also known as Ptah in Egypt...

"At the end of days a Day of Judgment there shall be.
The Earth shall quake and the rivers change course,
and there shall be a darkness at noon and
a fire in the heavens in the night,
the day of the returning celestial god
[Nibiru, the far-orbiting 10th planet of our solar system] will it be.

And who shall survive and who shall perish,
who shall be rewarded and who will be punished,
gods [astronauts from Nibiru] and men alike,
on that day it shall be discovered;

For what shall come to pass by what had passed
shall be determined; and what was destined
shall in a cycle be repeated,
and what was fated and only by the heart's will
occurring for good or ill shall for judgment come.
The record read, the Past remembered,
the Future as prophesy understand,
Let the Future of the Past the judgment be!'

These are the words of Enki, Firstborn of Anu of Nibiru"

Good post Dragon. Welcome to UM! Edit: Now, I wouldnt go as far as to say EDITED version as there are pretty significant differences in the purposes of the sumerians gods and the hebrew god. The fact that things were done in a similar fashion but were done for different reasons seperates them but this does NOT resolve the issue of whether or not the hebrews copied off of the sumerians to make their own religion.


Hairston

the stories being similar indicated a truth within the stories themselves IMO. One story may be true but we should probably hear all the stories and something in between will be true. We are talking primitive people telling stories, and embellishing them. It is not realistic to accept any of them as a complete account with no cultural additions or takes on it. These people had to explain things that they saw but may not have understood. The hebrew people were enslaved by a very advanced nation but also a very superstitious one.

Hi Hairston and thank you for the warm welcome I think I got off the topic of Genesis. When the Sumerian text were discovered and found to be older than the Genesis 5 books of Moses, they began to look at the story in Sumerian text and see the similarities. Here are some: In the Sumerian text, Enki created mankind and named the first successful human, he named him "Adapa" which became Adam in the books of Moses. Enki, falling in love with mankind and seeing himself responsible for them, he was forced to promise the counsel of the God's (mainly his father Anu and his brother Enlil) that he would not tell humanity about the coming flood and let them perish. This was decided on because man was seen to have far more potential than they were created to have, being the image of Enki, they were created with a highly advanced spirit and intelligence (especially being that Enki was seen as the Master of Science) among all the God's. To the counsel it was more of a scientific and egotistical decision. They did not want mankind to "become like the god's". Enki covertly rescued the human man Ziusudra by either instructing him to build some kind of a boat for his family, or by bringing him into the heavens in a magic boat. This is apparently the oldest surviving source of the Ark myth and other parallel Middle Eastern Deluge myths. Not the way this was done is humorous. Because he promised not to TELL MAN, he told about the coming flood to a wall with his friend Ziusurda (who would later be named Noah in the Hebrew text). When Enlil found that Ziusurda and his family survived, he became enraged. Seeing this as the perfect opportunity to get top status with Anu, he called Enki to the counsel. When Anu asked his firstborn, why he would break his promise, Enki responded that he NEVER promised that he would never tell about the flood to a WALL! If Ziusudra had heard him, that wasn't Enki's fault because he was literally "talking to the wall"! This is actually where we got this term (talk to the wall) from. Also, wee see a relation to the words of Enki, spoken to Adapa in the Books of Moses as well.
“In the clay, god and Man shall be bound,
To a unity brought together;
So that to the end of days
The Flesh and the Soul
Which in a god have ripened -
That Soul in a blood-kinship be bound;
As its Sign life shall proclaim.
So that this not be forgotten,
Let the "Soul" in a blood-kinship be bound.”
In further study of the Sumerian text, scientists and historians alike agree that it is in this text, that all the questions of the Hebrew text are fully answered. Sitchen has said that "It seems that all the other ancient texts are edited versions of the far older, and far more detailed Sumerian text"
They say that to find something pure is to see it before anyone had gotten ahold of it and altered it. The "Epic of Creation" in the Sumerian record, along with the perfection of the knowledge of the Solar System and the cycles of time on a galactic level, have shown that it is indeed, the original to which all others have been based. There is also a really good link www.ancientx.com that has a wealth of information and books, even free video

Yes, very good. While I am aware of most of this info already I must say that it is a great addition to the thread and is especially insightful to the readers. I appreciate your contacts earlier as well.

Kindly,

Hairston

You are very welcome. I find this information to be life-changing. Although many may have trouble accepting all this, if we keep an open mind and require truth, not mixed with political agenda, yesterday, or today, we will find that everything including mankind's potential, is far greater than taught for millenia.

Awesome posts, they really sort out the details.

I wonder why the Christian (or Jewish or Moslem) faiths haven't latched on to the earlier stories as evidence for their creation story?

Good question. I am completely aware that its there but I still will not make a conclusion on plagiarism until I have studied it in and out. Ill get back to you guys soon.

Hairston

I found a very good read by a leading old testament scholar on the subject. Here (Please let me know your thoughts on this)

Kindly,

Hairston

I have clicked on your link but I haven't read it yet (for one dreadful moment I thought you were gointg to quote old Gary )

fullywired

of course it was. People and nations existed before the hebrews did. and that is where the hebrews got thier influences. as did christianity.

short link on history

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/ch01.htm

O no, this one definitely is not a right wing conservative , trust me.

Hairston

Thanks for the link Ripley. Good find.

Hairston

Truer words were never spoken. Welcome to UM Dragon.



Hairston, I really admire your thirst for understanding, as well as your willingness to step outside the box for a better view.

You're posts are always excellent, your openness...refreshing.

Thank You for the kind words .

Hairston

SunDogDayze et al,

First, great thread!

It is very true that we have older creation/flood accounts than those found in Genesis. However, I think that this only adds to the credibility of the biblical account, rather than detracting from it. That there would be similarities between accounts of the creation of the world and humans and a divinely-initiated flood makes sense because these are events with significance beyond one tribe or one religious cultus ("cultus" in the non-pejorative sense). Also, humans and their religions endeavor to answer the same set of "big" questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny, so it similarities (on some levels) should be expected. In fact, I've seen it argued that Genesis assumes the reality of other creation accounts. There is nothing in Genesis that says, "This is the only account ever written about how these things happened."

The author of Genesis assumes that there are other stories about the origins of humanity and the world, and said author (I think) makes the same assumption about the flood. However, the writer of Genesis seems to be penning an apologetic narrative to basically say, "Yahweh is the only true god, and your gods are mere rebels who've misled you." With each day of creation, deities are brought under Yahweh's power. For example, when Yahweh establishes the sun, moon, and stars to "rule" the day, night, and seasons (respectively) on the fourth day, the author is saying that these celestial bodies "rule" the day, night, and seasons, not human lives, as was taught in much astrology in the ancient Near East. Here, God creates the celestial bodies so that humans can mark time and seasons by them, as opposed to astrological practices in which humans consult the stars for guidance about life. The Genesis narrative lacks the divine genealogy stories common to the ancient Near East creation stories. In the Genesis narrative, Yahweh is supreme, and he has always been. He was not created. Also, the Genesis narrative lacks the divine war/conquest narratives which maintain that the world/humanity was somehow created out of a cosmic struggle between deities. For example, in Enuma Elish, humankind is created by Marduk, but we are made of the body parts Kingu and Tiamat, chaos monsters slain by Marduk. So when God creates humankind in his image, the writer is saying that we were not created (partially or entirely) out of evil or chaos, but in and for the context of harmony. Sure, in the Genesis narrative we are created out of the ground, but humans only become living souls when imbued with the spirit/breath of God, thus underscoring our (intended) harmony with both the creation and with God. God's creation of the humans looks a lot like the way many in the ancient Near East would create idols: fashioning an object from material in the environment and then touching it/breathing into it to give it life. The creation of the idol would give the devotee a modicum of control over/access to the deity. Paradoxically, the deity would exercise control over the devotee via the idol. In the Genesis narrative, this idol-creation is turned inside out: Yahweh creates icons made in his image, imbues them with life, and gives them authority over his creations as his vice-regents. The prohibition against idolatry in Judaism has much to do with the fact that humans needs not make icons to rule over them, because (at least for Yahweh) he has made icons (humans) to have authority over his creation.

Also, while some things are written earlier than others, it doesn't mean that they happened first. In a post-Gutenberg, literacy-based culture like ours it is easy to forget that people in the ancient world operated primarily with an oral paradigm. This is not to say that they could not write (which, is obviously not the case). This is to say that while literacy had some value, it was not the primary means of communication, and literacy was not as connected with socio-economic status and intelligence as it is in our day. Oral transmission was still the norm in most ancient cultures, even when there was some regard for literacy on some level. Being post-printing press and news-inundated folks, it's easy for us to think that what's written first is what happened first. In our culture, news networks vie for the first coverage of events, fusing immediate dissemination of information for the most accurate interpretation of events. But this is not necessarily the case.

It makes sense that the Genesis narrative was written later than some of the others. We know that Jewish people penned the Genesis narrative, and (obviously) God did not begin to even form what would become Israel/the Jewish people until long after the world had been created. The whole Pentateuch narrative is something that would be penned when a nation is pondering/defending its national identity, as opposed to something written by a guy who just thought, "It would be cool to write some of this down." Israel only wrote these things down after they had a sense of nationhood and the divinely-given vocation associated with that nationhood.

Lastly, the commandments given to Israel by Yahweh do bear some similarities to laws in other before and after Israel. In fact, I agree with those who say that if you put some folks on an island and forced them to make a civilization, they would come up with something pretty close to commandments 5-10 (the ones that deal with human relationships), even if they had never heard of the ten commandments or the bible. That's all well and good. However, God's commandments are not merely given because Israel needed order as a nation. If that were true, we wouldn't even have to bring God into the equation (some say, "Hallelujah!" to this). When God gives the commands he is 1) pledging covenant fidelity to Israel and demanding the same of them; 2) revealing his character to Israel, so that each command is an invitation for Israel to corporately imitate God's character; 3) forming a people through their performance of commands so that Israel can be God's vessel through which he will bless the whole world (recalling the promise given to Abraham). Considering the context in which the commands are given, God is up to something much more significant than merely giving humans a set of civil ordinances that will keep them from chaos. The God of Israel has in mind the formation of a people through whom he will work to put the entire creation right again.

This is a rather impressive post!. I have never once looked at it from this perspective. Thanks!

Hairston

Wow, terrific information. Plus, I like your style of writing.

Call me dense though, I wasn't able to ascertain what your belief is on whether or not the Biblical story of creation is based on the earlier stories, and if these earlier stories help to validate or invalidate the Genesis version.

SunDogDayze,

Thanks for the encouragement. And you're not dense: I did not spell out my position in my last post.

I do think that the Genesis narrative is dependent on the earlier Near Eastern creation/flood narratives. We're dealing with a common Near Eastern (and, in some instances, Semitic) culture, so it follows that there would even be stylistic similarities just as there were linguistic ones. However, when it came to the kind of deity and the kind of creation/humans being described in the Genesis narrative, I think the writer is trying to set Israel's God entirely a part from all the other deities and the stories about them. In this sense, the writer is being very original, and is intentionally departing from the other creation/flood stories.

And I don't think that the reality of these other narratives in any way jeopardizes the integrity of the Genesis narrative. Instead, I think that this strengthens the case for the reality of the Genesis narrative. Even we have a gaggle of creation/flood stories with competing interpretations of these events, the similarities between the narratives can lead us to conclude that there's something to all this. Sure, we've got to sift through the various stories to arrive at truth, but disagreement about truth can (in a limited way) point to the reality of truth.

Well said. Youve basically put into words what my mind has been trying to comprehend for weeks. I think this is the most reasonable answer I have found yet.

Kindly,

Hairston

Okay, I understand.

So, then if it is agreed that the earlier creation stories are the basis for the Genesis story, there are still other things that I would want to address.

First of all, which god of Sumerian creation story is represented by God in Genesis? In the Sumerian texts, there were 2 parent deities, An and Ki. They created a son, Enlil. It was Enlil that shaped a human from clay and breathed life into it, and who was directly involved in the progression of human civilization. This would indicate that God represents Enlil. If the God of Genesis is Enlil, why did the author of Genesis leave out An and Ki? An and Ki were the supreme deities, they had no creators, but they created Enlil. This would indicate that An and Ki are represented by God in Genesis, but why would the author of Genesis write as if An and Ki were directly concerned with humanity, and as if Enlil had never existed?

What motivated the change in the story and writing style, that went from polytheistic stories written to document and understand the results of the deities, into a monotheistic story written to explain the reasons of the deities. Did the author of Genesis purposefully leave out details, or change details, or was it because of the tendency for orally handed down stories to change over time?

Is it likely that the basic story changed to benefit the author, whether it be one man or one nation, and gave the author a more powerful or insightful image?

*edited to add:

I am in no way trying to be sarcastic, or trying to detract from anyone's beliefs by asking these questions. I am genuinely just wanting the opinions of people who have already done studying and have come to a specific belief.

I think what is being said in genesis that is different from the other stories is the fact that YHWY is the one true God and that he is not a created God but is THE creator. The writer is proclaiming that these other "Gods" are nothing more than created images of wood and stone. I think this is where we get the idea from the early parts of genesis that there were other Gods.

Hairston

SDD,

It's not a 1 to 1 correlation, as if the author of Genesis were trying to write an allegory. In an allegory, you would have someone saying, "That represents this.." and on down the line. In such a case, the writer would feel compelled to explain An and Ki. But he doesn't; his point is that An and Ki are not truly what the Sumerian text makes them out to be. The writer is not trying to account for everything in the Sumerian story. In fact, Israel's view is so at odds with some of the elements of the stories of the surrounding nations that the writer is engaging in a very radical departure. While Enil and Yahweh may share some similarities, the Genesis author is not trying to underscore how similar Yahweh is to anyone. His point is to 1) underscore how dissimilar Yahweh is from other deities and to 2) demonstrate exactly what kind of deity Yahweh is.



I think that all of the creation/flood stories are attempting to explain something about origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. None of the folks who passed these things on were attempting to compose neutral, unbiased history. However, in the case of Israel, their God was not content to be a tribal deity restricted to Israel's national experience/aspirations. The God of Israel (as the story goes) formed Israel for the very purpose of righting what had gone wrong with the world from Genesis 3-11. God makes this clear from the outset, when he calls Abram (Genesis 12). Through evil, the world has lost its original blessings which God pronounced in Genesis 1, and Abram and his offspring will play an instrumental role in restoring the creation to its blessed state. Unlike the narratives of some of the surrounding cultures, Israel believed the story and reality of its God to be rooted in space, time, and history. Among other things, the notion of a covenant-making God would underscore this. Making a covenant involves promises that either come to pass or not. This dual emphasis on both the universality of the God of Israel and the historicity of this God's involvement with humankind forces one to account for these other narratives of other deities, and it forces one to explain these things. On the other hand, if you believe that your god Dagon rules over the Philistine territory, and no further, then you have no need to explain why another tribe worships Chemosh, Molech, or Asherah. You may not care. But when we start dealing with a God who stakes a claim to universality, then it becomes necessary to deal with competing claims. I think this may help to explain why the Jewish creation/flood stories are in the business of refuting and re-interpreting competing creation stories.

As for changing the story to benefit the author/nation: Sure, that's always a possibility. In fact, I'd even say you could find instances in the bible in which one writer's historical bias in undeniable. That's true. However, everybody is biased when recording history. It doesn't, however, mean that a person is not able to record it accurately. Just because a person has a certain spin on a set of events doesn't automatically mean that he/she is not concerned with recording said event accurately. In fact, bias can swing the other way: One's bias can motivate you to accurately record history. Granted, you could still be wrong. Few (if any) people ever record anything without a reason, and said reasons usually reflect a motive of some sort. These motives can inspire us to falsehood or truth. As for creation/flood narratives: Obviously, the writer has bias towards Yahweh. And I'd assume that he even has a bias toward Israel. That said, though, think about what you don't find in the text: You don't find Israel even mentioned or hinted at in the creation story. In fact, this writer claims that everyone--even Gentiles!--are created in the image of God. The author could have easily written: "In the beginning God created Jews and Gentiles (of all stripes), and only the Jews were made in God's image, while the Gentiles were made of spare parts from God's battles with other gods.." Considering the fact that Israel got its head bashed in by a ton of Gentile nations this would have been a great time to make Israel look good. But the writer misses every opportunity to do this. In fact, most of the Old Testament doesn't make Israel look very good. So if these guys were only interested in making Israel look good, they messed up.

You have definitely explained very well some of the points I had questions on. I really have to say, you are great at explaining things. Are you a teacher of some sort by profession? Or maybe a writer?

I am going to let your points roll over in my mind for a bit, to see if they fill in all the gaps... thanks!