Snakelord: you read a few Sumerian epics and now suddenly Genesis is a translation of them? On one side, you disqualify Genesis based on its age, and on the other side you refute it using "much older" texts!
I read whatever i can in order to learn and grow. We can delve into the actual meaning of texts to find answers of we can just accept the first we come across as true and ignore everything else.
The Enuma-Elish is a good example. It would appear to explain the beginnings of everything, (down to atoms, protons etc). It explains how the cosmos formed. The translation of 'god' actually means 'material'. Of course it's as open to interpretation as any other creation story is.
Other texts explain how a man was created by a being and told not to eat fruit etc and so on...
These are all ideas and stories to justify our being here. As religions and races go through the ages stories and ideas/beliefs are handed down generation to generation.
By looking at older influences and writing we can see how and why stories ended up as they are not only to fit new beliefs but as a result of multiple translations and vocal hand downs.
If i wrote a story which someone translated several times and 'copied' from word of mouth etc would you expect that story to remain exactly the same as the original? Even after a millennium? In order to ever come closer to an answer we must read and look at them all. The older works are extremely significant, but i guess you can't understand why.
As for refuting.. That's not my goal- i like to look at alternatives based on any evidence that can be found. I will not instantly accept something as fact because i can't be assed reading anything else. Have you read the Enuma-Elish? I have read Genesis, i have read the Enuma Elish and many other 'creation' stories. If you haven't how can you comment on the validity of Genesis or otherwise? Without comparison it's no surprise people just 'accept'.
It's like that website Gomer posted showing obvious creation because giraffes dont explode. I am under no obligation to agree with them. If we dont questions, seek, and attempt to find answers we can never claim to already having the truth because we know no other possibility.
Genesis wasn't included in the Bible for "background information", it was meant to teach you something.
Yeah i've read it. I've also read many of the other creation stories also there to teach something. Have you? If not.....
If you don't learn anything from it, its useless even to argue about it.
As such.. How can you even think of saying:
you seem quite willing to accept less substantiated ideas in stead of more authoritative versions.
How would you know what 'more authoritative' is? Go with the flow if that's how you are, fine. I prefer truth over following the herd. As such i question instead of just accepting one as 'more authoritative'. As for less substantiated..... Why dont
you read them and then discuss the issue with me?
The point of Genesis is that we where created by God. You either accept or reject that.
it pains me that you feel this way. Nobody should just 'accept', as you have done, and nobody should just 'reject'. That's why i ask questions and debate issues- to find the truth, not just to accept whatever my version of the truth might be.
You have read it, accepted it, and fail to notice there are alternative possibilities. I mention some of these other possibilities and you instantly label them as unsubstantiated. By that basis, they are no less and no more than Genesis- as such we should view them all before 'accepting' anything.
What is the Sumerian story? Does it say anything about a Creator?
Shows you haven't read any of it so why feel you can dismiss it off hand?
When skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu , the First One, Their begetter
And Mummu Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-bed;
When yet no materials were manifested,
nor Names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then the materials were born within them....
The materials of that generation would meet together
And disturb Tiamat, and Their clamour reverberated.
They stirred up Tiamat's belly,
They were annoying Her by playing inside Anduruna, (an-durana, the spherical shape of the nucleus).
Apsu (the emprisoned mater) could not quell Their noise
And Tiamat (the cover) became mute before Them;
However bad Their ways, She would indulge Them... And so on.
This seems to be an understanding of the basic behaviour of particles and matter etc.. It might be, it might not be.. It might have relevance, it might not. As i've said countless times now it's all a case of 'mights or might nots'. As such i feel compelled to ask and search instead of just accepting.
This is further related text:
"... Let me put blood together and bones too, let me set up primeval man: Man shall be his name...", "... The work of the gods shall be imposed on him..." "... Nintu mixed clay, with her flesh and blood, they heard the drumbeat forever after, a ghost (soul) came into existence from the god's flesh and she (Nintu) proclaimed it a living sign." Later on "... I myself created (it), my hands have made (it)..."
The 'blood' that is mentioned would be worded as Adom.
Ghost is- etemmu, intelligence is-temu so it's possible the above reads: "An intelligence came into existence from the god's flesh.."
You see..... we're all questions without answers. I cannot, no matter how much easier it would be, just accept the first thing i hear. I continue to search, ask and look for answers. If you resent the fact i ask instead of accepting thats also fine but you cannot condemn a story if you haven't read it.
no supernatural skydady needed!