Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[joelr]

this is the second irrefutable proof that God created all things.

Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary
Thomas L. Brodie

(3) Genesis illustrates intertextuality; its sources include extant documents, especially from Mesopotamia, from Judea (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), and from western Asia (Homer's Odyssey).




Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text Elish


The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.

Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.
The Epic of Atraḥasis is the fullest Mesopotamian account of the Great Flood, with Atraḥasis in the role of Noah. It was written in the seventeenth century BCE



These are all peer-reviewed PhD textbooks/monographs,


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”


The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”



Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and the Historical-Critical Method
Professor Christine Hayes of Yale University -Divinity Lecture

10:45 snake in Eden is a standard literary device seen in fables of this era

(10:25 - snake not Satan, no Satan in Hebrew Bible)



14:05 acceptance of mortality theme in Eden and Gilamesh story



25:15 Gilgamesh flood story, Sumerian flood story comparisons

26:21 - there are significant contrasts as well between the Mesopotamian flood story and it’s Israelite ADAPTATION. Israelite story is purposely rejecting certain motifs and giving the opposite or an improved version (nicer deity…)



36:20 2 flood stories in Genesis, or contradictions and doublets.

Yahweh/Elohim, rain/cosmic waters flowing,



40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured

Genesis 2 dramatic. Genesis 1 serious writing style, Genesis 2 uses Hebrew word puns.

Genesis 1/2 use different terms for gender

Genesis 1/2 use different names, description and style for God



Both stories have distinctive styles, vocabulary, themes, placed side by side. Flood stories are interwoven.

Genesis to 2nd Kings entire historical saga is repeated again in Chronicles.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Genesis was written as a re-write of older creation myths. All made up by people, no gods.

Clay tablets containing inscriptions relating to analogues of biblical stories were discovered by A.H. Layard, Hormuzd Rassam, and George Smith in the ruins of the Palace and Library of Ashurbanipal (668–626 BCE) during excavations at the mound of Kuyunjik, Nineveh (near Mosul) between 1848 and 1876. Smith worked through Rassam's find of ~20,000 fragments from 1852, and identified references to the kings Shalmaneser II, Tiglath-Pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and other rulers mentioned in the Bible – furthermore he discovered versions of a Babylonian deluge myth (see Gilgamesh flood myth), as well as creation myths.[8][9]

On examination it became clear that the Assyrian myths were drawn from or similar to the Babylonian ones. Additionally Sir Henry Rawlinson had noted similarities between Biblical accounts of creation and the geography of Babylonia; he suggested that biblical creation stories might have their origin in that area. A link was found on a tablet labelled K 63 at the British Museum's collection by Smith, as well as similar text on other tablets. Smith then began searching the collection for textual similarities between the two myths, and found several references to a deluge myth with an 'Izdubar' (literal translation of cuneiform for Gilgamesh). Smith's publication of his work led to an expedition to Assyria funded by The Daily Telegraph – there he found further tablets describing the deluge as well as fragmentary accounts of creation, a text on a war between good and evil 'gods', and a Fall of man myth. A second expedition by Smith brought back further creation legend fragments. By 1875 he had returned and began publishing accounts of these discoveries in the Daily Telegraph from 4 March 1875.[10][11]


The connection with the Bible stories brought a great deal of additional attention to the tablets – in addition to Smith's early scholarship on the tablets, early translation work included that done by E. Schrader, A.H. Sayce, and Jules Oppert. In 1890 P. Jensen published a translation and commentary Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Jensen 1890), followed by an updated translation in his 1900 "Mythen und Epen" (Jensen 1900); in 1895 Prof. Zimmern of Leipzig gave a translation of all known fragments, (Gunkel & Zimmern 1895), shortly followed by a translation by Friedrich Delitzsch, as well as contributions by several other authors.[16][17]

Wrong.
Genesis is true. The others came after Genesis since there were no people until God created Adam and Eve on day 6.

 

[Esteban X]

Wrong.
Genesis is true. The others came after Genesis since there were no people until God created Adam and Eve on day 6.

R U serious? Even taking the Bible on it own terms, Genesis is the first book written by Moses so comes after the Sumerian, Canaanite, Egyptian and other Creation stories. That is ignoring the fact that there is much evidence suggesting that Mose sand the Exodus are also myths

 

[SavedByTheLord]

R U serious? Even taking the Bible on it own terms, Genesis is the first book written by Moses so comes after the Sumerian, Canaanite, Egyptian and other Creation stories. That is ignoring the fact that there is much evidence suggesting that Mose sand the Exodus are also myths

It was given to Moses by God.
And God was there before all these people.

 

[Esteban X]

It was given to Moses by God.
And God was there before all these people.

You still fail to offer any proof of the existence of this "god" all you do is continue to make a claim

 

[Mock Turtle]

Wrong.
Genesis is true. The others came after Genesis since there were no people until God created Adam and Eve on day 6.

Here is one for Christmas:

Advances in DNA research have led to scientists discovering that the first two humans on earth were actually Cockneys. Would you Adam and Eve it?

(Cockney rhyming slang for 'believe it')

 

[metis]

Genesis is true.

And you supposedly know this how?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And you supposedly know this how?

I proved it.

 

[Esteban X]

I proved it.

Again..................How?

 

[John53]

Again..................How?

To who?...... might be the more appropriate question.

 

[joelr]

Wrong.
Genesis is true. The others came after Genesis since there were no people until God created Adam and Eve on day 6.

If you are not interested in what is actually true but rather just using confirmation bias to keep your beliefs safe than I'm not interested.
I however do care about what is true and all archaeological evidence and all fields are 100% that these myths are far older.

I can produce source after source of peer-reviewed information. Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myths.

Now, what you have failed to do is demonstrate Professor Hayes is incorrect and give equally as decent sources to back up your argument.
Your fantasy beliefs do not matter. I am sure there are fundamentalists who just cover their eyes and ears when evidence is presented. I'm not at all looking to engage with denial. Just evidence.

From University of Ohio - uidaho.edu



This is the oldest written story, period, anywhere, known to exist. The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE), so notice that "file sharing" and plagiarism are as old as writing itself).


Sumeria:
Civilization itself is believed to have begun in Sumeria (or Mesopotamia as the Greeks later called this area; Bablyon will later become a famous Sumerian/Mesopotamian city, so: same place, different names) – the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (the heart of modern Iraq) – roughly 6,000 BC and the first city states there to have begun in ancient Sumeria, around 4,000 BC. The invention of writing took place here c. 3500 BC.

By way of comparison: Abraham, the first of the Jewish Prophets (the first "Jew"), is believed to have have lived around 1900-1800 BC. Moses is believed to have led his people out of Egypt between 1500-1200 BC.


Or more scholars, Dr Kipp Davis, a Hebrew Bible professor and Dr Bowen an Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions:




Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions

1:25

OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say


“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…


2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.


References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.


21:00


Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.


Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.


23:22

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A Nation”

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you are not interested in what is actually true but rather just using confirmation bias to keep your beliefs safe than I'm not interested.
I however do care about what is true and all archaeological evidence and all fields are 100% that these myths are far older.

I can produce source after source of peer-reviewed information. Genesis is a re-working of Mesopotamian myths.

Now, what you have failed to do is demonstrate Professor Hayes is incorrect and give equally as decent sources to back up your argument.
Your fantasy beliefs do not matter. I am sure there are fundamentalists who just cover their eyes and ears when evidence is presented. I'm not at all looking to engage with denial. Just evidence.

From University of Ohio - uidaho.edu



This is the oldest written story, period, anywhere, known to exist. The oldest existing versions of this poem date to c 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. The more complete versions date to c. 700 BC, in the Akkadian language. The standard, first "complete" version, which includes the flood myth, is dated to c. 1300-1000 BC (the oldest Babylonian version of this flood story dates to (1646–1626 BCE), so notice that "file sharing" and plagiarism are as old as writing itself).


Sumeria:
Civilization itself is believed to have begun in Sumeria (or Mesopotamia as the Greeks later called this area; Bablyon will later become a famous Sumerian/Mesopotamian city, so: same place, different names) – the region between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (the heart of modern Iraq) – roughly 6,000 BC and the first city states there to have begun in ancient Sumeria, around 4,000 BC. The invention of writing took place here c. 3500 BC.

By way of comparison: Abraham, the first of the Jewish Prophets (the first "Jew"), is believed to have have lived around 1900-1800 BC. Moses is believed to have led his people out of Egypt between 1500-1200 BC.


Or more scholars, Dr Kipp Davis, a Hebrew Bible professor and Dr Bowen an Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions:




Flood Myths Older Than The Bible - Dr. Joshua Bowen

Assyriologist who specialized in Sumerian literary and liturgical compositions

1:25

OT scholars will say Genesis is using a Mesopotamian background and apologist will say


“Well no, there is no literary evidence that shows it borrowed, we cannot show literal evidence”…”it was in the air”….”how do you know it wasn’t true”…….somehow downplaying the Mesopotamian background…


2:57 Dr Josh Bowen - there is no question as far as Biblical scholars and Assyriologists are concerned that the Biblical text is much later than Mesopotamian text and it’s borrowing directly or subtly from Mesopotamia.


References monograph - Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible by Z. Zevit. Explains intertexuality and what Hebrew Bible is doing. Not seen as plagiarism in the ancient world.


21:00


Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation myth Genesis 1 borrows from, is recited every year at the New Years festival. Exiled Israelite kings were in captivity in Babylonia. Genesis was written after the Exile.


Genesis demythicizes the Babylonian stories.


23:22

“(Well we don’t know which came first), is nonsense, we do know. The textual tradition for the flood story is much much earlier than the Biblical text. Israel is NOT EVEN A Nation”

You proceed from a false assumption.
That is why you err in your conclusion.
Many have tried this before but it actually proves the Bible is true.
The Bible is true.
Any similarity with other cultures about creation, the fall in the garden and the flood are proofs that the Bible is true.

 

[joelr]

You proceed from a false assumption.
That is why you err in your conclusion.
Many have tried this before but it actually proves the Bible is true.
The Bible is true.
Any similarity with other cultures about creation, the fall in the garden and the flood are proofs that the Bible is true.

As I said, I do not care if you live in a delusion. Please demonstrate with peer-reviewed sources that back up what you say.

Please demonstrate with a peer-reviewed source Professor Carol Meyers is wrong.


Then provide a peer-reviewed source that shows Dr Davis and Bowen are wrong.





Meanwhile here are more sources to debunk. I don't care what they tell you in church or on answersingenesis, provide a specialist.


Francesca Stavrakopoulou PhD

9:00


The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.


9:44 - Biblical ideas are based on ideas that Yahweh was unique. Nothing unique, find examples in much earlier religions, Yahweh is a local iteration of common deities



Francesca Stavrakopoulou Discusses Her Latest Book,

3:15 Yahweh is the same as older Greek gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this.



Relationship to the Bible[edit]


Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Hebrew Bible correlate with the Epic of Gilgamesh – notably, the accounts of the Garden of Eden, the advice from Ecclesiastes, and the Genesis flood narrative.


Garden of Eden[edit]


The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[64][65] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity. However, a major difference between the two stories is that while Enkidu experiences regret regarding his seduction away from nature, this is only temporary: After being confronted by the god Shamash for being ungrateful, Enkidu recants and decides to give the woman who seduced him his final blessing before he dies. This is in contrast to Adam, whose fall from grace is largely portrayed purely as a punishment for disobeying God.


Advice from Ecclesiastes[edit]


Several scholars suggest direct borrowing of Siduri's advice by the author of Ecclesiastes.[66]


A rare proverb about the strength of a triple-stranded rope, "a triple-stranded rope is not easily broken", is common to both books.[citation needed]


Noah's flood[edit]


Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[67] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[68] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[69] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East.


Additional biblical parallels[edit]


Matthias Henze suggests that Nebuchadnezzar's madness in the biblical Book of Daniel draws on the Epic of Gilgamesh. He claims that the author uses elements from the description of Enkidu to paint a sarcastic and mocking portrait of the king of Babylon.[70]


Many characters in the Epic have mythical biblical parallels, most notably Ninti, the Sumerian goddess of life, was created from Enki's rib to heal him after he had eaten forbidden flowers. It is suggested that this story served as the basis for the story of Eve created from Adam's rib in the Book of Genesis.[71] Esther J. Hamori, in Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Jacob Story, also claims that the myth of Jacob and Esau is paralleled with the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.[72]

 

[joelr]

Any similarity with other cultures about creation, the fall in the garden and the flood are proofs that the Bible is true.

It proves the Bible was using older stories, the gods had different names and were multiple gods as well. Also different motivation for flooding so the story isn't the same.

But modern geology denies any global flood.

Modern geology and flood geology

Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines use the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[5][6][7][8][9] Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[111][112] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[113]

Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly


Geochronology
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years


Paleontology
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[85] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[115][116] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.

GeochemistryProponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[117]

Sedimentary rock features[edit]
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[118] A single flood could also not account for such features as angular unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top.[119]


Physics[edit]
The engineer Jane Albright notes several scientific failings of the canopy theory, reasoning from first principles in physics. Among these are that enough water to create a flood of even 5 centimetres (2.0 in) of rain would form a vapor blanket thick enough to make the earth too hot for life, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas; the same blanket would have an optical depth sufficient to effectively obscure all incoming starlight.[120]

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It proves the Bible was using older stories, the gods had different names and were multiple gods as well. Also different motivation for flooding so the story isn't the same.

But modern geology denies any global flood.

Modern geology and flood geology

Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines use the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[5][6][7][8][9] Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[111][112] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[113]

Erosion
The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly


Geochronology
Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood some 6,000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years


Paleontology
If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[85] Creationists argue that evidence for the geological column is fragmentary, and all the complex layers of chalk occurred in the approach to the 150th day of Noah's flood.[115][116] However, the entire geologic column is found in several places, and shows multiple features, including evidence of erosion and burrowing through older layers, which are inexplicable on a short timescale. Carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.

GeochemistryProponents of Flood Geology are also unable to account for the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[117]

Sedimentary rock features[edit]
Phil Senter's 2011 article, "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology", in the journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education, discusses "sedimentologic and other geologic features that Flood geologists have identified as evidence that particular strata cannot have been deposited during a time when the entire planet was under water ... and distribution of strata that predate the existence of the Ararat mountain chain." These include continental basalts, terrestrial tracks of animals, and marine communities preserving multiple in-situ generations included in the rocks of most or all Phanerozoic periods, and the basalt even in the younger Precambrian rocks. Others, occurring in rocks of several geologic periods, include lake deposits and eolian (wind) deposits. Using their own words, Flood geologists find evidence in every Paleozoic and Mesozoic period, and in every epoch of the Cenozoic period, indicating that a global flood could not have occurred during that interval.[118] A single flood could also not account for such features as angular unconformities, in which lower rock layers are tilted while higher rock layers were laid down horizontally on top.[119]


Physics[edit]
The engineer Jane Albright notes several scientific failings of the canopy theory, reasoning from first principles in physics. Among these are that enough water to create a flood of even 5 centimetres (2.0 in) of rain would form a vapor blanket thick enough to make the earth too hot for life, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas; the same blanket would have an optical depth sufficient to effectively obscure all incoming starlight.[120]

And all those are using the same false assumption of no God Almighty.
I have already refuted all these no God Almighty speculations.
Most of the water for the flood came from beneath not above,
Read Genesis 7.
And most of the water that rained came from the water from beneath.

 

[joelr]

And all those are using the same false assumption of no God Almighty.

Nope, critical -history and archaeology make no assumption about any god or gods. They simply report evidence and when it's strong they come to a consensus opinion. All work is peer-reviewed and checked by a panel and they try to be as careful and rigorous as possible.

So to tack on that baggage just because the findings don't match beliefs you want to be true suggests you don't really care about what is actually true but what you want to be true.

I have already refuted all these no God Almighty speculations.

I have seen zero peer-reviewd papers by PhDs in historical studies, OT, archaeology or flood geology to conflict with any single thing a scholar said in any video or paper.

You just denied them, any Mormon can deny you are correct and Mormonism is the true religion. Any Muslim can deny you and say Islam is the true word of God. I'm only interested in evidence. You have failed on that.

Most of the water for the flood came from beneath not above,
Read Genesis 7.

Cool, now you need to demonstrate, peer-reviewed that the Genesis story was literally true and not a reworking of Mesopotamian stories.
I haven't counted up how many scholars I have explaining that but you need around 5 at least to equal my claim.
Unfortunately that is the consensus opinion.

And most of the water that rained came from the water from beneath.

Unfortunately for you you don't even have the mythology correct.
The rainwaters came from the waters above the firmament.
Below is a picture of Jewish cosmology of the time, the waters came in springs AND windows from the upper seas.
Genesis 7 says:
n the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Genesis 1:6-7 mention the upper ocean:
Gen 1:6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 1:7
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
The expression “windows of heaven” is used twice in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11, 8:2). It is used only three times elsewhere in the Old Testament: twice in 2 Kings 7:2 and 19, referring to God's miraculous intervention in sending rain, and once in Malachi 3:10, where the phrase is used again of God intervening to pour out abundant blessings on his people. Clearly, in Genesis the expression suggests the extraordinary nature of the rainfall attending the flood. It is not a term applied to ordinary rainfall.

some water apparently came from the fissures but mainly from these "windows".

Which doesn't exist in real life. Hence - mythology.

Modern flood geology - no global flood.
Also, please produce a scientific paper that refutes the erosion, geochronology, palentology, geochemistry, sedimentary rock features and physics that demonstrates no global flood is possible to have happened. All of this evidence shows it never could have happened.

 

[joelr]

And all those are using the same false assumption of no God Almighty.
I have already refuted all these no God Almighty speculations.
Most of the water for the flood came from beneath not above,
Read Genesis 7.
And most of the water that rained came from the water from beneath.

Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned

Gilamesh - . When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned. Then I loosed a swallow, and she flew away but finding no resting-place she returned. I loosed a raven, she saw that the waters had retreated, she ate, she flew around, she cawed, and she did not come back. Then I threw everything open to the four winds,



Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Gilamesh - looked for land in vain, but fourteen leagues distant there appeared a mountain, and there the boat grounded; on the mountain of Nisir the boat held fast, she held fast and did not budge. One day she held, and a second day on the mountain of Nisir she held fast and did not budge. A third day, and a fourth day she held fast on the mountain and did not budge; a fifth day and a sixth day she held fast on the mountain.



Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;

Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.





Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood



Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;



Noah - And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Gilamesh - Gilgamesh, the son of Ninsun, lies in the tomb.

Enuma Elish and Genesis | Michael Zank

Michael Zank, Professor of Religion, Jewish Studies, and Medieval Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences at Boston University


PhD in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies from Brandeis University



Enuma Elish and Genesis

Let us ask just one question about Genesis 1-11 in comparison with the Akkadian creation epic: how do human beings appear in these two stories?

To ask this question, we do not need to decide in advance whether the authors of Genesis deliberately produced a counter-narrative that took Enuma Elish as its negative foil or Vorlage. There are indications that this was so, but it may be just as well to consider Genesis as having been written by scholars who were aware of the need to produce something like Enuma Elish for the b’ney ha-golah (the exiles), something that articulated and preserved the values of Judahites and Israelites in a foreign land who were wrestling with the experiences of loss of sovereignty, deportation, displacement, and an uncertain future.

The story about the tower of Babel alone indicates that those authors served a community impressed by, as well as skeptical of, Babylonian achievements. Exposed to a far more populous and powerful civilization, the future “Jews” found the language to diminish what was before their eyes and put it in its place in ways that still ring profound and true today.

How did they do it? What is it in the language of Genesis 1-11 that achieves these results? These results could not have been achieved had the authors of Genesis been entirely ignorant or completely silent on Babylonian matters. Only by responding in their own idiom to the ancient and well-known Akkadian creation myth and, in the flood story, also to elements of Gilgamesh, were they able to create a story of creation that was to substitute for that of their more powerful Babylonian hosts. In the long term, the creation of Genesis rather than the ancient Akkadian epic served as the touchstone of civilizations that inherited the Bible and disseminated it across the globe.

The ancient myths that prompted the authors of Genesis to write as they did never vanished completely. One might even say that it was Genesis itself, with its subtle allusions to alternate ways of conceiving of the beginning, which prepared the ground for the eventual retrieval of its intertextual other.

Just as we now know, thanks to the archaeological and epigraphic retrieval of Ancient Near Eastern texts and traditions, that Genesis did not appear in splendid isolation but was shaped out of its preconditions and from within particular contexts, we can also observe that Genesis did not act in splendid isolation when it advanced to the status of the foundational story of other communities, even nations and empires, who read those ancient Israelite and Judahite texts in new situations and with new eyes, for they also read these texts with their old eyes.

It seems to me that these later readers of Genesis, themselves steeped in Babylonian, Egyptian, Syriac, Greek, and Roman traditions approached the text from contexts and with connotations that resembled those represented in Enuma Elish. They did not object, on principle, to the notion that the world was “full of gods,” as the Stoics taught, or that worlds came and went and were prone to destruction and regeneration. Theirs was a much more colorful universe than what we might imagine if we approach the Bible with the mental asceticism and puritan austerity of Calvinists. The ancient readers were hardly iconoclasts. Theirs was a world of divine beings, messengers, powers ruling the air, and a Supreme Being ruling all. That Supreme Being, the God hidden to the eyes of men, was not residing in splendid isolation but surrounded by a court and happy in that he had a son created in his likeness who was obedient to the point of sacrificing his own happiness to please his father. In other words, theirs was the world of Enuma Elish, or one very much like it.
So let us ask ourselves that one question. What is the role of the human being in Enuma Elish and what is the role of the human being in Genesis 1-11?

When it comes to the answer to this question, the difference between these texts could not be more pronounced. That difference would be meaningless if the texts could not be compared, if these texts had no relation to one another, if there was no “intertextuality” that linked them just enough to see where they align and where they depart from one another.

To answer briefly, while in Enuma Elish the creation of human beings is an afterthought and their purpose is to serve as an accouterment to the lifestyle of the gods, the creation of Genesis puts human beings in the place of the gods. It is not by accident when the Psalmist muses, “You made him only slightly less than God” (Psalm 8:5).

Genesis 1 barely conceals the existence of the divine retinue, of lesser gods and angels, but it reduces them to spectators and a silent chorus. (See Gen 1:26) Only later, in rabbinic midrash are the spectators and silent chorus given words that are unabashedly[1] assumed to have been spoken before the creation of the human being.[2] Like the Christians, the Jews of late antiquity imagined God as part of a pleroma, a fullness rather than an emptiness...........
It is no accident that Babylonian Jewry, and Jews ever since, recall creation and divine kingship in the fall, the season when the world was created. Like the Babylonian New Year, Jewish festivities are drawn out from the first of the month of Tishrey (the names of the Jewish months are Babylonian) to the tenth of the month, the solemn day of atonement, followed by eight days of seasonal festivities recalling the Israelites’ sojourn in the desert. While there is no overt reference to Babylonian religion, the manner in which Jews recall creation and associate it with divine enthronement echoes the sequence of events in Enuma Elish. Creation and divine enthronement are meaningfully associated only if creation involves an assertion of supreme power over non-creation, chaos, perdition. As in Enuma Elish, though not so obviously in Genesis. Not if one reads it with the diminished range of overtones that were still audible to those in whose ears rang those other tunes.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned

Gilamesh - . When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned. Then I loosed a swallow, and she flew away but finding no resting-place she returned. I loosed a raven, she saw that the waters had retreated, she ate, she flew around, she cawed, and she did not come back. Then I threw everything open to the four winds,



Noah - And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Gilamesh - looked for land in vain, but fourteen leagues distant there appeared a mountain, and there the boat grounded; on the mountain of Nisir the boat held fast, she held fast and did not budge. One day she held, and a second day on the mountain of Nisir she held fast and did not budge. A third day, and a fourth day she held fast on the mountain and did not budge; a fifth day and a sixth day she held fast on the mountain.



Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;

Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.





Noah - The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gimamesh - “Wisest of gods, hero Enlil, how could you so senselessly bring down the flood? Lay upon the sinner his sin, Lay upon the transgressor his transgression, Punish him a little when he breaks loose, Do not drive him too hard or he perishes; Would that a lion had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that a wolf had ravaged mankind Rather than the flood, Would that famine had wasted the world Rather than the flood, Would that pestilence had wasted mankind Rather than the flood



Noah - And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

Gilamesh - When the seventh day dawned the storm from the south subsided, the sea grew calm, the flood was stilled;



Noah - And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Gilamesh - Gilgamesh, the son of Ninsun, lies in the tomb.

Enuma Elish and Genesis | Michael Zank

Michael Zank, Professor of Religion, Jewish Studies, and Medieval Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences at Boston University


PhD in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies from Brandeis University



Enuma Elish and Genesis

Let us ask just one question about Genesis 1-11 in comparison with the Akkadian creation epic: how do human beings appear in these two stories?

To ask this question, we do not need to decide in advance whether the authors of Genesis deliberately produced a counter-narrative that took Enuma Elish as its negative foil or Vorlage. There are indications that this was so, but it may be just as well to consider Genesis as having been written by scholars who were aware of the need to produce something like Enuma Elish for the b’ney ha-golah (the exiles), something that articulated and preserved the values of Judahites and Israelites in a foreign land who were wrestling with the experiences of loss of sovereignty, deportation, displacement, and an uncertain future.

The story about the tower of Babel alone indicates that those authors served a community impressed by, as well as skeptical of, Babylonian achievements. Exposed to a far more populous and powerful civilization, the future “Jews” found the language to diminish what was before their eyes and put it in its place in ways that still ring profound and true today.

How did they do it? What is it in the language of Genesis 1-11 that achieves these results? These results could not have been achieved had the authors of Genesis been entirely ignorant or completely silent on Babylonian matters. Only by responding in their own idiom to the ancient and well-known Akkadian creation myth and, in the flood story, also to elements of Gilgamesh, were they able to create a story of creation that was to substitute for that of their more powerful Babylonian hosts. In the long term, the creation of Genesis rather than the ancient Akkadian epic served as the touchstone of civilizations that inherited the Bible and disseminated it across the globe.

The ancient myths that prompted the authors of Genesis to write as they did never vanished completely. One might even say that it was Genesis itself, with its subtle allusions to alternate ways of conceiving of the beginning, which prepared the ground for the eventual retrieval of its intertextual other.

Just as we now know, thanks to the archaeological and epigraphic retrieval of Ancient Near Eastern texts and traditions, that Genesis did not appear in splendid isolation but was shaped out of its preconditions and from within particular contexts, we can also observe that Genesis did not act in splendid isolation when it advanced to the status of the foundational story of other communities, even nations and empires, who read those ancient Israelite and Judahite texts in new situations and with new eyes, for they also read these texts with their old eyes.

It seems to me that these later readers of Genesis, themselves steeped in Babylonian, Egyptian, Syriac, Greek, and Roman traditions approached the text from contexts and with connotations that resembled those represented in Enuma Elish. They did not object, on principle, to the notion that the world was “full of gods,” as the Stoics taught, or that worlds came and went and were prone to destruction and regeneration. Theirs was a much more colorful universe than what we might imagine if we approach the Bible with the mental asceticism and puritan austerity of Calvinists. The ancient readers were hardly iconoclasts. Theirs was a world of divine beings, messengers, powers ruling the air, and a Supreme Being ruling all. That Supreme Being, the God hidden to the eyes of men, was not residing in splendid isolation but surrounded by a court and happy in that he had a son created in his likeness who was obedient to the point of sacrificing his own happiness to please his father. In other words, theirs was the world of Enuma Elish, or one very much like it.
So let us ask ourselves that one question. What is the role of the human being in Enuma Elish and what is the role of the human being in Genesis 1-11?

When it comes to the answer to this question, the difference between these texts could not be more pronounced. That difference would be meaningless if the texts could not be compared, if these texts had no relation to one another, if there was no “intertextuality” that linked them just enough to see where they align and where they depart from one another.

To answer briefly, while in Enuma Elish the creation of human beings is an afterthought and their purpose is to serve as an accouterment to the lifestyle of the gods, the creation of Genesis puts human beings in the place of the gods. It is not by accident when the Psalmist muses, “You made him only slightly less than God” (Psalm 8:5).

Genesis 1 barely conceals the existence of the divine retinue, of lesser gods and angels, but it reduces them to spectators and a silent chorus. (See Gen 1:26) Only later, in rabbinic midrash are the spectators and silent chorus given words that are unabashedly[1] assumed to have been spoken before the creation of the human being.[2] Like the Christians, the Jews of late antiquity imagined God as part of a pleroma, a fullness rather than an emptiness...........
It is no accident that Babylonian Jewry, and Jews ever since, recall creation and divine kingship in the fall, the season when the world was created. Like the Babylonian New Year, Jewish festivities are drawn out from the first of the month of Tishrey (the names of the Jewish months are Babylonian) to the tenth of the month, the solemn day of atonement, followed by eight days of seasonal festivities recalling the Israelites’ sojourn in the desert. While there is no overt reference to Babylonian religion, the manner in which Jews recall creation and associate it with divine enthronement echoes the sequence of events in Enuma Elish. Creation and divine enthronement are meaningfully associated only if creation involves an assertion of supreme power over non-creation, chaos, perdition. As in Enuma Elish, though not so obviously in Genesis. Not if one reads it with the diminished range of overtones that were still audible to those in whose ears rang those other tunes.

Yeah they all had some knowledge of what had happened before they lived.

Thanks for the proof that Biblical record is true.

 

[joelr]

Yeah they all had some knowledge of what had happened before they lived.

Thanks for the proof that Biblical record is true.

You definitely don't seem to understand what "proof" means.

The older stories don't say Yahweh and Noah. They are different people, different gods, different motivation. The Israelites changed the motivation to upgrade the deity and his motivations, it was a reaction to the older stories.

But there is no evidence any god is real and they are myths.

Through the use of intertextuality it can be shown that Genesis cannot have been written without modeling it after these early stories, which are not real.

The vast and incredible evidence we have that a world flood never happened is clear proof a flood never happened. So a flood is not possible, they are myths. Noah is just not original fiction, it's based on older myths.

The evidence shows the Israelite Kings who were exiled to Babylon and allowed to return then wrote Genesis, after exposure to all of those creation and flood myths.
So the Israelites got their own myth, as a rewrite of Mesopotamian stories.
No flood, no God, but we do have evidence for intertextuality, religions making stories up, and archaeology showing the Biblical narratives are incorrect.


This is evidence a story was re-written but key phrases were kept.

Noah - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake;

Gimamesh - , I made a sacrifice and poured out a libation on the mountain top. Seven and again seven cauldrons I set up on their stands, I heaped up wood and cane and cedar and myrtle. When the gods smelled the sweet savour, they gathered like flies over the sacrifice.


Also, there is no firmament with windows and a sea above the earth.

You haven't debunked all the evidence that Genesis is a rewrite of Mesopotamian mythology.

Yes they had knowledge of what happened before they lived. They had knowledge of older flood myths and wanted to write a better version for their fictional deity.

 

[joelr]

Thanks.

Why can’t scientists just mix up some primordial soup and setup the other early earth conditions and note all the amino acids just coming out of nowhere and forming long protein chains ?

They will eventually. Doesn't mean Zeus, Inanna or Yahweh were real either way. Big bang or no bang, doesn't mean Krishna, Jesus, Yahweh, Osirus or any deity was real.

Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earthhttps://www.sciencealert.com/amyloid-protein-self-replication-abiogenesis-contrasts-rna-world​

Roughly 4 billion years ago an assortment of complex organic compounds went from being mere carbon soup to replicating biochemistry – the first steps to life on Earth.

The order of these steps has been a source of debate for decades. Now, a recent discovery about a common protein structure could help tip the balance, bringing us closer to understanding just how we came to be here.
Researchers from Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zürich have demonstrated that short strands of amyloid protein structures can direct the selection of amino acids to build even more amyloids.


If the word amyloid doesn't sound familiar, they're a protein structure that's increasingly being found all over the place in nature.


Part of the reason it's so common is that the amyloid has a special kink in it called a cross-β fold - this allows it to stick together into long, thin structures called fibrils.