not only is it common knowledge among historians and scholars that the creation myth came from Mesopotamian sources.
No one with any credibility denounces evolution nor the fact that homo sapiens go back some 200, 000 years.
Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
you will learn being human has nothing to do with ancient hebrews.
Humans (known
taxonomically as
Homo sapiens,
[3][4] Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man")
[5] are the only living
species in the
Homo genus.
Anatomically modern humans originated in
Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full
behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago
In his book, P. J. Wiseman points out that, when the Babylonian creation tablets were first discovered, some scholars expected further discovery and research to show that there was a correspondency between them and the Genesis account of creation. Some thought that it would become apparent that the Genesis account was borrowed from the Babylonian. However, further discovery and research have merely made apparent the great gulf between the two accounts. They do not parallel each other. Wiseman quotes The Babylonian Legends of the Creation and the Fight Between Bel and the Dragon, issued by the Trustees of the British Museum, who hold that the fundamental conceptions of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are essentially different. He himself observes: It is more than a pity that many theologians, instead of keeping abreast of modern archaeological research, continue to repeat the now disproved theory of Hebrew borrowings from Babylonian sources.Creation Revealed in Six Days, London, 1949, p. 58.
While some have pointed to what seemed to them to have been similarities between the Babylonian epic and the Genesis account of creation, it is readily apparent from the preceding consideration of the Biblical creation narrative and the foregoing epitome of the Babylonian myth that they are not really similar. Therefore, a detailed analysis of them side by side is unnecessary. However, in considering seeming similarities and differences (such as the order of events) in these accounts, Professor George A. Barton observed: A more important difference lies in the religious conceptions of the two. The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduk, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost. Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so thoroughly the master of all the elements of the universe, that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting, as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better measure of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the majesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator.Archaeology and the Bible, 1949, pp. 297, 298.
Regarding ancient creation myths in general, it has been stated: No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247.
