The Genesis Fraud Part 1

[michaelsherlock]

hey bud, you know a bunch of this has been common knowledge dont you???


And what isnt common knowledge you are butchering through ignorance on the subject.

Israelites/hebrews go back to 1200 BC, before that they were a semi nomadic people that Egypt conquered in what 1209 BC, these tribal people were the foundation to modern Israeli's.

yes they started writing in 1000 BC ish, yes they had influeneces from previous religions as the area was a melting pot for semetic speaking people. Canaanites, Mesopotamians and Egyptians [in order] contributed to the early legends.



here get half a real education on the subject, read all 5 pages and if you want to debate something do it in a better format.

The Legends of Genesis: V. Jahvist, Elohist, Jehovist, the Later Collections

My friend,

I understand you feel educated on the above matters, but that is no reason to promote yourself through prideful posturing. I also have read all of the major works of Archaeologists, Anthropologists, Ancient Historians, modern historians, Theosophists, Assyriologists, Egyptologists from a variety of Museums, the religionists, and have been looking into this matter for quite some time. Whether or not you believe it to be common knowledge or not, and how you interpret the information is completely up to you, but I would suggest you take another look at some of the research you have done and add to that a few more years of study.

You seem to be posing as an expert on such matters, is this the case? If so, please give me the names of your books and your website and I will gladly read your work, if not, well, it might be time to get off the internet and get a real education!

 

[outhouse]

are you debating something or not ???

all I see is you posting a bunch of opinions

 

[michaelsherlock]

hey bud, you know a bunch of this has been common knowledge dont you???


And what isnt common knowledge you are butchering through ignorance on the subject.

Israelites/hebrews go back to 1200 BC, before that they were a semi nomadic people that Egypt conquered in what 1209 BC, these tribal people were the foundation to modern Israeli's.

yes they started writing in 1000 BC ish, yes they had influeneces from previous religions as the area was a melting pot for semetic speaking people. Canaanites, Mesopotamians and Egyptians [in order] contributed to the early legends.



here get half a real education on the subject, read all 5 pages and if you want to debate something do it in a better format.

The Legends of Genesis: V. Jahvist, Elohist, Jehovist, the Later Collections

You have asked for a debate, so let us enjoy one!

1. These facts are common knowledge, i.e, the late aspects and anachronisms within the Genesis narrative.

Common to who? Everyone? Many Christians I have spoken directly with and via various apologetic forums have had no idea about such issues. So your argument regarding the common knowledge of such information is rather weak!

2. I am "butchering the subject with ignorance." Please point out the areas which I have butchered with my ignorance. I am not claiming to be omnicient, not even close, but in making the statement which you have made, implies that you have quite a bit of knowledge on the matter, and I am assuming it goes beyond the historical-critical scholars like Hermann Gunkel and other protestant theologians, who were forced to abandoned the faith based belief in the truth of scripture due to the rise of rationalism. So please elaborate on this accusation regarding the points of my post which are ignorant, if you cannot, then you must concede your own ignorance, but I wait for your enlightening reply to this charge!

3. "Iraelites go back to 1200 BCE." I do not see how this issue is relevant to the late composition/redaction of the book of Genesis??? Seems like you have missed the point! But I wait for your reply on this issue! My initial point was that if Genesis was composed or even redacted during the 6th century, then this may account for the similarities that exist with the earlier Sumerian Babylonian myths, as the Jews were in exile in Babylon from approx. 586 BCE. The birth of Israel as a nation has nothing to do with this issue, but I would like to know why you have raised this point!

4. "yes they started writing in 1000 BC ish, yes they had influeneces from previous religions as the area was a melting pot for semetic speaking people. Canaanites, Mesopotamians and Egyptians [in order] contributed to the early legends."

You seem to be repeating the information in my post and as such, we are in agreement on this issue! There is no argument here. If you thoroughly read my post, you will see that point 4 corrosponds to the main point of my post, so I do not understand why you have said this???

The article you provided, I have read, among many others and of all of the believers, I find the Protestant, especially many of the German theologians to be much more open minded and rational than the American and Catholic ones.

Look forward to your reply!

 

[connermt]

It could; however, does it matter? The entire idea of evolution could be reworked in a 1000 years from now. That doesn't take away from what we know now.

Absolutely does matter.
Ultimate truth should be ultimate truth, when speaking of an all knowing, all powerful deity. What people 800 years ago knew about this god should be what we know and should be what they know 800 years from now, in as much as it matter to our eternal life (assuming that exists).
It's not about taking anything away, but about what we may not yet know.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Absolutely does matter.
Ultimate truth should be ultimate truth, when speaking of an all knowing, all powerful deity. What people 800 years ago knew about this god should be what we know and should be what they know 800 years from now, in as much as it matter to our eternal life (assuming that exists).
It's not about taking anything away, but about what we may not yet know.

I think you make a very strong point.

It reminds me of a debate I had with an apologist a while back, in which I questioned God's and Jesus' approval of slavery. He replied by saying that God, the infinite all-knowing and all-loving God, had to speak to the people of that time in a language they understood and certain things were acceptable then that are not now.

Such linear and time-limited thinking is not that of an omnicient god, but mortal men, for the thinking of god who knows the beginning from the end would surely not be limited to one tiny little epoch! If back then slavery was ok in god's eyes but it is not now, then god changes his mind, but in both the book of Numbers and Malachi we read that he neither changes, nor changes his mind, so there seems to be a belief induced contradicition in the facts and teachings of the past versus the facts and teachings of the present. One can only assume that the future will bring more contradictions with regards to knowledge, morality and what "God" deems to be the truth!

 

[outhouse]

Common to who? Everyone? Many Christians I have spoken directly with and via various apologetic forums have had no idea about such issues. So your argument regarding the common knowledge of such information is rather weak!

Christians did not write the OT or Genesis, it is not theirs to judge.

the hebrews wrote this material, it is their's to to tell you how they want it read.


hebrews state it was written from previous religions influences, much of it in allegory, metaphors, poems, songs, legends and parables. THEREFOR it was never a fraud.

because christians later adopted a literal interpretation does not make the original work or the original authors fraudulent.

2. I am "butchering the subject with ignorance." Please point out the areas which I have butchered with my ignorance.

by wrongly claiming fraud, and blaiming hebrews material and theology for christians misinterpretation you are butchering and missing the original authors intenet, and morals on the subject.


your problem is not as much the information your providing, but the context in which you deliver your message

 

[michaelsherlock]

Christians did not write the OT or Genesis, it is not theirs to judge.

the hebrews wrote this material, it is their's to to tell you how they want it read.


hebrews state it was written from previous religions influences, much of it in allegory, metaphors, poems, songs, legends and parables. THEREFOR it was never a fraud.

because christians later adopted a literal interpretation does not make the original work or the original authors fraudulent.



by wrongly claiming fraud, and blaiming hebrews material and theology for christians misinterpretation you are butchering and missing the original authors intenet, and morals on the subject.


your problem is not as much the information your providing, but the context in which you deliver your message

The Tanakh and in particular the book of Genesis has been interpreted by some Jewish scholars and Rabbis over the centuries as being "poetic"/fiction, but to many Orthodox Jews it describes real events, real prophets, a real account of the creation of the Universe and the earth and the dangerous assertion that one single race was chosen by God and that all others are destined to be thier inferior slaves or else completely wiped out. Many Jews view the accounts given in the Tanakh as being literal history and in some areas it is historically accurate, as far as we can tell, remembering that the best lies contain portions of the truth, but in other areas and the general picture they paint with their "history" represents a grand lie and a fraud, as do the Christians as well!

I am not blamming the Israelites for the many, many Christian misinterpretations of their scriptures, I am saying that the scribes of the book of Genesis and other books of the OT have erroneously asserted that the stories contained therein, are true histories when the overwhelming probability is, that they are not. This is fraud!

I would be interested to see where you are getting the idea that the "Hebrews" acknowledge the true foreign origins of their religion. Aside from Jewish scholars like, Sabbah and Roger Messod, Freud and a minority of other scholars, the jews generally believe that the stories in thier books are original and true events, Noah's flood for example, is not, according to the Jewish Orthodoxy, as a babylonian story taken and adapted to Judaism, but a real account of the past.

Please give me your sources for those scholars and Rabbis you claim to have said that the Jewish Religion is influenced by earlier religions.

 

[fallingblood]

Absolutely does matter.
Ultimate truth should be ultimate truth, when speaking of an all knowing, all powerful deity. What people 800 years ago knew about this god should be what we know and should be what they know 800 years from now, in as much as it matter to our eternal life (assuming that exists).
It's not about taking anything away, but about what we may not yet know.

I was never talking about ultimate truth, or really anything to do with a deity. I'm not assuming we can know anything about this deity, and I honestly think that it is impossible. More so, there is no reason to assume that our understanding of said deity would not change.

Here is a similar example. Let's say you met someone today. You start to get to know them, and you form an understanding of them. Are you never going to learn more about them? Or is that initial contact going to be the only thing you know about them? No, our understanding of said person will continue to grow the more and more we get to know said individual.

Not to mention the way you see that person, may not be the way I see the person. Let's take Harry Houdini as an example, simply because being a professional magician, I have done a lot of research on him. In my library, I have a variety of books on Houdini, from different perspectives, which paint him in different lights. Some thought of him as very arrogant, and a shoddy magician, while others found him to be one of the greatest magicians of all time, and just a wonderful person. It depends on one perspective.

Finally, I don't see the Bible as divine, I see it as a book. If we simply dismiss it because it doesn't show ultimate truth, then we might as well start dismissing everything. Because ideas change, we learn more, and we expand on what we know.

 

[connermt]

I was never talking about ultimate truth, or really anything to do with a deity. I'm not assuming we can know anything about this deity, and I honestly think that it is impossible. More so, there is no reason to assume that our understanding of said deity would not change.

Here is a similar example. Let's say you met someone today. You start to get to know them, and you form an understanding of them. Are you never going to learn more about them? Or is that initial contact going to be the only thing you know about them? No, our understanding of said person will continue to grow the more and more we get to know said individual.

Not to mention the way you see that person, may not be the way I see the person. Let's take Harry Houdini as an example, simply because being a professional magician, I have done a lot of research on him. In my library, I have a variety of books on Houdini, from different perspectives, which paint him in different lights. Some thought of him as very arrogant, and a shoddy magician, while others found him to be one of the greatest magicians of all time, and just a wonderful person. It depends on one perspective.

Finally, I don't see the Bible as divine, I see it as a book. If we simply dismiss it because it doesn't show ultimate truth, then we might as well start dismissing everything. Because ideas change, we learn more, and we expand on what we know.

I never claimed you spoke of ultimate truth. But god (a deity) and all things god should speak of ultimate truth. When it comes to soul's eternal life, what is known now should have been known then and will be known later.
Outside of that christian god, should/does it matter? Probably not.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I was never talking about ultimate truth, or really anything to do with a deity. I'm not assuming we can know anything about this deity, and I honestly think that it is impossible. More so, there is no reason to assume that our understanding of said deity would not change.

Here is a similar example. Let's say you met someone today. You start to get to know them, and you form an understanding of them. Are you never going to learn more about them? Or is that initial contact going to be the only thing you know about them? No, our understanding of said person will continue to grow the more and more we get to know said individual.

Not to mention the way you see that person, may not be the way I see the person. Let's take Harry Houdini as an example, simply because being a professional magician, I have done a lot of research on him. In my library, I have a variety of books on Houdini, from different perspectives, which paint him in different lights. Some thought of him as very arrogant, and a shoddy magician, while others found him to be one of the greatest magicians of all time, and just a wonderful person. It depends on one perspective.

Finally, I don't see the Bible as divine, I see it as a book. If we simply dismiss it because it doesn't show ultimate truth, then we might as well start dismissing everything. Because ideas change, we learn more, and we expand on what we know.

You make some very strong points, fallingblood.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I never claimed you spoke of ultimate truth. But god (a deity) and all things god should speak of ultimate truth. When it comes to soul's eternal life, what is known now should have been known then and will be known later.
Outside of that christian god, should/does it matter? Probably not.

You also make a good point. I think, and I maybe off the mark, but I think what you are trying to say is that if "God" laid down a principle and revealed certain laws and principles to a people thousands of years ago, as is alleged in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, those principles should not change, for an all-knowing god would not change her mind or have to re-think things in the face of human "evolution," for lack of a better word. Is this the crux of your argument, or am I way off?

 

[fallingblood]

I assumed, wrongly it seems, that most people would be familiar with the tradition that claimed Moses as the author of the book of Genesis, which was believed to have been written after the alleged Israelite Exodus from Egypt. Although the date of the Exodus has been shuffled around quite a bit, the popular consensus has been for a long time now, that this occurred sometime during the 2nd millennium (approx.1500-1200 BCE).

If we take the idea that some people who formed the Hebrews did migrate from Egypt (the idea that some slaves migrated from Egypt to Palestine is thought by many scholars, but it is not even close to what the Bible portrays), it would make sense for it to be right around 1200 B.C.E. as that is also when we find an inscription about the Israelites having been conquered by Egypt. What is key in that inscription though is that we are talking about a people, and not a nation. But it would fit along the lines of the idea of the Exodus.

I am familiar with the Wellhausen ‘Documentary Hypothesis’ and I do canvass it in the second volume of my ‘I Am Christ’ series, however, the point which I attempted to establish was that parts of the book of Genesis were likely written sometime during or after the exilic period, in a bid to demonstrate the possible reason for some of the similarities between the ancient Sumerian and Babylonian myths, with those myths that appear in Genesis. We can assume (speculate) that certain Hebrew oral traditions span further back time, but if we find a story which is nearly identical like the flood myth or the tower of Babel one for example, and these myths pre-existed their later Hebrew renderings, amongst a more ancient and “civilized” peoples, namely the Babylonians, then isn’t it reasonable to suggest that the later myths were copied from the earlier ones? To suggest otherwise seems illogical to me, but that is just me!

The tower of Babel really isn't seen in other myths though. It is thoroughly a Hebrew story. However, yes the flood myth was probably borrowed, among other stories, from previous sources. However, I would say that they were probably borrowed early on.

Genesis consistently tell us that Abraham, and other early supposed figures (Noah, Adam, etc) come from Mesopotamia. The first 12 chapters or so take place in Mesopotamia. Abraham is said to have migrated from Mesopotamia. There definitely seems like there is some sort of connection with that area, and then we see Genesis having similar stories as well. Not to mention that there has also been discovered in Palestine early copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh (or fragments of it), so it is likely that these entered into the story from early on.

There may have been parts of Genesis written late; however, these myths probably are not those parts (or were not borrowed or created then).

If you read the works of Israel Finkelstein, Joseph Silberman, and Ze’ev Herzog for example, you will see that these scholars date the traditions to around the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, and other conservatives who, in opposition, show evidence, as out-dated and Albrightian as it might be, for a much earlier date. To me however, at this stage of my research, it does appear that the traditions were likely copied from the more advanced and influential neighbours (Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Persians) by the more primitive Israelites and Judahites around 6th century BCE.

I agree that this information was probably copied, to a point. However, we see mention of the Hebrews (or Israelites) in about 1250 B.C.E. So we know by then they were an established people (I'm not talking about a nation though, they would have been semi-nomadic).

I've read some of the work of the scholars you mentioned; however, I'm not all that convinced with their conclusions. The raw material they present is pretty good. However, I think they don't use it properly. And that is a criticism that they see quite often.

I use the words, ‘near identical’ with their natural meaning in mind! Identical refers to something which is between 98-100% match in identity! The myths of the more ancient Babylonians are not 98-100% similar, in other words, they are not identical. They are close to, or near to that degree of similarity, especially if you investigate the parallels that exist with regards to the motifs, symbols, archetypes and main aspects of the mythological plots.
If one takes out the obvious cultural adaptations, like place and character names, minor plot details, you are left with a core structure that is identical, thus, I used the term “near identical.”

Okay, I see what you're saying now. When I hear near identical, I assume one means basically identical. There are many similarities between a number of Hebrew myths and other ancient myths. However, there also key differences, and some stark differences. So we may be able to see an underlying source that was partially borrowed from; however, the entire myth probably wasn't borrowed. Especially when we realize that in many of these myths (for instance the creation myth or flood myth) we actually see two, different accounts, in the Bible.

If you take modern archaeological evidence (Finkelstein and Herzog in particular) and add to that the similarities between the ancient Babylonian myths of which I have pointed out only one, the facts seem to indicate that it is possible and even probable that the Hebrew myths were copied from the more ancient Babylonian ones. (further compare this situation to the ‘Cola Wars’ and by way of such an analogy you may see what I am saying)

I cut out the second paragraph of your argument here, just to save space. But I'm not denying that the Hebrews, like nearly any culture, borrowed from previous cultures. Usually, they borrow from cultures from there area, and I think that suggests that the Hebrews (or ancestors of the Hebrews, came partially from Mesopotamia).

As for the Gezar calendar, even if it is proto-Hebrew, or something similar, it shouldn't really matter. Language, or the written script, can change over time. Case in point, compare ancient Hebrew with modern Hebrew. There is a difference. So the language really doesn't tell us when the Hebrews first began, or when they first started copying down their stories (or passing them down in oral form). Because they could have done so in an earlier form of Hebrew, or simply kept it in oral form.

So then you are saying that the “retrojections” are essentially anachronisms (untruths)? When the stories of Genesis were redacted, they had camels so they made up stories with camels in them, in which the camels were used to convey certain theological meanings and lessons, even though they were not historical events. It does happen all of the time, you are right, and usually when it does and is not honestly referred as mythology but rather history, it is called dishonest!

I think it was just simple retrojection. They were talking about their ancestors (and I think they believed this part to be true, that is the ancestral stories) and just assumed that they also had domesticated camels. I'm sure when there were writing this, they couldn't remember a time that they didn't have domesticated camels. It was just taken for granted. It happens. And really, it is a small detail. Especially when we consider that much of the stories fit in an earlier time. The names, many of the traditions, etc seem to fit in an earlier time period. Especially when they do not fit in with a later time. Such as some of the traditions we see in the ancestral narratives would not have been accepted in a later time period.

 

[michaelsherlock]

If we take the idea that some people who formed the Hebrews did migrate from Egypt (the idea that some slaves migrated from Egypt to Palestine is thought by many scholars, but it is not even close to what the Bible portrays), it would make sense for it to be right around 1200 B.C.E. as that is also when we find an inscription about the Israelites having been conquered by Egypt. What is key in that inscription though is that we are talking about a people, and not a nation. But it would fit along the lines of the idea of the Exodus.
The tower of Babel really isn't seen in other myths though. It is thoroughly a Hebrew story. However, yes the flood myth was probably borrowed, among other stories, from previous sources. However, I would say that they were probably borrowed early on.

Genesis consistently tell us that Abraham, and other early supposed figures (Noah, Adam, etc) come from Mesopotamia. The first 12 chapters or so take place in Mesopotamia. Abraham is said to have migrated from Mesopotamia. There definitely seems like there is some sort of connection with that area, and then we see Genesis having similar stories as well. Not to mention that there has also been discovered in Palestine early copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh (or fragments of it), so it is likely that these entered into the story from early on.

There may have been parts of Genesis written late; however, these myths probably are not those parts (or were not borrowed or created then).
I agree that this information was probably copied, to a point. However, we see mention of the Hebrews (or Israelites) in about 1250 B.C.E. So we know by then they were an established people (I'm not talking about a nation though, they would have been semi-nomadic).

I've read some of the work of the scholars you mentioned; however, I'm not all that convinced with their conclusions. The raw material they present is pretty good. However, I think they don't use it properly. And that is a criticism that they see quite often.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. When I hear near identical, I assume one means basically identical. There are many similarities between a number of Hebrew myths and other ancient myths. However, there also key differences, and some stark differences. So we may be able to see an underlying source that was partially borrowed from; however, the entire myth probably wasn't borrowed. Especially when we realize that in many of these myths (for instance the creation myth or flood myth) we actually see two, different accounts, in the Bible.

I cut out the second paragraph of your argument here, just to save space. But I'm not denying that the Hebrews, like nearly any culture, borrowed from previous cultures. Usually, they borrow from cultures from there area, and I think that suggests that the Hebrews (or ancestors of the Hebrews, came partially from Mesopotamia).

As for the Gezar calendar, even if it is proto-Hebrew, or something similar, it shouldn't really matter. Language, or the written script, can change over time. Case in point, compare ancient Hebrew with modern Hebrew. There is a difference. So the language really doesn't tell us when the Hebrews first began, or when they first started copying down their stories (or passing them down in oral form). Because they could have done so in an earlier form of Hebrew, or simply kept it in oral form.

I think it was just simple retrojection. They were talking about their ancestors (and I think they believed this part to be true, that is the ancestral stories) and just assumed that they also had domesticated camels. I'm sure when there were writing this, they couldn't remember a time that they didn't have domesticated camels. It was just taken for granted. It happens. And really, it is a small detail. Especially when we consider that much of the stories fit in an earlier time. The names, many of the traditions, etc seem to fit in an earlier time period. Especially when they do not fit in with a later time. Such as some of the traditions we see in the ancestral narratives would not have been accepted in a later time period.

If it is retrojection and they simply assumed that Camels were domesticated, then the stories which feature camels must be fictitious right?

Further, the tower of Babel story did exist amongst the ancient Chaldeans. Well a story about people speaking one language, building a tower, having their tower destroyed by the gods due to the threat such abilities could pose and having their language confounded. that story existed prior to the Hebrew Myth. See The Chaldean Genesis by George Smith.

 

[fallingblood]

If it is retrojection and they simply assumed that Camels were domesticated, then the stories which feature camels must be fictitious right?

Not at all. It just means that it isn't fully accurate.

Further, the tower of Babel story did exist amongst the ancient Chaldeans. Well a story about people speaking one language, building a tower, having their tower destroyed by the gods due to the threat such abilities could pose and having their language confounded. that story existed prior to the Hebrew Myth. See The Chaldean Genesis by George Smith.

There are some problems with that. The Biblical story isn't about building a tower. It is about building a city, that just happens to have a tower (the tower is not a focus point, and is only mentioned twice, and each time, in conjunction with the city). The tower is never destroyed, and neither is the city (later interpretations, such as in the book of Jubilees from around 200 B.C.E. mention it, but it was not in the actual Genesis story).

In the Biblical story, the confusion of the language isn't because of a threat to do with a tower. It is because humans want to stay united, and God wants diversity. The stories really are not the same. Especially when the one Smith is talking about contains a Temple, which is the focus, and the Biblical story contains a tower (could be religious or militaristic) and is not a focus at all.

 

[connermt]

You also make a good point. I think, and I maybe off the mark, but I think what you are trying to say is that if "God" laid down a principle and revealed certain laws and principles to a people thousands of years ago, as is alleged in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, those principles should not change, for an all-knowing god would not change her mind or have to re-think things in the face of human "evolution," for lack of a better word. Is this the crux of your argument, or am I way off?

In a sense, but it goes beyond principle and laws.
If it's so important, everything that needs known/discovered should have been known/discovered already.
Discovering a new scroll, a new concept, a new understanding of the culture, etc shouldn't have happened last year, this year or 50 years from now.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Not at all. It just means that it isn't fully accurate.
There are some problems with that. The Biblical story isn't about building a tower. It is about building a city, that just happens to have a tower (the tower is not a focus point, and is only mentioned twice, and each time, in conjunction with the city). The tower is never destroyed, and neither is the city (later interpretations, such as in the book of Jubilees from around 200 B.C.E. mention it, but it was not in the actual Genesis story).

In the Biblical story, the confusion of the language isn't because of a threat to do with a tower. It is because humans want to stay united, and God wants diversity. The stories really are not the same. Especially when the one Smith is talking about contains a Temple, which is the focus, and the Biblical story contains a tower (could be religious or militaristic) and is not a focus at all.

There are cetainly cultural variations, yet the core principles and motifs behind the stories are nearly identicle, mans capabilities as a united species, a tower, city or man made construction and the confusion of tongues to prevent said potentials.

 

[fallingblood]

There are cetainly cultural variations, yet the core principles and motifs behind the stories are nearly identicle, mans capabilities as a united species, a tower, city or man made construction and the confusion of tongues to prevent said potentials.

They are hardly similar. The point of both stories are very different. Not to mention one, the focus is the tower, the second, the tower doesn't even matter, and vanishes from the story anyway.

We see creation stories from all around the globe, that have vague similarities, but that doesn't mean they are borrowed.

 

[michaelsherlock]

They are hardly similar. The point of both stories are very different. Not to mention one, the focus is the tower, the second, the tower doesn't even matter, and vanishes from the story anyway.

We see creation stories from all around the globe, that have vague similarities, but that doesn't mean they are borrowed.

You could be right, or wrong about this! Remeber that even though variations to myths and stories occur over time and space, the remanents can be found beneath the surface of the story. Take for example the movie, My Fair Lady and compare it to the Pygmalion Myth upon which it was based. One is about an artisan who created a statue, the other about a professor of linguistics/elecution, who refined a lower class lady. They are different in many ways but at their core they contain the same motifs, symbols and archetypes, which I argue, is the same as the Babel Story from the Bible and the one found in the earlier Babylonian.

I have bolded the similar parts of the Genesis Tower story, with that of the Chaldean one.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.


And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar (Sumer); and they dwelt there.


And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.


And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.


And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.


And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.


Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.


So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.


Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the


LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.


Genesis 11:1-10​

In unity, man can achieve great things, things which threaten even the gods. This poses a threat to said gods and so they, we can only assume, go down and thwart man's efforts to prevent him from attaining knowledge (a common theme in both the Hebrew and Chaldean/Babylonian myths is the god's want to subvert man's quest for knowledge, which in the Babylonian case makes sense because man was made as a slave species, which may explain why also we see this contempt of knowledge and inquiry in Hebrew mythology).

The gods confuse thier language, which was initially united, and scatter them across the face of the earth.​

Yes, minor details vary, but in the words of W.G Lambert;​

"The authors of ancient cosmologies (myths) were essentially compilers. Their originality was expressed in new combinations of old themes, and in new twists to old ideas."

Further, when George Smith said:

"I found also other series of legends on primitive history, including the story of the building of the Tower of Babel and of the Confusion of Tongues."


Was he in error, in your opinion? He could have been, I do not know!

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

So I will humbly request an apology from you and remind you to be more careful with your stones in the future!

Lets reframe it. You could thank Skrim for protecting your intellectual property rights.

 

[outhouse]

You could be right, or wrong about this! Remeber that even though variations to myths and stories occur over time and space, the remanents can be found beneath the surface of the story. Take for example the movie, My Fair Lady and compare it to the Pygmalion Myth upon which it was based. One is about an artisan who created a statue, the other about a professor of linguistics/elecution, who refined a lower class lady. They are different in many ways but at their core they contain the same motifs, symbols and archetypes, which I argue, is the same as the Babel Story from the Bible and the one found in the earlier Babylonian.

I have bolded the similar parts of the Genesis Tower story, with that of the Chaldean one.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.​

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar (Sumer); and they dwelt there.​

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.​

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.​

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.​

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.​

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.​

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.​

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the​

LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.​

Genesis 11:1-10​

In unity, man can achieve great things, things which threaten even the gods. This poses a threat to said gods and so they, we can only assume, go down and thwart man's efforts to prevent him from attaining knowledge (a common theme in both the Hebrew and Chaldean/Babylonian myths is the god's want to subvert man's quest for knowledge, which in the Babylonian case makes sense because man was made as a slave species, which may explain why also we see this contempt of knowledge and inquiry in Hebrew mythology). ​

The gods confuse thier language, which was initially united, and scatter them across the face of the earth.​

Yes, minor details vary, but in the words of W.G Lambert;​

"The authors of ancient cosmologies (myths) were essentially compilers. Their originality was expressed in new combinations of old themes, and in new twists to old ideas."

Further, when George Smith said:

"I found also other series of legends on primitive history, including the story of the building of the Tower of Babel and of the Confusion of Tongues."


Was he in error, in your opinion? He could have been, I do not know!

Much of the early cultures of Mesopotamia are found in the OT.

I agree with you that they did in fact use many of these legends as their own. Its pretty much a fact they did.

Im not sure why some people choose to argue they didnt.


many semetic speaking people migrated from Mesopotamia to make up the foundation of early Israelites bringing with them their own legends that were later rewritten to give Israeli's identity.

Noahs flood
babel
Ten commandments
Creation story

and others all have its roots from previous religions in the area