The Genesis Fraud Part 1

[michaelsherlock]

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

that is a rather profound way of looking at the situation. I hereby thank Skrim.

 

[michaelsherlock]

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

Outhouse, we see eye to eye for a change, that is nice! But we could both be wrong!!

 

[fallingblood]

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!

I would say Smith simply is wrong. He obviously took on an outdated look at the story of Babel (again, not about a tower), and found some vague similarities. Can you provide the document (or more relevant section of Smith's work) that provides what this other story says about this link to the Tower of Babel, and preferably a date to that story?


All in all though, I relate this to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The story is inspired by true events. However, if you do some research, the true events have very little similarity to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. In all truth, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a story in itself, and really does not go back to anything else.

That is what I see here. Some very vague similarities, and an interpretation that relies on information that simply isn't in the story.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I would say Smith simply is wrong. He obviously took on an outdated look at the story of Babel (again, not about a tower), and found some vague similarities. Can you provide the document (or more relevant section of Smith's work) that provides what this other story says about this link to the Tower of Babel, and preferably a date to that story?


All in all though, I relate this to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The story is inspired by true events. However, if you do some research, the true events have very little similarity to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. In all truth, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a story in itself, and really does not go back to anything else.

That is what I see here. Some very vague similarities, and an interpretation that relies on information that simply isn't in the story.

As I use that text in the 2nd volume in my series, I would rather it not go too public right now, but again, I refer you to the symoblic undertones, the reocurring motifs and the fact that this Ancient Culture was one of the most influencial forces in the region. Try thinking about it from a "My Fair Lady" versus Pygmalion myth point of view, just try! If you cannot, that is fine, but when we find a number of key myths existing in more ancient works, we must at least consider the possibility that the older version is the original, especially in cases where the two or more cultures were in contact with one another.

I am not sure if it was you who said, you saw some Babylonian influence in the Hebrew mythology, but if it was, what were those influences in particular?

 

[fallingblood]

As I use that text in the 2nd volume in my series, I would rather it not go too public right now, but again, I refer you to the symoblic undertones, the reocurring motifs and the fact that this Ancient Culture was one of the most influencial forces in the region. Try thinking about it from a "My Fair Lady" versus Pygmalion myth point of view, just try! If you cannot, that is fine, but when we find a number of key myths existing in more ancient works, we must at least consider the possibility that the older version is the original, especially in cases where the two or more cultures were in contact with one another.

The problem though is that the similarities are very very vague, and the stories themselves have different points.

The problem is that people approach the tower of Babel story not from what the story actually says, but what tradition has made it say. They are two completely different things. And from what I have seen with the Smith verse in question, the stories simply are not similar.

I am not sure if it was you who said, you saw some Babylonian influence in the Hebrew mythology, but if it was, what were those influences in particular?

There are some Mesopotamian influences. I personally think this is because some of the ancestors of the Hebrews came to Palestine from the Mesopotamia area, and brought certain stories with them. We see similarities with the creation stories (even though they are different creation stories that show only some signs of influence) as well as with the flood narratives. However, I see the tower of Babel story to be very Hebrew in nature. Simply because I have see no such evidence to the contrary.

And since you won't provide the text in question, then really, there is no reason to assume they are the same story anyway.

Another question, when does this supposed Chaldean account date from?

 

[michaelsherlock]

Another question, when does this supposed Chaldean account date from?

The tablets themselves were excavated from the early 7th Century B.C Library of Assurbanipal, but have been dated to sometime around 2000 BC. Some scholars have even dated them back as far as 3500 B.C, but I think when we are dealing with history which spans this far back, precise dating, aside from the various radiocarbon and other geological systems of dating, are uncertain and even these forms of scientific dating get a little hazy beyond 2000 years B.C.

 

[michaelsherlock]

The problem is that people approach the tower of Babel story not from what the story actually says, but what tradition has made it say.

I would have to agree with this statement, yet certain symbols and themes are rather striking.

They are two completely different things. And from what I have seen with the Smith verse in question, the stories simply are not similar.

I would disagree with this statement. The reason being, that the underlying themes and motifs are identical.

1. Before the gods came down to destroy mans creation, everyone spoke the same language. identical
2. God and Man competition, in which god, or the gods, win! identical
3. Explanation of diversity of language. (etiological) identical
4. Reason for confusing man's language was identical
5. Mankind's Hubris identical

Whether some of the more superficial details vary, like the focus on the particular structure and other facades, are issues that merely reflect cultural adaption in my opinion.


Henry Higgins is an English language elecution teacher, now that is very British, yet the story as a whole and the undertones, symbols, motifs and themes are virtually identical to the original Pygmalion Myth which is the source of this movie, minus the cultural facade.
5.

There are some Mesopotamian influences. I personally think this is because some of the ancestors of the Hebrews came to Palestine from the Mesopotamia area, and brought certain stories with them. We see similarities with the creation stories (even though they are different creation stories that show only some signs of influence) as well as with the flood narratives. However, I see the tower of Babel story to be very Hebrew in nature. Simply because I have see no such evidence to the contrary.

There are some competant scholars who have done some work on this particular issue. Stephen L. Harris is one of them, check out his work.

And since you won't provide the text in question, then really, there is no reason to assume they are the same story anyway.

Healthy skepticism, now I cannot complain about that, or I would be a hypocrite and a half!

 

[outhouse]

Outhouse, we see eye to eye for a change, that is nice! But we could both be wrong!!

I dont think so in the context that previous religions influenced early Israelites.


All Israelites were people of other cultures who did in fact bring with them previous beliefs.

The ancient hebrews developed a religion that evolved, and by following the early evolution we can clearly see which influences came from specific areas.

 

[outhouse]

What makes Hebrews so unique and dare I say special, is the message and morals that were unique to their culture.

Yes they were influenced and they did in fact use previous religions legends, but they reworked these pieces in a way that made the stories unique to them, and gave them a beauty the others lacked.

 

[fallingblood]

I would disagree with this statement. The reason being, that the underlying themes and motifs are identical.

1. Before the gods came down to destroy mans creation, everyone spoke the same language. identical
2. God and Man competition, in which god, or the gods, win! identical
3. Explanation of diversity of language. (etiological) identical
4. Reason for confusing man's language was identical
5. Mankind's Hubris identical

Whether some of the more superficial details vary, like the focus on the particular structure and other facades, are issues that merely reflect cultural adaption in my opinion.

Actually, out of that list, only two actually work.

God and man were not in competition in the Genesis account. There is no suggestion of competition.

God never destroys what humans created in the Genesis account. The city and tower are left in tact.

The reason for confusing the language isn't even the same. In the Genesis account, it is a blessing. It is a gift from God.

Mankind's hubris is different as well. There is no suggestion of pride, or even defiance in the Genesis account.

And even the reason for diversifying the language isn't even the same. The reason in the Genesis account is a blessing, one that will give them dominion over the land.

The two stories are quite different. From what I have been able to find in Smith's work, he based his opinion on a flawed interpretation of Genesis, one that simply is not based on the text.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Actually, out of that list, only two actually work.

God and man were not in competition in the Genesis account. There is no suggestion of competition.

God never destroys what humans created in the Genesis account. The city and tower are left in tact.

The reason for confusing the language isn't even the same. In the Genesis account, it is a blessing. It is a gift from God.

Mankind's hubris is different as well. There is no suggestion of pride, or even defiance in the Genesis account.

And even the reason for diversifying the language isn't even the same. The reason in the Genesis account is a blessing, one that will give them dominion over the land.

The two stories are quite different. From what I have been able to find in Smith's work, he based his opinion on a flawed interpretation of Genesis, one that simply is not based on the text.

Competition; "They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do."

Destruction or preventing the completion, is similar in essence. Whether the gods destroyed or caused man to give up the endevor they still intervened to "destroy" the construction.

Confounding Language. You have said that it was a blessing, yet nowhere in the bible does it say this. The reason given in the book of Genesis is; "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."

hindering mankind's ability to achieve great things is the reason given, which was said to be a threat because; "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

This does not look like a blessing to me. Perhaps you have interpreted this passage from a particular Christian or Jewish Sect's tradition, I do not know. But if you could tell me who you got this idea of a blessing from, please teach me.

Hubris and pride is something I picked up from Josephus and other commentators and so yes, this is tradition. But from the story, it appears that man was prevented from performing something which would lead him to pose a threat to the gods. If so, then this would imply either hubris in the present or at least the prevention of future hubris, when man would be able to do anything he wished!

 

[fallingblood]

Competition; "They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do."

And this is from what? Genesis, or your secret account that you refuse to actually link to?

Destruction or preventing the completion, is similar in essence. Whether the gods destroyed or caused man to give up the endevor they still intervened to "destroy" the construction.

Actually, the construction is never destroyed in the Genesis account. To make such a stretch simply is not logical here. We are talking about two very different things.

Confounding Language. You have said that it was a blessing, yet nowhere in the bible does it say this. The reason given in the book of Genesis is; "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."

Diversity, according to God, is a blessing. We see this over and over again, starting with creation.

hindering mankind's ability to achieve great things is the reason given, which was said to be a threat because; "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

What did they imagine to do? Remain as one, as in not be dispersed. The city was simply the means to that. That is what God was worried about. That was the great thing he was referring to. How can we know this? Because the story states that what humankind imagined to do was to stay as one.

This does not look like a blessing to me. Perhaps you have interpreted this passage from a particular Christian or Jewish Sect's tradition, I do not know. But if you could tell me who you got this idea of a blessing from, please teach me.

We see diversity being a blessing throughout the OT. Throughout the creation stories, we see diversity as being good. God constantly states that. In the story preceding the Tower of Babel, we once again see diversity as being good.

We can then see this story of dispersion, of creating diversity, being a blessing. And really, that is the command that humans are given.

Hubris and pride is something I picked up from Josephus and other commentators and so yes, this is tradition. But from the story, it appears that man was prevented from performing something which would lead him to pose a threat to the gods. If so, then this would imply either hubris in the present or at least the prevention of future hubris, when man would be able to do anything he wished!

Josephus is way outdated, and simply a bad source here. The story itself has nothing to do with a threat to God. If you read the story, you will see that the problem is that humankind wanted to stay as one, and not be dispersed. That is the problem.

Can you provide the work you are taking this other myth from? Without it, you have no argument what so ever, because as far as we know, you are just making things ups.

 

[michaelsherlock]

And this is from what? Genesis, or your secret account that you refuse to actually link to?
Actually, the construction is never destroyed in the Genesis account. To make such a stretch simply is not logical here. We are talking about two very different things.
Diversity, according to God, is a blessing. We see this over and over again, starting with creation.
What did they imagine to do? Remain as one, as in not be dispersed. The city was simply the means to that. That is what God was worried about. That was the great thing he was referring to. How can we know this? Because the story states that what humankind imagined to do was to stay as one.
We see diversity being a blessing throughout the OT. Throughout the creation stories, we see diversity as being good. God constantly states that. In the story preceding the Tower of Babel, we once again see diversity as being good.

We can then see this story of dispersion, of creating diversity, being a blessing. And really, that is the command that humans are given.
Josephus is way outdated, and simply a bad source here. The story itself has nothing to do with a threat to God. If you read the story, you will see that the problem is that humankind wanted to stay as one, and not be dispersed. That is the problem.

Can you provide the work you are taking this other myth from? Without it, you have no argument what so ever, because as far as we know, you are just making things ups.

I have very little pride as you may have gathered, from my willingness to give an apology when it is required, even if it hurts my pride, so I will let you think what you like of me, but I am not going to give that source just yet. There will be plenty of time for me to show it in the future, once the 2nd volume is published. Sorry, I am not trying to be difficult or elusive.

 

[fallingblood]

I have very little pride as you may have gathered, from my willingness to give an apology when it is required, even if it hurts my pride, so I will let you think what you like of me, but I am not going to give that source just yet. There will be plenty of time for me to show it in the future, once the 2nd volume is published. Sorry, I am not trying to be difficult or elusive.

How about you answer this. How did you come about this secret source? The fact that it is secret basically destroys any argument that you have.

 

[michaelsherlock]

How about you answer this. How did you come about this secret source? The fact that it is secret basically destroys any argument that you have.

You would benefit by exercising the same level of skepticism toward those beliefs which you have simply rolled over and accepted as truths! Just some friendly advice that may make you a little more intelligent, not to mention, humble!

 

[Caladan]

It appears that the accounts of Abraham’s birth and travels were created no earlier than the 6th century B.C.E, which seems to indicate that the writer was either in Babylon during the exile or had already returned to Israel. Either way, one thing is almost certain, and that is that the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures had ample opportunity to copy and re-script the mythologies of the ancient Babylonians to suit their own social and theological needs.


Any thoughts?

And this to you, is a fraud?
people on occasion discuss similar issues in a sensationalistic way. scholars at large, as opposed to pseudo-scholars acknowledge and appreciate the global and regional phenomenon of diffusion of ideas or material culture. what the Hebrew scribes did and the way they synthesised ancient Near Eastern literature and religious philosophy has benefited humanity for posterity. there is nothing new about any of this, nothing innovative, shocking, and it certainly wouldn't undermine years of scholarship, or Judeo-Christian western tradition, it may only annoy a handful of evangelists that believe Genesis is the true account of human history.

 

[michaelsherlock]

And this to you, is a fraud?
people on occasion discuss similar issues in a sensationalistic way. scholars at large, as opposed to pseudo-scholars acknowledge and appreciate the global and regional phenomenon of diffusion of ideas or material culture. what the Hebrew scribes did and the way they synthesised ancient Near Eastern literature and religious philosophy has benefited humanity for posterity. there is nothing new about any of this, nothing innovative, shocking, and it certainly wouldn't undermine years of scholarship, or Judeo-Christian western tradition, it may only annoy a handful of evangelists that believe Genesis is the true account of human history.

That is not the fraud. The fraud comes into it by attempting to date the whole book of Genesis to the 2nd millenium BCE.

 

[fallingblood]

That is not the fraud. The fraud comes into it by attempting to date the whole book of Genesis to the 2nd millenium BCE.

Really no scholar does that though. Scholars realize that the actual book of Genesis is from a later date, that it was compiled at a later date. However, the sources that were used probably stretch quite a bit farther.

 

[Caladan]

That is not the fraud. The fraud comes into it by attempting to date the whole book of Genesis to the 2nd millenium BCE.

Its common knowledge that the book of Genesis was written later. it certainly was not written during the 2nd milenium BCE, nor is there an academic conspiracy to assert this. in fact you'll be hard pressed to find scholarly claims that any Biblical book was written during the time.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Its common knowledge that the book of Genesis was written later. it certainly was not written during the 2nd milenium BCE, nor is there an academic conspiracy to assert this. in fact you'll be pressed to find scholarly claims that any Biblical book was written during the time.

What about Dr Norman Geisler? Professor Thomas Howe? Associate Professor Paul E. Little? Achaeologist William F. Albright? G. Ernest Wright?

And they are off the top of my head. If I dig into my library I can surely find many more.