The Answers Are Not In Genesis

[Purephysics]

Recently I started an evaluation of the first book in the Bible.

 

My aim was to test, in its own terms, what the Genesis says about the creation of the world in real terms - not, as is so often the case, as an exhaustive comparison to science. I wanted to try and understand the Bible (or at least this part of it) in a historical context not a religious one.

 

It is my opinion that no one can make a really objective evaluation of the Bible if they approach it as a religious text, it must be approached as a factual one - at least factual at the time it was written. Genesis can be traced back to the 10th century BCE and as such constitutes a primitive view and attempted explanation of the world.

 

Instead of creating ridiculously long posts here and in other places I decided to disseminate my idea via a blog, which can [not] be found at url removed In which I post under the pseudonym "Alexander Black" or as it may turn into "Alexander The Atheist".

 

Currently I have Blogs for Genesis 1:1-2 (TAANIG pt.1 & 2), but my next outing will likely see Gen 1:3-7 treated under the same critical analysis.

 

I would be very interested in feedback and other ideas.

Edited August 9, 2014 by swansont

[Acme]

Recently I started an evaluation of the first book in the Bible.

 

My aim was to test, in its own terms, what the Genesis says about the creation of the world in real terms - not, as is so often the case, as an exhaustive comparison to science. I wanted to try and understand the Bible (or at least this part of it) in a historical context not a religious one.

 

It is my opinion that no one can make a really objective evaluation of the Bible if they approach it as a religious text, it must be approached as a factual one - at least factual at the time it was written. Genesis can be traced back to the 10th century BCE and as such constitutes a primitive view and attempted explanation of the world. ...

I would be very interested in feedback and other ideas.

The flood story of Genesis is lifted from The Epic of Gilgamesh which dates to about 2500BC. As to what regional flood it may refer I have never seen a qualified explication. One might surmise an event in the Tigris/Euphrates valley?

[Purephysics]

I wasn't aware it was from Gilgamesh, though it is hardly surprising given that a number of religion stories are simply borrowed from other traditions and religions.

 

Though the flood wasn't one of the key topics in the Blog.

[Acme]

I wasn't aware it was from Gilgamesh, though it is hardly surprising given that a number of religion stories are simply borrowed from other traditions and religions.

 

Though the flood wasn't one of the key topics in the Blog.

Glad to have added to your knowledge. I have some other sources of exegesis for Genesis but I will have to root through some archives to find them. If I can find them and they are as I remember, I will post again.

Edit: PS Here's another creation and flood myth from the 18^th century BCE. I don't recall having read much on it so I can't give a qualified comparison to Genesis at this point.

>> Atra-Hasis

Atra-Hasis ("exceedingly wise") is the protagonist of an 18th-century BCE Akkadian epic recorded in various versions on clay tablets. The Atra-Hasis tablets include both a creation myth and a flood account, which is one of three surviving Babylonian deluge stories. The name "Atra-Hasis" also appears on one of the Sumerian king lists as king of Shuruppak in the times before a flood. ...

---------------------

Found the Mother load. Ain't hermeneutics fun‽

Appended Addendum:

>> The Genesis of Everything: An historical account of the Bible’s opening chapter

Abstract

The paper seeks to plot a path through the controversy surrounding the Bible’s opening chapter by examining Genesis 1 in historical context. The author assumes and endorses no particular view of human origins but argues for a literal interpretation of the text, as opposed to what may be called ‘literalistic’. The former reading gives due weight to both the literary genre of Genesis 1 and the cultural milieu of the original writer, whereas the latter gives sufficient attention to neither.

Various pre-scientific interpretations of Genesis 1 are described, including those of the first century Jewish intellectual Philo and the great Christian theologian Augustine. In particular, comparisons are drawn with the Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, and it is suggested that Genesis 1 is a piece of ‘subversive theology’, making significant theological points in the light of contemporaneous creation ideas. The questions raised (and answered) by the Bible’s opening chapter concern the nature of the Creator, the value of creation and the place of humanity within the creational scheme. Modern questions concerning the mechanics and chronology of creation may not be appropriately put to the ancient text. ...

> ENUMA ELISH: THE EPIC OF CREATION (A translation and link to full text)

> Enûma Elis @ Wiki

The Enûma Elis exists in various copies from Babylon and Assyria. The version from Ashurbanipal's library dates to the 7th century BCE. The composition of the text probably dates to the Bronze Age, to the time of Hammurabi or perhaps the early Kassite era (roughly 18th to 16th centuries BCE), although some scholars favour a later date of c. 1100 BCE.[2] ...

>Documentary hypothesis @ Wiki

The documentary hypothesis (DH), sometimes called the Wellhausen hypothesis, proposes that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) was derived from originally independent, parallel and complete narratives, which were subsequently combined into the current form by a series of redactors (editors). The number of these narratives is usually set at four, but this is not an essential part of the hypothesis.

 

The hypothesis was developed in the 18th and 19th centuries from the attempt to reconcile inconsistencies in the biblical text. By the end of the 19th century it was generally agreed that there were four main sources, combined into their final form by a series of redactors, R. These four sources came to be known as the Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah); and the Priestly Writer, P.[1] ...

> Dating the Pentateuch, Genesis and the Archaeological Anomalies and Anachronisms: Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, M.A. Ed.

08 April 2001

Genesis mentions several cities, towns and villages, some of which have been identified and excavated by archaeologists. Archaeology has revealed that some of these places were either abandoned or not in existence in the historical time frames of the biblical narratives. This brief article will note what archaeologists found and conclusions are drawn regarding not only the historicity of the biblical texts, but also when they were composed. I am not attempting to account for every site mentioned in Genesis, I am focusing in on the "archaeological anomalies" which are useful in the dating of the text.

Tradition claims the Pentateuch, which includes Genesis, was written by Moses ca. 1446 BCE (cf. 1 Kings 6:1 for the date of the Exodus, favored by some Conservative Scholars). The archaeological evidence suggests otherwise, the text appears to be no earlier than the 6th-5th centuries BCE, as the rest of this article will attempt to demonstrate.

...