Who Tempted Adam And Eve?

[Lee]

Hey, haven't been here in awhile, but I got to thinking about something and I wanted to get some discussion going. So here's the question: Why is it generally believed that Satan tempted Adam and Eve? If you read the account of the fall in Genesis 3, there is no indication whatsoever in the text as far as I can tell that the serpent was actually Satan.

 

Genesis 3:1 states: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made (ESV)." It seems pretty clear to me that the writer was speaking of the serpent as just one of the animals (beasts) that God had (supposedly) created as recounted in chapters 1 and 2. In other words it was just a snake. The other verses that I think supports this are 14 and 15 where God curses the serpent:

 

"The LORD God said to the serpent,

 

"Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

on your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel."

 

Again here the writer refers to the serpent as one of the other beasts. He's never referred to as Satan.

 

So a couple of questions I have:

 

1. Why is it assumed that Satan was the tempter?

2. Are we really to believe that snakes once walked? According to the story they must have or else God's curse to "go on your belly" would be meaningless.

[lunaticheathen]

If one is a biblical literalist, no, the serpent was a serpent. Later dogma turned him into Satan. Extra-biblical texts have identified the serpent as Satan as well, but they aren't in the bible, are they? What we have here is tradition.

In my opinion, the serpent told the truth, and biblegod's a complete jerk and a bad parent for lying to Adam and Eve, then punishing them, For what, learning?

As for if snakes walked or not, some have believed that snakes were all once lizards, and god smote them to be legless snakes. While this is half true, since snakes DID evolve from other lizards that had legs, I doubt it had anything to do with a woman and a tree. There are also Medieval paintings of Eden, featuring Adam and /or Eve and the "serpent", and the serpent has little stubby legs, plainly seen while the serpent is twined around the tree. So someone thought they had legs, at least artistically.

[Dagan]

It was this asshole:

 

[Phanta]

2. Are we really to believe that snakes once walked? According to the story they must have or else God's curse to "go on your belly" would be meaningless.

 

Interesting tidbit from Everett Fox's commentary preceding his translation of this section of Genesis...just a theory:

 

The narrative presents itself, at least on the surface, as a story of origins. We are to learn the roots of human sexual feelings, of pain in childbirth and how the anomalous snake (a land creature with no legs) came to assume its present form.

 

From Robert Alter's translation:

 

"Enmity I will set between you and the woman, between your seed and hers."

 

Enmity. Although the serpent is by no means "satanic," as in the lens of later Judeo-Christian traditions, the curse records a primal horror of humankind before this slithering, ciscous-looking, and poisonous representative of the animal realm. It is the first moment in which a split between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is recorded. Behind it may stand, at a long distance of cultural mediation, Canaanite myths of the primordial sea serpant.

 

Just other perspectives.

 

P

[dB-Paradox]

You're missing the whole point, Lee. It was god who tempted Adam and Eve. He's the one who made sure they knew about the tree they were not supposed to touch. He's the one who told them which tree it was, and it's exact location. That's like leaving a shiny knife in a playpen and then telling your toddler child, "Do not touch this!"

 

Take the damn temptation away, for god's sake!

[lunaticheathen]

You're missing the whole point, Lee. It was god who tempted Adam and Eve. He's the one who made sure they knew about the tree they were not supposed to touch. He's the one who told them which tree it was, and it's exact location. That's like leaving a shiny knife in a playpen and then telling your toddler child, "Do not touch this!"

 

Take the damn temptation away, for god's sake!

 

Good point. It's all god's damn fault.

[mwc]

Hey, haven't been here in awhile, but I got to thinking about something and I wanted to get some discussion going. So here's the question: Why is it generally believed that Satan tempted Adam and Eve? If you read the account of the fall in Genesis 3, there is no indication whatsoever in the text as far as I can tell that the serpent was actually Satan.

...

So a couple of questions I have:

 

1. Why is it assumed that Satan was the tempter?

2. Are we really to believe that snakes once walked? According to the story they must have or else God's curse to "go on your belly" would be meaningless.

The snake actually was just a talking snake...but...depending on how you wish to view things (and I'll hopefully be able to explain this) the snake was satan as well.

 

Since the word we know as "Satan" roughly means "adversary" and is generally explained by Jews to be something like the Attorney General, in that this is something that works to accuse people on behalf of this god, we can get the idea that the snake was effectively a "satan." This snake was acting as an adversary of sorts (the reasons are unknown and exactly who it was acting for/against is also a bit unclear but small points in the overall explanation). So when using the term "satan" simply as a synonym for "adversary" I think it is easy to see why someone might state the snake was "satan."

 

Now, when "Satan" is used as a personification of some entity, whether this "attorney" or some "evil" demon type thing then the idea that the snake was some shape-shifted, or possessed, animal becomes downright stupid. Talking animals in fables are already a stretch but now we're taking some anachronistic concept and projecting it back onto this talking snake fable. It does show that the idea of what a/the "satan" (upper/lower case "S") meant over time and that it changed from an idea into a personification of that idea but not much else. That people still accept the idea that some "thing" entered, or formed into, a talking snake is absurd and sad especially given the logical alternative.

 

As for your second question there is a fossil that was found that shows a "snake" with no front legs but just hind legs. They did walk at some point but apparently moved away from it. It just didn't happen in one magical moment of time. But if push came to shove the imaginative (read: desperate/pathetic) apologist would note that their "god" didn't say it would happen overnight and the snakes could have lost their limbs over time. Someone with more knowledge on this could be of much more help with the fossil/evolution info that I can.

 

mwc

[★ Citsonga ★]

The only passage I'm familiar with that christians can point to is this:

 

Revelation 20:2

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

 

Of course, that's a text written much, much later in a different language by a different person from a different religion, so imposing that onto Genesis to make it mean something different from what it says is a bit irrational.

[orlando]

MWC, as you say "Satan" was originally a term meaning adversary, a member of God's court who accused men before him, but to equate the snake with satan (or "a" satan) in this context would suggest he was acting on God's behalf -- which would be really fuskced up if this was the true original meaning, but the Bible does not suggest it, I don't think. Certainly though he could be seen as mankind's "adversary" in the most basic sense.

 

I also personally think the serpent in the story was just supposed to be a serpent and the Christians later identified it as Satan. In any case the full theology about Satan was not developed at the time Genesis was written. And yes, I have also read about the tradition that the animal once had legs, which is the only way the curse about going on its belly etc. would make sense.

 

But it is also true that ultimately it was God's fault I reckon.. especially as Adam and Eve did not even have "knowledge of good and evil" at this point, so how could they know it was so "bad" to disobey God and why was he tempting them in the first place?

 

Shame they didn't eat from the tree of life though, which would have been nice for us. And as far as I remember it was not even forbidden to them? Not letting them eat from it and therefore become like him (both knowledgable and immortal) is the actual reason Genesis gives for God throwing them out of the garden.

[mwc]

MWC, as you say "Satan" was originally a term meaning adversary, a member of God's court who accused men before him, but to equate the snake with satan (or "a" satan) in this context would suggest he was acting on God's behalf -- which would be really fuskced up if this was the true original meaning, but the Bible does not suggest it, I don't think. Certainly though he could be seen as mankind's "adversary" in the most basic sense.

Maybe you read to much into what I said? I was just trying to say the word basically meant "adversary" and as such someone could see the snake as their adversary and use the word "satan" to describe it. The word wasn't used exclusively for the Satan and I didn't mean to imply any strict relationship. If what I said read that way then it was purely unintentional.

 

mwc

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Hey, haven't been here in awhile, but I got to thinking about something and I wanted to get some discussion going. So here's the question: Why is it generally believed that Satan tempted Adam and Eve? If you read the account of the fall in Genesis 3, there is no indication whatsoever in the text as far as I can tell that the serpent was actually Satan.

Because in the hellenistic era, the gods one by one were becoming demons. Why not make 2 popular gods into satan himself?

 

The story actually concerns Nirah I think, though I could be wrong. The reason is because its the snake god mentioned by name in some jewish texts, that is also pagan god. Also, Nirah literally means serpent. The serpent in the story isn't just any snake, its clear its more.

 

Furthermore, read this story about the sumerian Adapa, and the amoritic Adamu/Admu:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/adapa.htm

 

Note: Gishzida/ningishzida "lord of the good tree, or tree of good, however you wish to read it", is represented iconographically as a snake, and often next to the controversial assyrian tree that his name may be referring to. Though my view, "the tree of good/the good tree" is in reference to Ningishzida's name, and his association with that tree (the datepalm) and not the opinions of archaeologists. So fair warning about that, but my conclusion is based entirely on the facts.

 

The scholars are divided as to what the tree represents though. Some say its just a datepalm (that is decorated a little too much, and has jinni guarding it), others the tree of life, and yet still others there are other conclusions.

 

Though Adam and Eve/Hawah/Adamah are two amoritic deities that are a bit obscure. though Adamah is a goddess associated with birth, with further associations with Ninhursag/Aruru.

 

Genesis 3:1 states: "Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made (ESV)." It seems pretty clear to me that the writer was speaking of the serpent as just one of the animals (beasts) that God had (supposedly) created as recounted in chapters 1 and 2. In other words it was just a snake. The other verses that I think supports this are 14 and 15 where God curses the serpent:

Just one problem, demons were seen as just other creatures that inhabited the land, mostly the desert.

Though you are right, not referring to Satan at all. Ha-satan controversially refers to a angel that never disobeyed god. He is actually sent by god to test your faith, to make sure you're doing right. Kinda like santa's elves do while Santa Claus makes the toys you've earned for being good.

 

Again here the writer refers to the serpent as one of the other beasts. He's never referred to as Satan.

Semitic tribes also thought of humans as just one of the other creatures. That's the funny part. The only difference being we were placed at the top according to their theology. It's the christians who view it differently.

 

1. Why is it assumed that Satan was the tempter?

Because that's what he does, and there is a New Testament verse, I forgot where, where it refers to the serpent calling it satan.

 

2. Are we really to believe that snakes once walked? According to the story they must have or else God's curse to "go on your belly" would be meaningless.

Moreless its saying he lost his legs yeah. Though its a fable, originally meant to say how we were refused eternally life BUT not cursed. Actually, Ea wanted us to have knowledge, he just didn't think humans being overpopulated was such a good idea.

 

Actually, the thing behind the story was that the amoritic, assyrian, and babylonian tribes is that nothing was really lost in the story. They actually believed that eternal life was a bad thing, and Ea refused to give us eternal life, because it wasn't as good as we at first thought, and he was doing us a favor by telling us to refuse it.

[orlando]

Genesis predates the hellenistic period by many years. Sometimes the simple explanation is the right one. "Now the snake was the most subtle of all the wild animals that Yahweh had made etc etc..." this sounds like a simple folk story, not some allusion to a Pagan god. You are welcome to your theory, but I don't see why it *has* to be the right one.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Genesis predates the hellenistic period by many years.

It was completed in the hellenistic era. Presumably by the same people in the Sanhedrin that formed the Old Testament canon, but who knows. Though either way, while it was from prior material, the book itself doesnt predate the hellenistic.

 

Sometimes the simple explanation is the right one. "Now the snake was the most subtle of all the wild animals that Yahweh had made etc etc..." this sounds like a simple folk story, not some allusion to a Pagan god.

I would say that you cast too much doubt, but I like that you approach this with skepticism. And that's actually a good thing, so I won't discourage you. It's actually a good thing.

 

Now, what you seem to miss is that most jewish folktales, myths, and stories have a near eastern equivelent. Not always because of the jews borrowing, but becausee they have a common origin. The jews were originally pagan, they didn't just give up their old stories they loved so dearly, they incorporated them to their current religion.

 

The goddess who created mankind became a woman, the first woman. Adam, I don't know what he was originally for certain.

 

And when it comes to semitic literature, there isn't much of a difference in how folktales and myths of gods are written.

 

Indeed the simplest explaination is sometimes the right one. Though which one is more likely, a snake talking to Adam and Eve or the Snake? Quite literally, I'm suggesting that the term is actually a name. ha-nachush (or ha-nachash as wiki put it, I wasn't sure of the vowels), literally means "the serpent". As we already know.

 

However, it's not so simple. Also in the Bible, and in other hebrew literature, there is an association with nahash (nachash, same thing, but don't spell it that way in hebrew lol, hebrew has 2 distinct "h" sounds) with divination.

 

For example, Moses made a nahash/serpent of bronze come from the staff. (Yeah it gets translated "fiery", but it says bronze). As it's explained in the Zohar, it refers actually to a demonic serpent. here's a little reading on it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yGsRF6S7hDMC&pg=PT378&dq=nahash+serpent&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=C0YOTPCmE5W-yQTd2cHECg&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

In akkadian, there is a god whose name means serpent, who is depicted as a serpent, who also has an association with bronze staves, and is associated with divination. So? What connection could their possibly be? 2 gods, bronze staff, divination, who cares?

 

It's not the only time that Hebrew folktales have turned out to have akkadian origins. For example, here is some:

 

Gilgamesh - Found in a fragment of The Book of Giants

Lilitu/Lilit - Found in jewish literature as Lilith

Atrahasis/Utnapishtim - Story may be a little different, but remarkably the same as Noah

 

There are others. My theory didn't begin there, it was only after I looked into the fact that there are some interesting things said about both serpents. I'll post the rest in a seperate area to not derail further. Though my theory is based largely on things that are already established facts.

 

Though your skepticism is well founded. There are alot of baseless claims out there regarding parallel stories.

 

You are welcome to your theory, but I don't see why it *has* to be the right one.

I'm just saying that the story is referring to a jewish demon that was once not a demon. Satan, in his only occurance in the old testament appears as ha-satan, it's weird that they put a definite article at the beginning of the name, but its not all that unusual with regard to names.

 

Also, by what you say, we should say that the Bible says,

"In the beginning, Gods created the heavens and the earth."

 

As the simple way to translate that is to translate each word literally and leave it at that, and nevermind what the text might mean when you look at the verbage used. Which clearly indicates that its referring to one God. The same occurs sometimes when referring to Nergal in the akkadian texts, he's referred to as "gods".

 

O, and just a note, I'm not saying mine "has" to be right. I'm saying I think it's right, I'm just putting my idea out there. I'm willing to be wrong, and probably am. It's just a theory, not a fact yet, just what I think is likely based on the analysis of the facts surrounding it.

 

Could it be a folktale? It is one. Could it be about just a snake and not a hebrew demonized god? Yeah.

[Guest]

This snake may have ignored God's ban on walking:

 

[Lee]

The other thing about this passage that bugs me is the christian assumption that it contains a prophecy about jesus:

 

"I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel" (v.15)

 

I don't know how many times as a christian I heard it asserted that the woman's offspring was a reference to jesus. If that's the case, then who is satan's offspring?

 

It seems to me that not only is satan being read back into the story, but so is jesus. I agree with Orlando that the simplest answer is the most probable.

[orlando]

Yes, the obvious meaning is just that snakes bite at people's heels and people don't like snakes and hit them with sticks...

 

That photo of a snake with a leg is pretty weird.

[★ Citsonga ★]

It seems to me that not only is satan being read back into the story, but so is jesus.

 

They have to read Jesus into the OT, since he's not there. If you look at the NT claims of prophetic fulfillment in Jesus and then look up the OT texts quoted and read them in context, again and again you'll find that they had nothing to do with what the NT authors claimed they were about (which is why apologists came up with the "dual prophecy" bullshit to try to sidestep this issue).

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Yet that doesn't mean one fairy tail can't be passed from one culture to another. Just look at the influence of the Babylonian religion on ancient greek religion. There are lots of influences that came through Anatolia and phoenicia.

[dB-Paradox]

It seems to me that not only is satan being read back into the story, but so is jesus.

 

They have to read Jesus into the OT, since he's not there. If you look at the NT claims of prophetic fulfillment in Jesus and then look up the OT texts quoted and read them in context, again and again you'll find that they had nothing to do with what the NT authors claimed they were about (which is why apologists came up with the "dual prophecy" bullshit to try to sidestep this issue).

What do you mean he's not there...wasn't that him with shadrach meshach and abednego in the buring furnace? Wasn't that him who fought Jacob all night? And even though he wasn't seen, wasn't it him in the lion's den with Daniel? He was the invisible dude petting their bellies, making them purr, no? Hey wait a minute....are you telling me that the Christian myth inserted Jesus into their belief to fit some of the OT stories? LOL!

[R Alan Boyle]

I am not familiar with any evidence to suggest that Genesis (especially the primeval myths) were still being formed during the Hellenistic period. Most likely they were written in a form reasonably similar to ours by no later than the exile in 597bc. They would have probably been passed down verbally for millennia before this time. These stories were essential to the origins of the people and would have been known in similar fashion to the histories and myths surrounding modern civilizations (like Honest Abe, or Washington throwing a coin across the Potomac.

 

Certainly myths were often borrowed form other cultures (the Flood narrative is Gilgamesh translated into a monotheistic worldview). The primitive view of historicity was not subject to modern criteria and therefore should not be held to modern standards of what constitutes "truth" or "fact." The bottom line is that these people used this story to explain how they came to be as they were and it didn't really matter if it physically happened as told.

 

A good point was brought up about the word satan. One might note that in the Hebrew scriptures Satan is never used in the personal, always in the positional. The idea of a Satan (deity) is a Christian idea, not a Jewish idea.

 

Every religion and non-religion has trouble when it comes to the very first moments of existence. The myths and theories tend to bend (or break) the rules generally agreed upon by the rest of the histories within that worldview.

 

Christianity adds Jesus into these myths (and Islam adds Muhammad). Judaism neglects the negative role of YHWH in this narrative. Buddhism overlooks origins almost completely. Hinduism shares many similarities to the Jewish origin myths (talking animals and deity personification). Atheism tends to overlook the ex nihilo nihil (something from nothing) problem with Big Bang.

 

So, who tempted Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve never lived and were not tempted. But, the story explains to a monotheistic culture how they exist, and why life is hard. Who can blame them for trying to answer those questions? We all do, and in 3,000 years I am sure people will read our books and talk about how stupid we were.

 

 

 

I really enjoyed reading your responses. I haven't had these conversations since college (BA in Religion).

 

 

R. Alan Boyle

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

I am not familiar with any evidence to suggest that Genesis (especially the primeval myths) were still being formed during the Hellenistic period.

Learn about the Sanhedrin, I kid you not, they formed the Old Testament between the Hellenistic period, and the canon wasn't even closed during the time of Jesus, but well after that. That's why Christianity sometimes has different books for the old testament, because different religious groups had different texts, canons and so on.

 

Most likely they were written in a form reasonably similar to ours by no later than the exile in 597bc.

You say that based on what? And why have no fragments been found? We have tablets from the time acrossed the region, none of which are Genesis. Actually, I'm 100% certain that there were no books in the fertile cresent outside Egypt at that time. As there was just epics, and lots of them. And often, one tablet would have copies found everywhere in the region. The assyrians and babylonians usually took the tablets from the temples of the conquered people and made copies of them, why haven't we found any in the Library of Asshurbanipal nor other libraries in the region?

 

Certainly myths were often borrowed form other cultures (the Flood narrative is Gilgamesh translated into a monotheistic worldview).

Sort of... not really...

Maybe the part where Utnapishtim tell's his story, but the Epic of Gilgamesh largely has nothing to do with a flood, except near the end of it.

 

The primitive view of historicity was not subject to modern criteria and therefore should not be held to modern standards of what constitutes "truth" or "fact." The bottom line is that these people used this story to explain how they came to be as they were and it didn't really matter if it physically happened as told.

I don't think that this is lost on anyone here, that classical history is often infused with myths, but the Bible being a religious text, is like the Bibliotheca of Apollodorus, it has way more myth than history. As the Bible wasn't originally supposed to be meant as a history book, it's got far less truth and facts than the Histories of Herodotus for example.

 

Atheism tends to overlook the ex nihilo nihil (something from nothing) problem with Big Bang.

No it doesn't. It's just that the Big Bang theory is seperate from M-theory. Look up M-theory.

 

So, who tempted Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve never lived and were not tempted.

Without that story, how does Christianity continue? What reason do we need to be "saved" and ask for forgiveness? God made us as we are, so why are we the ones who should apologise?

 

Indeed they never did, but clearly the story is a metaphor for blind obedience to god.

 

But, the story explains to a monotheistic culture how they exist, and why life is hard. Who can blame them for trying to answer those questions? We all do, and in 3,000 years I am sure people will read our books and talk about how stupid we were.

And how smart we were, all depending on what aspect of humanity they refer to.

After 4,000 years, people still think the Sumerians and Egyptians were smart, they had a genious idea to invent writing. Without it, there would be no modern world, and no western civilization.

 

I really enjoyed reading your responses. I haven't had these conversations since college (BA in Religion).

I started into a degree in anthropology and archaeology but had to put it on hold. Now I just study that and religion for a hobby. It's great to meet someone with similar interests!

[R Alan Boyle]

Learn about the Sanhedrin, I kid you not, they formed the Old Testament between the Hellenistic period, and the canon wasn't even closed during the time of Jesus, but well after that. That's why Christianity sometimes has different books for the old testament, because different religious groups had different texts, canons and so on.

I am well aware that the current Biblical Canon was formed at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD; about 300 after Jesus died. It would be silly to point out to me how sketchy that whole situation was because I am well aware of the inconsistencies and general shadiness surrounding the formation of what we call the Bible.

To the point that the Sanhedrin played a major role in organizing the writings of the “Old Testament” there is no doubt. I was not arguing that they played no role in organizing or canonizing them. I was arguing that they played no (or little) role in forming them. That is, they played no role in creating the narratives.

 

You say that based on what? And why have no fragments been found? We have tablets from the time acrossed the region, none of which are Genesis. Actually, I'm 100% certain that there were no books in the fertile cresent outside Egypt at that time. As there was just epics, and lots of them. And often, one tablet would have copies found everywhere in the region. The assyrians and babylonians usually took the tablets from the temples of the conquered people and made copies of them, why haven't we found any in the Library of Asshurbanipal nor other libraries in the region?

 

I can’t speak to the point of scrolls however short transcriptions on clay pottery have been found in the region containing portions of Hebrew texts (probably not Genesis). I don’t know much about archeology; I know more about linguistics. I’ll keep my arguments to the Pentateuch since that is the primary conversation here. The leading theory among scholarship (Secular, Christian, and liberal Judaism) about the origins of the Pentateuch is the Four Source Hypothesis AKA the Documentary Hypothesis. It asserts the following sources were written at the dates given then later woven together by a redactor to form what we now have as the Pentateuch. It is possible that this redactor lived during the Hellenistic period. Again, I am not arguing that the books were not compiled during this time. I am only arguing that they were not written during this time.

 

J and E were written during the Divided Kingdom between 722 and 922 BC J in the North and E in Judah

P was written after the fall of the Israelite Kingdom (North) between 715 and 687BC

D was written during the reign of Josiah in Judah 640 and 609 BC

 

Some good books on the subject are; Who Wrote the Bible and The Bible with Sources Revealed- both by Friedman; a respected scholar in all circles.

 

 

Sort of... not really...

Maybe the part where Utnapishtim tell's his story, but the Epic of Gilgamesh largely has nothing to do with a flood, except near the end of it.

Generally scholarship accepts that at least three Flood Narratives excisted in Mesopotamia before the writing of Genesis. This is the case even if one accepts the most conservative (earliest) writing of the Flood Narrative. Two of these FN are named for the language in which they are written, Akkadian and Sumarian. The Third is Gilgamesh. As I discussed before, the Documentary Hypothesis is the most widely accepted view of how the Pentateuch came to be. The second is the Fragmentary Hypothesis. Combined, the two account for the overwhelming majority of experts on the subject. Both views accept that the Gilgamesh narrative and the Biblical flood narrative are closely related. Due in part to at least 33 doublets (exact phrases) Gilgamesh and the Biblical FL at least come from the same source(s) if they are not the source of one another. The Documentary Hypothesis holds that the Akkadian and Sumarian sources were brought together to form Gilgamesh which was then used in creating the Noahtic Narrative. The Fragmentary Hypothesis holds that the Akkadian and Sumarian sources were used to create Gilgamesh and Noahtic independently.

Here are my sources: Ruth E. Simoons-Vermeer, "Mesopotamian Floodstories: a Comparison and Interpretation," Numen 21, no. 1 (April 1974): 17-34.

Shemuel Shaviv, "The Polytheistic Origins of the Biblical Flood Narrative," Vetus testamentum 54, no. 4 (2004): 527-548. Hans Walter Wolff, "Kerygma of the Yahwist," Interpretation 20, no. 2 (April 1966): 131-158.

David L. Petersen, "Yahwist on the Flood," Vetus testamentum 26, no. 4 (October 1976): 438-446.

John A Emerton, "An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis, pt 2," Vetus testamentum 38, no. 1 (January 1988): 1-21.

 

 

I don't think that this is lost on anyone here, that classical history is often infused with myths, but the Bible being a religious text, is like the Bibliotheca of Apollodorus, it has way more myth than history. As the Bible wasn't originally supposed to be meant as a history book, it's got far less truth and facts than the Histories of Herodotus for example.

Even is one is zealous in removing any part of the Bible that could be Myth There is still more History than Myth. Remove the Primeval Period, the Exodus, all of the miracles. Any reference to God, the poetry of the OT, and Revelation, and you are left with most of the text. You are left with the vast majority of the conquest of Canaan which accounts for a huge portion of the OT history text. You are left with almost all of the exilic and post exilic text. You are left with Jesus as a Nazarene man (for which there is extra-biblical evidence), you are left with the early church and most of the Epistles. The Bible is a religious text, but it does have historical significance and is used by secular scholarship to study ancient Near Eastern culture.

 

 

No it doesn't. It's just that the Big Bang theory is seperate from M-theory. Look up M-theory.

It’s funny that you bring up M-Theory since I have recently taken quite an interest in it. First, in testing and researching M-Theory, physicists have had no consistent results. Second, M-Theory and other forms of String theory are awesome, and I truly hope we get some consistent physical results in my lifetime. Third, I would wager that the average atheist could not begin to explain string theory and therefore it is unwarranted to say that most atheists have not overlooked ex nihilo nihil in hanging their faith on the Big Bang. To the same degree that a very conservative Christian knows little to nothing about Gilgamesh and therefore cannot use it as an argument for anything, so the average atheist cannot use M-Theory as an argument for ex nihilo nihil.

 

Without that story, how does Christianity continue? What reason do we need to be "saved" and ask for forgiveness? God made us as we are, so why are we the ones who should apologise?

 

Indeed they never did, but clearly the story is a metaphor for blind obedience to god.

I think this is a good point; at least for Judaism. Following the example of Christ, which is the definition of Christianity, has nothing to do with salvation, Heaven or Hell. Unfortunately, many Christians have borrowed the Jewish cycle of damnation and salvation based on a method of sinning and atoning for sin. If a person is already operating within this framework then the person must explain why they are in this state. This is the purpose of “The Fall of Man” narrative. The Hebrew people contemporary to the creation of this narrative were constantly attacked and enslaved by the people around them. Why would they not feel as if they were in some fallen state for which they needed to atone?

 

 

And how smart we were, all depending on what aspect of humanity they refer to.

After 4,000 years, people still think the Sumerians and Egyptians were smart, they had a genious idea to invent writing. Without it, there would be no modern world, and no western civilization.

That’s true. People will see our accomplishments and applaud us. But, they will also see the things that they will later call superstition and wonder why we believed these things.

 

Thanks for bringing up intelligent arguments rather then simply dismissing mine.

[Guest Valk0010]

The primitive view of historicity was not subject to modern criteria and therefore should not be held to modern standards of what constitutes "truth" or "fact."

 

So are you saying we shouldn't be so damn skeptical? When I hear, that I think, ohhh this apologist, is saying give them the benefit of the doubts.

 

Am I wrong?

[R Alan Boyle]

The primitive view of historicity was not subject to modern criteria and therefore should not be held to modern standards of what constitutes "truth" or "fact."

 

So are you saying we shouldn't be so damn skeptical? When I hear, that I think, ohhh this apologist, is saying give them the benefit of the doubts.

 

Am I wrong?

 

Actually, I am saying that these primitive narratives were never intended to be a historical account. When Conservative Christians claim that the Earth is 6000 years old or that God created the Earth in 6 days, they have misunderstood the narratives. A person can easily abandon this dogma and still follow the example of Christ.

[Guest Valk0010]

The primitive view of historicity was not subject to modern criteria and therefore should not be held to modern standards of what constitutes "truth" or "fact."

 

So are you saying we shouldn't be so damn skeptical? When I hear, that I think, ohhh this apologist, is saying give them the benefit of the doubts.

 

Am I wrong?

 

Actually, I am saying that these primitive narratives were never intended to be a historical account. When Conservative Christians claim that the Earth is 6000 years old or that God created the Earth in 6 days, they have misunderstood the narratives. A person can easily abandon this dogma and still follow the example of Christ.

 

Ohhh okay, you using that idea differently ahh I see, my mistake.