Näemme kaksi päälinjaa Mesopotamian tekstien ja Genesiksen suhteesta
- Babylonian kertomukset ovat korruptoituneita muotoja Raamatun kertomuksista
- Babylonian tekstit ovat vähäarvoisia tai arvottomia Raamattuun verrattuna ja voidaan sivuttaa olan kohautuksella
Ken Ham The president/CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis-U.S. and the highly acclaimed Creation Museum, Ken Ham is one of the most in-demand Christian speakers in North America.
Ken Ham 2012 esittää perustavan argumentin - Genesis on ensin! Sama argumentti esitetään Gilgamesh eepoksen vedenpaisumuskertomuksesta.
The events in Genesis 1–11 would have been remembered and passed down for generations. But, as man multiplied after the global Flood, later generations that embraced false gods would have every reason to corrupt those accounts and attribute them to their own idols. Hermann Gunkel and Dr. Enns get it backwards: Genesis is not a collection of legends—those legends, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Enuma Elish, are corrupted versions of the accounts in Genesis!
Lee Anderson käyttää tätä argumenttia 2013 väittelyssä Peter Ennsin kanssa
Comparing the Genesis creation record with the Enuma Elish, he contends that Genesis is not a prototype for the Babylonian myth, but rather presupposes the “far older Babylonian theology of the dominant culture” (Enns 2012, p. 39).4 Because of the presumed connection between the Enuma Elish and the biblical creation record,
any thought of Genesis 1 providing a scientifically or historically accurate account of cosmic origins, and therefore being wholly distinct from the ‘fanciful’ story in Enuma Elish, cannot be seriously entertained. (Enns 2012, pp. 40–41)5
Similarly, Enns draws comparisons between the biblical Flood narrative, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the ancient myth of Atrahasis. Though he admits that the biblical account has unique polemical elements, he concludes that
The distinct theology of the biblical flood story, however, does not imply that it is of a higher historical or scientific order than the other ancient flood stories. (Enns 2012, p. 49)
Clifford A. Wilson sivuuttaa eepoksen vähäarvoisena 1994 ja 2008
Enuma Elish—This is the Babylonian Creation Record. We also have the Ebla Creation Tablet. The Bible record is clearly superior to this as the Enuma Elish has creation from pre-existing matter, which really isn’t creation at all. The Bible is the true account of this historical event.
Jud Davis nosti kysymyksen esiin 2012 antamatta sen kummempia vastauksia
I knew that the religion department doubted the authorship of Old Testament books. For them, the myth Enuma Elish was more important for understanding Genesis than was Moses, Paul, or Jesus. Most of them believed that evolution disproved Christianity once and for all. Jesus was just a man, and the Bible was a book like any other book—written only by man and full of errors.
During my search, I even went to the national Evangelical Theological Society meeting and attended their session on Genesis 1–2. During a panel discussion, some scholars began to openly mock the traditional view. Others assured the audience that Enuma Elish, and the like, were the key to understanding Genesis. I felt like I was back in Peabody Hall. What was happening?
David Livingston etsii Baabelin tornia 2008 artikkelissa sivuuttaa eepoksen Cambridge Ancient History kuvausta osittain lainaten, se siitä...
The religio-political systems that developed in early cities would later expand into empires. Babel was just the first. Fifty-four miles south of Baghdad, it was a huge city in its heyday, with walls 14 miles (23 km) long and 135 feet (41 m) thick. The famous Hanging Gardens were a part of the temple tower. Among many archaeological treasures discovered in the city were the clay tablets with the Enuma Elish Creation Epic, which some scholars mistakenly say inspired the biblical creation story. However, even a cursory reading of the Enuma Elish shows that it is a later corruption of the true account in Scripture.
This, then, was the motive for Enuma Elish.
Noel Weeks koetti keskustella Genesiksen ja Babylonin suhteesta hieman perusteellisemmin, mutta ei sitten pääse asiassa oikien puusta pitkään 1979