En löytänyt selaamiltani sivuilta yhtään sitä valheellista argumenttia, jota AiG sivustolla vilisee, että Genesis olisi muka alkuperäinen josta babylonialaiset tekstit ovat korruptoituneet. En myöskään AiG tyypililsiä tuhahduksia - päin vastoin, Enuma elish otetaan kielellisesti ja asiallisesti huomioon monessa sivuston kirjoituksessa.
Mutta Gilgamesh eepoksen kohdalla löytyy itsensä Jonathan Sarfatin kirjoittama artikkeli, jossa kerrotaan että Genesiksen kertomus vedenpaisumuksesta "on vanhempi kuin Gilgamesh". Hän toistaa samat väitteet Ruotsissa 2010.
Clifford A. Wilson 1994
sama artikkeli kuin AiG
creation.com
Murray Adamthwaite 2013
Vakavampi artikkeli, lyhennelmä Journal of Creation Is Genesis 1 Just Reworked Babylonian Myth?
Otan siitä tähän lainauksia
One might well wonder how in the world anyone could find “parallels” with Genesis in such a crude and bloodthirsty story, unless the wish be father to the thought. Needless to say, the whole theme of conflict among the gods is entirely absent from Genesis 1, and belongs to the essence of polytheism. Some critics have appealed inter alia to Isa. 51:9–10 and Psalm 74:14 to find the remnants of such an idea, but these passages deal with the historical event of the Exodus, using perhaps the language of mythology, but without the substance. We do similar things in our own culture: several of the names of our calendar months derive from Roman gods, while the days of our week for the most part derive from the Norse gods. No-one thereby suggests that Westerners believe in those deities or their respective mythologies.Adamthwaiten artikkeli, jota edellä lainaan, on oikein hyvä apologia. Sen tavoitteena on korostaa luomiskertomuksen ja Enuma elish eepoksen eroja ja torjua ajatus, että Genesis "on vain heprealaisten kirjurien uudelleen kirjoittama mesopotamialainen myytti", jonka hän omistaa Franz Delitschille.
The first observation is that this is a political document, setting forth why Babylon is the pre-eminent city in the world with its pre-eminent deity, Marduk, as opposed to Anu or Ea or whoever. As such it constituted part of ritual for the Akitu new-year festival which re-confirmed the kingship for the coming year. Genesis 1 has no such function, and assertions to the contrary—commonly alleged by critical or secular scholars—are merely circular reasoning.
Second, it is a theogony rather than a cosmogony, that is, its basic intent is to explain the origin of gods rather than the origin of the universe, where the latter is more of an afterthought.
Third, in Enuma Elish the world and man are emanations from divine substance, i.e. both are of the “stuff” of gods. There is no Creator-creature distinction. Moreover, Marduk is a fashioner, not a true creator.5 Creation ex nihilo seemed to be beyond the conception of the Babylonians.
Fourth, Enuma Elish has no six-days-plus-one format. The seven tablets of the epic are irrelevant; they have nothing to do with days (or long periods either, for that matter).
The final overall point concerns the chronological setting of what we might call “origins literature” in the Ancient Near East. K.A. Kitchen argues that this is clearly the early 2nd millennium BC, as opposed to later periods of Near Eastern history.6
He then concludes:
“In short, the idea that the Hebrews in captivity in Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon (6th century BC) first ‘borrowed’ the content of early Genesis at that late date is a non-starter.”
Although I do not accept the conventional 2nd millennium chronology, otherwise his point still holds: the early second millennium BC (and earlier) is the period for Mesopotamian—and Hebrew—‘origins literature’, and not later.
creation.com
Hän ei apologina mitenkään pyri ymmärtämään kertomusten välisiä syviä yhteyksiä. Kreationistien kirjoituksista kuitenkin paras tähän asti kohtaamistani.
Tas Walker käsittelee Dr John Dickson "Science reading Bible" Tekstin lisäksi haastattelu sisältää paljon keskustelua Enum elish aiheesta.
[John Dickson] Well we are really greatly helped by a number of discoveries that occurred in the 19th century, actually virtually the same year that Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species was published. We discovered some tablets in the Middle East that gave us an account of creation very similar to the Genesis account but it came from the Babylonians. It’s called the Enuma elish. And on these tablets was written a story, on seven tablets actually, it’s a seven stage story, which is interesting. But the opening lines of Enuma elish say that before the origin of the world there was a watery chaos. Now that’s interesting because that’s the same thing that you have in Genesis.Ouch! Dickson asettuu helpoksi maalitauluksi tällaisen typeryyden kanssa ja saa mitä ansaitsee.
creation.com
Charles W. Taylor tarkasteli Genesiksen kieltä 1997
This leaves us with the traditional interpretation (c). In this connection, Koenig notes that bere’shith in Genesis 1:1 “appears without the article, appearing in use practically as a proper noun.”17 Thus the setting of verse 1 is the very beginning, in a stressed form. Making it part of an adverbial conjunction is only a concession to liberal ideas gathered from the Babylonian epic “enuma elish”. The full weight of original creation must be placed on “the beginning”
creation.com
A.S. Kulikovsky arvioi Creation out of nothing kirjaa 2004
In chapter 1, Copan and Craig present Scriptural evidence from the Old Testament supporting creation ex nihilo. They rightly affirm the uniqueness of the account and its superiority over other ancient near eastern accounts such as Enuma Elish. They also rightly affirm that בראשית (berē’šĭt) in Genesis 1:1 is in the absolute form rather than the construct form. I.e. the traditional translation ‘In the beginning, God … ’ is correct and the alternative ‘In the beginning, when God … ’ is grammatically awkward and contextually unsustainable.
creation.com
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti