On an assumption that reference is made to stories in Genesis of persons and events such as Noah and the Flood, it makes much sense to suppose that other people, as well as the Hebrews, would have a collective recollection of events handed down orally from great antiquity. This serves to reinforce the veracity of the stories, rather than debunk them. The inspired authors used these stories to teach fundamental truths about God and Man and the relationship between them. In this light, one considers everything true without being overly concerned with a degree of vagueness of chronology or preciseness of description in the telling. The Bible is not a history book, not a scientific treatise, not a police blotter. It is the inspired word of God, told in the idiom of the people and times of it’s writing. It speaks to us as clearly to them, as we are informed as to the nature of it as revelation. Such is my humble understanding of it and I’m sure others can add more from greater learning.
Welcome
Bill1940’s post is great for alleviating any concerns you may have. Scripture must always be taken in context.
Welcome
Bill1940’s post is great for alleviating any concerns you may have. Scripture must always be taken in context.
I would add, however, that the assertion that “the bible” is based on “Sumerian text” is an assertion that your friend is making, therefore the burden of truth lies on him/her. You can hardly “defend the faith” when you aren’t even given anything to back up your friend’s assertion.
The internet is full of sites that make broad sweeping comments like this. I am amazed at how many people I talk to reiterate these broad sweeping comments that they have picked up in an effort to sound knowledgeable. I usually find when I question them, that they know nothing deeper about the arguments being made and are therefore difficult to converse with.
Parts of the Old Testaments are indeed copied from Babylonians: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism But christianity is based on the New Testament (i.e. the teaching of Jesus Christ), and these texts have no Babilonian influences
Thats exactly what I mean. Wikipedia for some reason is regarded as a source of all truth. It is very easy to find opinion cited on wikipedia and often it is biased by a lack of representation of conflicting opinions.Parts of the Old Testaments are indeed copied from Babylonians: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism But christianity is based on the New Testament (i.e. the teaching of Jesus Christ), and these texts have no Babilonian influences
Oh, and regarding Saturnalia… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia#Influence_on_Christmas
Hello I’m new to catholic answers.QUOTE]
Welcome:thumbsup:
Here, have some of mine!
Those who make the allegations bear the burden of proof. This is not your job, but theirs.
Here, have some of mine!
The creation story of Genesis is a polemic against the ideas of the Babylonian creation story of the Enuma Elish. By using the outline of the Babylonian creation story, the fundemental contrasting ideas are emphasized. Here in the Jewish story of creation the Babylonian creation story is turned on its head. We have a single eternal God who in what can be seen as a challenge to all other cultures and peoples, is declared to be the source of all things. There is no birth of God or death of God. There is no violence or metamorphosis. Things come into being by the mere will of God.
Which came first? (Note, different than “which version do we have the earliest known copy of”?) Until we can answer that question, all we can really state is that a)they are similar and b)there is some sort of connection between the early Hebrews and Sumerians.