The Creation of Man and its Purpose

[avflf]

Uh huh. Why is Sacred Scripture called Sacred? To honor men or to honor God.? Who spoke through the prophets? Men?
God bless,
Ed

Your priesthood did. The book itself has no name but it is called the Bible (Gk biblos-papyrus, scrolls; Lat. biblia-books). The Hebrew took the first words of the book as the title of the particular book, thus Genesis’ Hebrew name is “In the beginning”.
The majority of the Bible is made of stories about the nation of Israel and, as they believed their god had a hand in everything they did and rewarded or punished them according to their good or bad ways and these punishments were rather savage, it is not surprising they would suck up to him with praises, boasts (he was the most powerful of all gods) and ritual sacrifices.
The prophets predicted events in the near future such as calamities, that anyone with eyes to see could also have done and sweetened the pill by promising a great future in the end-times.
I once prophesied the fate of a country 15 years before it came to pass but only because I could read the events unfolding. I, of course, was not believed at the time, but it came to pass. I would not put it to divine enlightenment. I, however, did not sweeten the blow and only promised worse conditions to follow. That also has come to pass.
The other thing one must consider is that most of the prophetic “visions” are related in books that were written after the events took place - the Book of Daniel is a good example of prophecy after the fact. So, yes, the prophets were men with a better understanding of current events than the majority of the population. Nothing supernatural there.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

avflf

Is the OP “The creation of man and its purpose” or “Do the Scriptures contain salvific truth free from error?”

The First Vatican General Council, Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius” on the Catholic Faith (1870):

“These books of the Old and New Testaments are to be received as sacred and canonical in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate.”

 

[avflf]

avflf

Is the OP “The creation of man and its purpose” or “Do the Scriptures contain salvific truth free from error?”

The First Vatican General Council, Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius” on the Catholic Faith (1870):

“These books of the Old and New Testaments are to be received as sacred and canonical in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council and are contained in the ancient Latin edition of the Vulgate.”

OK, Kevin. If it works for you to trust in the Church’s apologetics writings, which are necessary for the priesthood to keep on earning a living, rather than in scholars that actually studied the Book with the aim of getting as close to the truth as possible, go for it.
I differ from you there and it works for me, too. So we agree to disagree, OK?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

OK, Kevin. If it works for you to trust in the Church’s apologetics writings, which are necessary for the priesthood to keep on earning a living, rather than in scholars that actually studied the Book with the aim of getting as close to the truth as possible, go for it.
I differ from you there and it works for me, too. So we agree to disagree, OK?

“…getting as close to the truth as possible…”
Is this an open-minded argument or one penalizing the Church? Your objection infers anything other than the Church is Truth. That the further we go from the Church the more rational our argument? avflf Would it surprise you to discover there are also prospectors batting for the other side, seeking financial advantage?
Is this argument now turning toward support for the atheist agenda, which is beginning to appear as a social club having no more wind in its sails than being anti-Church, anti-God?

 

[avflf]

“…getting as close to the truth as possible…”
Is this an open-minded argument or one penalizing the Church? Your objection infers anything other than the Church is Truth. That the further we go from the Church the more rational our argument? avflf Would it surprise you to discover there are also prospectors batting for the other side, seeking financial advantage?
Is this argument now turning toward support for the atheist agenda, which is beginning to appear as a social club having no more wind in its sails than being anti-Church, anti-God?

No, nothing of the sort. Your leanings and my opinion, that’s all.

 

[TheQuestioner]

It all depends what definition of “love” do you use here.

No, it doesn’t. That’s the thing. If by love you mean attraction then i have news for you, that is not what encompasses love. Attraction is not controllable in the first place. By love I mean the sacrificial love, true devotion and working and willing the good of the other. There are people who are attracted to each other but do not have the above devotion.

Why? A child is basking in the love of the parents, and there is no choice involved there.

Yes there is. If that child is difficult it makes that love harder to come to fruition. Every good thing you do for the child, if the child hates you, will only anger that child (think of teen angst and rebellion, where every time the parent tries to compromise the child responds negatively). It is the same as a party. If you let yourself be totally absorbed into the fun then you too will have fun, but if you hate to be there you will be miserable, even if the music gets louder, the food comes out and more people show up and try to speak to you.

Absolutely. The creator is always responsible for the well-being of the created. There is a wise, old Oriental custom: “if you save someone’s life, you assume full responsibility for his well being”.

Fair enough

The assumed good things coming from God’s love is the logical obligation of having been created. No further reason is necessary.

Logical obligation of having been created? I’m not sure what you mean here, but I will assume you mean our natural rights. However, though good things will come from simply being created (our natural rights), without free will we will not be deserving of any reward beyond them. So heaven could not belong to anyone because they cannot go above and beyond their programmed good deeds. Heaven is for those who not only do good, but choose good. This is because, as I have stated, heaven is being filled with God, love itself. However, love is a choice, so logically it cannot be forced on anyone. In the same way heaven therefore cannot be forced on anyone.

True, but only a semantical disctinction.

hmm I don’t think so. It goes beyond mere grammer. Logically something that is not cannot be forced to do something. Its like saying I forced the unicorn to run. All that can be said is that God brought us into being, not forced us into being, as being forced to do something (as if we were in a realm of non-existence and God pulled us from that realm and brought us to the existing world) is a quality of already existing subjects.

Incidentally I did just realized you were right to a degree here. Human kind was originally (if you are a Christian) in the garden of Eden. It wasn’t necessarily heaven though, but was close enough. They were somewhat filled with God, but not to the capacity they could have been if they had chosen Him (before then they were in an intermediate state, not inclined to good or evil). However, this does not change much in terms of our argument, but I thought I would mention it.

I most certainly would choose to be wiped out of existence, if the other possibility would be eternal suffering.

But to continue this line of thought, please provide the definition of love you use. The word has several meanings, and the clarification would be most welcome.

It is easy to say that you would wipe yourself out of existence, but if given the power to do so i don’t know if you will be so sure. But i have nothing to go on but your word on that.

Agape love (look this up). Love that is all encompassing and works toward the good of the other, even to the point of sacrifice.

I noticed you didn’t really attack my main points. So I will have to assume that you at least agree with them, or do have much to say in terms of arguing against them.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not ridiculous at all seeing that the Genesis account of man’s creation was copied from the much older 7 Tablets of Creation from the Sumerians,

First of all, there was already a Judaic religion that had its own understanding of God before there was ever a “bible”. The bible is a theological expression of Judaism, containing mythical tales, folk tales, hero tales, history, theological truths, apologetically arguments, psychology, poetry, revelation and prophesy. The bible is not strictly a history book or a science book, and to look at it as if it was is to completely miss the point of what the authors set out to do in the first place. The Judaic religion is not a produce of the bible; the bible is an expression of Judaic truth and belief.

I agree that many aspects of the stories found in genesis are founded upon other stories taught in other cultures. However the intention of the author is not to copy somebody else’ belief system, but rather it is to create an apologetic refutation of pagan ideas, such as the idea that there are many Gods or that physical nature is God. It is a theological purification of false beliefs. Judaism, through the story of genesis show that their God is the supreme (highest of the highest) since this God created physical nature and all of physical reality out of nothing, and thus also the so called pagan Gods (Judaism did not believe in them).

But it isn’t just a myth, there are also elements in genesis that they believe to be historically true. The myth is not taken “unaltered”. The myth has been altered to serve the truths of Judaism. The purpose was to express their own fundamental belief while refuting others, and they did this sometimes by assimilating other myths and using them for the service of the most high Yahweh. Also, one should not assume that just because they use myth in this manner, that the whole bible is a collection of myths from other religions. That is not true; and i don’t see it being supported by professional bible scholarship; accept for a few quacks who have a bone to pick with Christianity. Despite the assimilation of other myths, the God that is Yahweh is distinct from other belief systems when understood in respect of all the attributes that Judaism gives God.

which also stated that man was created to do the work the gods objected to do themselves. That later, the original purpose was considered rather harsh by the priesthood, who then embellished the record to allow for the life after death concept and instituted a reward and punishment clause does not detract from the original purpose.

It is intellectually dishonest to abstract genesis from the rest of what Judaism understood of their God. You are assuming that they have gotten all their ideas about God from other religions rather than from revelation; when in fact, they took what they agreed with and rejected the rest. We are created to do the will of God, this is true, and the Judaic understanding of Gods will is “Good”, and further developments throughout the bible, especially in the new testament, reveals that God is love. And just because something isn’t explicitly mentioned, doesn’t mean that the people of Judaism did not believe it at that time. To think that the bible contains all that they thought and did, is not a reasonable assumption. I think it is true that they didn’t fully understand Gods revelation all at once, but this is not a good enough reason to think that they manufactured God to suit their own purpose. That is your belief, because it suits your purpose and intentions.

Without assuming to much, it seems evident to me that their understanding of God develops over time, but this is irrelevant to me. So what if there understanding of God appears to develop throughout scripture? This does not take away or refute the fact that through many years of theological reflection on divine revelation given over time they have come to understand that God is love, God is Good, God is supreme being. They have a metaphysical understanding of God that is sophisticated and unique. There idea of God can be shown to exist through metaphysical reflection. Their God is closer to the fact of reality then any other God conceived of, and i believe that their God is the God of our reality. And so far as the Bible documents mans relationship and their developing understanding of the true God through out history, the bible still remains in my opinion a sacred book, free from the erroneous beliefs of other religions.

The concept of God as love is also a much later addition to the belief system, considering that the original idea of God was not of a very lovable entity.

The belief that God is love is not mentioned straight away perhaps. I don’t see that as necessarily implying an arbitrary addition, or any real fundamental change, accept to highlight that which was already there. As they grew in their understanding of Gods revelation to them, they grew to understand that God is love.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]
Now let’s look at one narritive that shows avflf is on the wrong road Matt 7:13:
The Flood of Noah’s day was it copied from Gilgamesh?[/SIGN]

For those of you who may not be familiar with this subject: the early part of the 19th century, the Bible’s record of a worldwide deluge survived by Noah and his family was subjected to much criticism and dismissed by many as mere legend. But due to an archaeological discovery in the spring of 1850, widespread interest in the Noachian flood was once again aroused. Diggings at Nineveh led to the discovery of a room filled with clay tablets. Archaeologists had found the clay-tablet library of Assyrian ruler Ashurbanipal.
Later, as George Smith of the British Museum proceeded to decipher cuneiform texts from this collection, he encountered a series of tablets known as the Gilgamesh Epic. As he worked with one of those tablets, letter by letter he made out:
“Man of Shurippak, son of Ubara-Tutu! Tear down (thy) house, build a ship! Abandon (thy) possessions, seek (to save) life! . . . [Cause to] go up into the ship the seed of all living creatures. The ship which thou shalt build, Its measurements shall be (accurately) measured . . . ”

He realized that he was dealing with a report of the Flood from an Assyro-Babylonian point of view.

Though that version was dated to the seventh century B.C.E., scholars realized that the source material used in its composition was much older. Today some of the more ancient accounts have been discovered. The oldest known non-Biblical Flood account is found in a Sumerian narration. Fragments of that narration on a broken clay tablet were found at Nippur in southern Mesopotamia. Some experts believe that it was written between the 21st and 18th centuries B.C.E. A passage from this Sumerian document reads: “[Give] ear to my instruction: By our . . . a flood [will sweep] over the cult-centers; To destroy the seed of mankind . . . Is the decision, the word of the assembly [of the gods].”
Gilgamesh is thought to have been an early ruler of the town of Uruk (called Erech at Genesis 10:10). A Sumerian king list assigns him to the first dynasty of Uruk. One dictionary says of this individual: “A cycle of Sumerian mythical-epic poetry was built around Gilgamesh, handed down only fragmentarily since about 1900 B.C.E.”
The Gilgamesh Epic itself contains a number of poems combined into one work. It spans 12 clay tablets of which the 11th presents the Flood story that so much interested me. In summary, its contents are as follows: Gilgamesh learns that his friend Enkidu has died. Consequently, fear of death drives Gilgamesh to seek out Utnapishtim, said to be the only mortal who has attained to eternal life. Gilgamesh crosses the river of death by means of a ferryman and meets Utnapishtim, who tells him of the Flood and how he managed to survive it. In an older Babylonian Deluge story Utnapishtim bears the name Atrahasis, meaning “the exceedingly wise one.”

That information on clay shows that a flood of massive proportions had become stamped on the memory of mankind.

After experts had carefully examined the Gilgamesh Epic, opinions became divided over which Flood account was older, the Mesopotamian one mentioned in the Epic, or the one found in the Bible. Many adopted the viewpoint that the non-Biblical account was first. For example, in Gods, Graves, and Scholars, C. W. Ceram asserts that it is “impossible to question the fact that the primal version of the Biblical legend of the Deluge had been found.” Perhaps avflf has based his viewpoint on such a statement.

But is it correct? Does the Flood narrative of Genesis really have its origin in Sumerian or Babylonian legends? It seems best to seek an answer to that question by making a comparison of the Bible’s Flood account with that found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

A global flood occupies a prominent place in the histories of many ancient nations. More than 100 separate Deluge stories from every part of the earth have been found, including the one in the Gilgamesh Epic.

In some details that ancient Mesopotamian Flood account resembles the one in the Holy Scriptures. For instance:

1. Both sources relate that, with the exception of just a few survivors, the entire human race suffers destruction.
2. One person is told to build a vessel for preservation. Waters pour down from the heavens day after day.
3. Afterward, birds are sent out of the vessel to determine whether dry land has emerged. Upon leaving the preservation vessel, survivors offer sacrifice.

But, do these resemblances constitute proof that the Gilgamesh Epic or earlier Mesopotamian Deluge legends take precedence over the Biblical record? Before answering that question, we’ll found it helpful to isolate some of the conspicuous differences…continued

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]dj dave;

But, do these resemblances constitute proof that the Gilgamesh Epic or earlier Mesopotamian Deluge legends take precedence over the Biblical record? Before answering that question, we’ll found it helpful to isolate some of the conspicuous differences…continued[/SIGN]

First, as to the cause of the Deluge. According to the Gilgamesh Epic, an assembly of gods resolved to destroy mankind by means of a flood. Though that decision was to be kept secret, the god Ea (in the Sumerian account “Enki”) warned his favorite, Utnapishtim, about it.

The older Babylonian Atrahasis Epic states that one of the gods (Enlil) felt disturbed in his sleep due to noise made by humans. He turned for help to the divine assembly of “great gods” who then sent a famine for some six years, but without bringing the desired quietness. When the gods decided to send a flood, Ea disclosed the plan to Atrahasis, who built a survival vessel according to divinely given measurement.

The Biblical Flood account is altogether different. In it is stated a truly just cause for the Flood:
“Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. And the earth came to be ruined in the sight of the true God and the earth became filled with violence. So God saw the earth and, look! it was ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. After that God said to Noah: ‘The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.’”—Gen. 6:5, 11-13.

As to perishing in the Flood or surviving it, the Bible relates that people died because they ‘took note’ of neither the work being done by Noah and his family on the ark for survival nor what Noah said as “a preacher of righteousness.” (Matt. 24:39; 2 Pet. 2:5) If they had heeded Noah’s warning words and example, they would have survived.

Too, in the Bible there is no command that Noah keep secret the fact that God was going to bring a global flood. However, the Mesopotamian legend indicates that the god Ea went so far as to suggest that Utnapishtim should deceive his contemporaries so as to keep them in the dark with regard to the coming catastrophe.

Important differences appear also with reference to the effect of the Flood. The Gilgamesh Epic relates that the gods became full of dismay and sought refuge in the highest heavens of the god Anu. Before entering, they “cowered like dogs,” crouched in distress and pressed to the wall. With weeping they raised voices of protest. Especially the goddess Ishtar reproached herself bitterly for originally consenting in the council of gods to mankind’s destruction.

And there are yet further differences. The Epic reports that, following the Flood, when Utnapishtim was about to offer sacrifice, “the gods crowded like flies about the sacrificer.” Ishtar, “the great goddess,” desired to exclude Enlil from the sacrifice and reproached him for having caused the calamity. The Mesopotamian account depicts Enlil as being enraged that one of the human race had survived.

We should find this analysis of similarities and differences to be very helpful in determining which account of the Flood came first, and other reference works there in the National Library confirmed these conclusions.

After noting differences between Flood accounts from the Bible and ancient Babylon, P. J. Wiseman wrote in New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis: “The Bible account is simple in its ideas, and irreproachable in its teaching about God, while the Babylonian tablets are complex and polytheistic. The difference may be compared to that between the pure waters of the springs at the source of the Thames, and the contaminated waters of the docks of London. There are resemblances between a river at its source and at its termination, both are in one sense the same river; so in Genesis we find the story at its pure source, while in the Babylonian it is seen at its contaminated development.”

As for the Bible’s being dependent upon Flood accounts from ancient Babylonia, the Lexikon zur Bibel by Fritz Rienecker contains the remark: “A literary dependence of the Biblical, entirely unmythological Flood account on the Babylonian stories appears to be, however, totally unlikely in view of the differences of both texts in manner and contents.”

From my own study of Bible chronology, I am convinced that the writer of Genesis did not need to draw upon any Babylonian legend. Because of the overlapping of life-spans, the truth about the Flood could easily have been handed down by Noah’s son Shem (who was an eyewitness) through just three human links to Moses, the writer of Genesis. It is unreasonable to think that the Hebrews, who worshiped the same God as Noah did, would not have included an event of such importance in their history.

Also other Bible writers had endorsed the Genesis account. For example, Isaiah and Ezekiel called attention to Noah and the Flood. (Isa. 54:9; Ezek. 14:14, 18, 20) The apostles Peter and Paul made specific references to the Flood. (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5; 3:5, 6; Heb. 11:7) And all such Bible writers, including Moses, were “inspired of God,” which gives me assurance as to the truthfulness of their accounts.—2 Tim. 3:16.

Jesus Christ, too, acknowledged that the Genesis account was the truth. When speaking of the coming Great Tribulation, he said: “For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away,” so it would be at this system’s end.—Matt. 24:21,37-39.
Thus, the research I did strengthened my conviction that the Bible’s account of Genesis is authentic, genuine. It does not rest on the shifting and exaggerated folklore of primitive peoples.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]

Not ridiculous at all seeing that the Genesis account of man’s creation was copied from the much older 7 Tablets of Creation from the Sumerians, which also stated that man was created to do the work the gods objected to do themselves. That later, the original purpose was considered rather harsh by the priesthood, who then embellished the record to allow for the life after death concept and instituted a reward and punishment clause does not detract from the original purpose. The concept of God as love is also a much later addition to the belief system, considering that the original idea of God was not of a very lovable entity.

[/SIGN]

I actually posted this before the “Gilgamesh” post but it didn’t show up…so here is the the first reply to avflf:

Actually, while some have pointed to what seemed to them to have been similarities between the Babylonian epic and the Genesis account of creation, it is readily apparent they are not really similar. Therefore, in considering seeming similarities and differences (such as the order of events) in these accounts, Professor George A. Barton observed: “A more important difference lies in the religious conceptions of the two. The Babylonian poem is mythological and polytheistic. Its conception of deity is by no means exalted. Its gods love and hate, they scheme and plot, fight and destroy. Marduk, the champion, conquers only after a fierce struggle, which taxes his powers to the utmost.

There were various creation stories in ancient Babylon, but the one that has become well known is a myth having to do with Marduk, Babylon’s national god. Briefly, the story tells of the existence of the goddess Tiamat and the god Apsu, who became the parents of other deities. The activities of these gods became so distressing to Apsu that he determined to destroy them. However, Apsu was killed by one of these gods, Ea, and when Tiamat sought to avenge Apsu, she was killed by Ea’s son Marduk, who then split her body, using half of it to form the sky and using the other half in connection with the earth’s establishment. Marduk’s subsequent acts included creating mankind (with Ea’s aid), using the blood of another god, Kingu, the director of Tiamat’s hosts.

Genesis, on the other hand, reflects the most exalted monotheism. God is so thoroughly the master of all the elements of the universe, that they obey his slightest word. He controls all without effort. He speaks and it is done. Granting, as most scholars do, that there is a connection between the two narratives, there is no better measure of the inspiration of the Biblical account than to put it side by side with the Babylonian. As we read the chapter in Genesis today, it still reveals to us the majesty and power of the one God, and creates in the modern man, as it did in the ancient Hebrew, a worshipful attitude toward the Creator.”—Archaeology and the Bible, , pp. 297, 298.

Regarding ancient creation myths in general, it has been stated: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Gn. 1-2.”—New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247.

The Genesis creation account emerges as a scientifically sound document. It reveals the larger categories of plants and animals, with their many varieties, reproducing only “according to their kinds.” The fossil record provides confirmation of this. In fact, it indicates that each “kind” appeared suddenly, with no true transitional forms linking it with any previous “kind,” as required by the evolution theory.

The creation myths of ancient peoples bore no resemblance to what Moses wrote in Genesis. Where, then, did Moses learn all these things? Apparently from someone who was there.

The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with knowledge of the events. The account lists 10 major stages in this order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an expanse or atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8) sea monsters and flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; (10) man. Science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order. What are the chances that the writer of Genesis just guessed this order? The same as if you picked at random the numbers 1 to 10 from a box, and drew them in consecutive order. The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800! So, to say the writer just happened to list the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.

So, let’s look at one of the accounts that avflf might be referring to: The Flood of Noha’s day and The Gilgamesh Epic

 

[avflf]

dj
You are not really just posting for my benefit, are you? You seem to be intending to reveal JW beliefs to the forum posters in general. I apologize in advance if this is not your intention. Well, for your information, the Catholics do not appear to believe in an universal flood and look on Genesis 1 more as poetry than fact. You mentioned the differences between the Epic of Creation and the Genesis account and deem the first to be inferior and polygamist and that’s fine. The problem is that Genesis, in its present form, dates from 450 - 500 BC, though the earliest manuscript, from the Dead Sea Scrolls and comprising 24 fragments, date between 150 and 70 BC, by which time the writers would have refined the theory.
Further, if one does not resort to apologetics and preconceived beliefs, Genesis also conveys a polytheistic concept of gods creating the heavens and the earth and one of them making man in the gods’ image - they all looked the same: 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. etc. In Gen 2 the particular Elohim that created Adam was Yahweh/Jehovah (Jehovah *of the *Elohim - the LORD God), one of many, thus the necessity, later on, for this being to demand full attention “Thou shall have no other gods before (above) me” Ex 20:3. At this stage he was not too concerned about the other gods as long as he was the main honcho. Later, however, as the religion became more refined he is made to say, in Isa 44:6 " … I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
But this idea of the one and only deity is found in ancient Egypt:

The Ancient Egyptians believed in One God who was self-produced, self-existent, immortal, invisible, eternal, omniscient, almighty, etc. This One God was never represented. It is the functions and attributes of his domain that were represented. These attributes were called the neteru (pronounced net-er-u, singular: neter in the masculine form and netert in the feminine form). The term, gods, is a misrepresentation of the Egyptian term, neteru. - egypt-tehuti.org/articles/monotheism-polytheism.html

You’ll find other sites too if you Google “Egyptian Monotheism”, and no, they did not get the idea from the Jews when their God was plaguing Pharaoh.
You also mention in one of your posts that “God spoke and it was done/came to pass”, but that is the Muslim concept as reported in the Holy (to them) Koran. The Holy (to you) Bible states that it took all these Elohim 24 hours - one day *yôm *to bring about each of the creations mentioned in Genesis 1, which the Catholics take as meaning an undisclosed amount of time running in billions of years.

 

[TheQuestioner]

[sign]dj dave;

But, do these resemblances constitute proof that the Gilgamesh Epic or earlier Mesopotamian Deluge legends take precedence over the Biblical record? Before answering that question, we’ll found it helpful to isolate some of the conspicuous differences…continued[/sign]

First, as to the cause of the Deluge. According to the Gilgamesh Epic, an assembly of gods resolved to destroy mankind by means of a flood. Though that decision was to be kept secret, the god Ea (in the Sumerian account “Enki”) warned his favorite, Utnapishtim, about it.

The older Babylonian Atrahasis Epic states that one of the gods (Enlil) felt disturbed in his sleep due to noise made by humans. He turned for help to the divine assembly of “great gods” who then sent a famine for some six years, but without bringing the desired quietness. When the gods decided to send a flood, Ea disclosed the plan to Atrahasis, who built a survival vessel according to divinely given measurement.

The Biblical Flood account is altogether different. In it is stated a truly just cause for the Flood:
“Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. And the earth came to be ruined in the sight of the true God and the earth became filled with violence. So God saw the earth and, look! it was ruined, because all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. After that God said to Noah: ‘The end of all flesh has come before me, because the earth is full of violence as a result of them; and here I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.’”—Gen. 6:5, 11-13.

As to perishing in the Flood or surviving it, the Bible relates that people died because they ‘took note’ of neither the work being done by Noah and his family on the ark for survival nor what Noah said as “a preacher of righteousness.” (Matt. 24:39; 2 Pet. 2:5) If they had heeded Noah’s warning words and example, they would have survived.

Too, in the Bible there is no command that Noah keep secret the fact that God was going to bring a global flood. However, the Mesopotamian legend indicates that the god Ea went so far as to suggest that Utnapishtim should deceive his contemporaries so as to keep them in the dark with regard to the coming catastrophe.

Important differences appear also with reference to the effect of the Flood. The Gilgamesh Epic relates that the gods became full of dismay and sought refuge in the highest heavens of the god Anu. Before entering, they “cowered like dogs,” crouched in distress and pressed to the wall. With weeping they raised voices of protest. Especially the goddess Ishtar reproached herself bitterly for originally consenting in the council of gods to mankind’s destruction.

And there are yet further differences. The Epic reports that, following the Flood, when Utnapishtim was about to offer sacrifice, “the gods crowded like flies about the sacrificer.” Ishtar, “the great goddess,” desired to exclude Enlil from the sacrifice and reproached him for having caused the calamity. The Mesopotamian account depicts Enlil as being enraged that one of the human race had survived.

We should find this analysis of similarities and differences to be very helpful in determining which account of the Flood came first, and other reference works there in the National Library confirmed these conclusions.

After noting differences between Flood accounts from the Bible and ancient Babylon, P. J. Wiseman wrote in New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis: “The Bible account is simple in its ideas, and irreproachable in its teaching about God, while the Babylonian tablets are complex and polytheistic. The difference may be compared to that between the pure waters of the springs at the source of the Thames, and the contaminated waters of the docks of London. There are resemblances between a river at its source and at its termination, both are in one sense the same river; so in Genesis we find the story at its pure source, while in the Babylonian it is seen at its contaminated development.”

As for the Bible’s being dependent upon Flood accounts from ancient Babylonia, the Lexikon zur Bibel by Fritz Rienecker contains the remark: “A literary dependence of the Biblical, entirely unmythological Flood account on the Babylonian stories appears to be, however, totally unlikely in view of the differences of both texts in manner and contents.”

From my own study of Bible chronology, I am convinced that the writer of Genesis did not need to draw upon any Babylonian legend. Because of the overlapping of life-spans, the truth about the Flood could easily have been handed down by Noah’s son Shem (who was an eyewitness) through just three human links to Moses, the writer of Genesis. It is unreasonable to think that the Hebrews, who worshiped the same God as Noah did, would not have included an event of such importance in their history.

Also other Bible writers had endorsed the Genesis account. For example, Isaiah and Ezekiel called attention to Noah and the Flood. (Isa. 54:9; Ezek. 14:14, 18, 20) The apostles Peter and Paul made specific references to the Flood. (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5; 3:5, 6; Heb. 11:7) And all such Bible writers, including Moses, were “inspired of God,” which gives me assurance as to the truthfulness of their accounts.—2 Tim. 3:16.

Good Post! hmmm…Based on the differences I would say that the two accounts are entirely independent. Though they do contain some similarities, so do other flood stories on different continents. The fact that some are from the same region is not necessarily a case for any descent in the story line.

 

[TheQuestioner]

dj
You are not really just posting for my benefit, are you? You seem to be intending to reveal JW beliefs to the forum posters in general. I apologize in advance if this is not your intention. Well, for your information, the Catholics do not appear to believe in an universal flood and look on Genesis 1 more as poetry than fact.

Not true. Catholics can look at the Genesis accounts as poetry, and some do in light of evolution, but we do not outright reject them. If a Catholic wishes to look at the accounts as fact, they can (i think more do then don’t actually).

You mentioned the differences between the Epic of Creation and the Genesis account and deem the first to be inferior and polygamist and that’s fine. The problem is that Genesis, in its present form, dates from 450 - 500 BC, though the earliest manuscript, from the Dead Sea Scrolls and comprising 24 fragments, date between 150 and 70 BC, by which time the writers would have refined the theory.

1. Both stories could have been equally aged, but the babylonian one may have been written down first (in ancient times you would write down insignificant things, but commit important things to memory).
2. Just because one was written down before the other, does not mean that the other must have come from the one that was written first. This is a terrible scholarly mistake.

Further, if one does not resort to apologetics and preconceived beliefs, Genesis also conveys a polytheistic concept of gods creating the heavens and the earth and one of them making man in the gods’ image - they all looked the same: 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. etc. In Gen 2 the particular Elohim that created Adam was Yahweh/Jehovah (Jehovah *of the *Elohim - the LORD God), one of many, thus the necessity, later on, for this being to demand full attention “Thou shall have no other gods before (above) me” Ex 20:3. At this stage he was not too concerned about the other gods as long as he was the main honcho. Later, however, as the religion became more refined he is made to say, in Isa 44:6 " … I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

This too is poor exigenesis. The ancient Hebrews had the concept of a royal “we”, and you will find that God is referred to in the singular, but when He speaks it is in the plural. Second, a Christian will merely say that this hinted at the Trinity.

Your idea of God not caring about who others worship as long as they worship Him first is also wrong. This is because all throughout the book of Kings we see that God is upset with the Judean and Israelite kings because aside from worshiping him, they had sacred alters to other gods in the land. This upset God from the very beginning, even in the time of Solomon. Even though God was the main God of Judah, He was still angry because their attention was divided, and their devotion was not pure, even if he was still the “main honcho”.

The most you can say that though they believed other Gods existed up until the time of exile, they still recognized God as their God. But the strict monotheism did not happen after revision, but revelation.

But this idea of the one and only deity is found in ancient Egypt: You’ll find other sites too if you Google “Egyptian Monotheism”, and no, they did not get the idea from the Jews when their God was plaguing Pharaoh.

The closeness of the dates of the exodus and the introduction of Atenism is Egypt does not help you out here. Moses died at 120 years old, some say in the year 1271BCE, where as Atenism was introduced in Egypt at 1348 initially. This would mean that Moses would have been around 43 years old at this time. Just saying…

You also mention in one of your posts that “God spoke and it was done/came to pass”, but that is the Muslim concept as reported in the Holy (to them) Koran. The Holy (to you) Bible states that it took all these Elohim 24 hours - one day *yôm *to bring about each of the creations mentioned in Genesis 1, which the Catholics take as meaning an undisclosed amount of time running in billions of years.

Again, dishonest. Predating does not mean originating. Second, the idea of “one God” was also found in Persia, which had little contact with Egypt. In fact, the idea of “one God” is found all over the world. In Hinduism there is only essentially one god, with other gods being aspects of that one god. They too had little contact with Egypt if any, and Hinduism is one of the oldest religions. So to reiterate, predating does not mean originating. It is poor scholarship to use this method to prove anything. You need direct links, of which (between the Egyptian Aten and the Hebrew Jehovah) there is very little if any at all. Also, the idea of a literal day in creation has always been a Jewish concept. We know this because Islam (and this we actually have proof for) was derived from Christianity, which in turn got this concept from Judaism. This concept was not invented by Islam. I don’t know why you would even make this argument.

 

[grannymh]

Hey Everyone,

I am posting this more as a response than a Question, of course I want your opinions on the matter to be sure. But I have seen a fairly common misconception among Catholics and others about God’s Reasons for Creating Man. This misconception is that we were Created for the sole purpose of worshipping God, and that God’s reason for sending His Beloved Son to die for us was so that we could be free from sin to worship him more perfectly.

I find fault with this interpretation, and would like your opinions on the matter as fellow philosophers and Catholics. But here is my current understanding:

We can never know completely, all of God’s purposes, but according to the Catechism and Scripture God seems to reveal something much deeper than mere worship as a reason for our making. It seems to reveal that God Created us so that we could know him, love him and He us, and for us to share in His Divine Life. We sinned and God, being totally Good and truly is Goodness epitomized, is in direct conflict with sin. Sin is therefore, barriers that separate us from God and the true Joy we find in Him, thusly God Sent his Son according to His plan of great Mercy and Grace so that these barriers of sin could be removed through the sacrifice of Himself as the Son, so that we could approach our Creator once again in purity and Love and know Him more fully, and most of all, to share in His eternal Divine Life. God puts man over all His other Creations and reveals His Special Purpose for us for “only man is “able to know and love his creator”.” (CCC 356) Of course this is a very General comment on our Purpose and doesn’t even fully scratch the surface of God’s Immortal Plan of Love. Lastly, Worship is not something God requires, we give our Worship and God receives it with great Joy, for in worship we recognize our wekness and our reliance on Him; true Worship can be nothing less that an act of True Love for the God who “first loved us”.

You referenced CCC 356. The actual – sole if you wish to call it that-- purpose of man is contained in the preceding paragraph CCC 355 “(IV) God established him [man] in His friendship.”

Blessings,
granny

Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Eve is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[stormy99]

St. Catherine of Siena…

Dear Lord, it seems that you are so madly in love with your creatures that you could not live without us. So you created, and then, when we turned away from you, you redeemed us. Yet you are God and so have no need for us. Your greatness is made no greater by your creation; your power is made no stronger by our redemption. You have no duty to care for us, no debt to repay us. It is love, and love alone which Moves you.

Catherine of Siena 1374-80

stormy

 

[avflf]

To TheQuestioner
Your attempt at proving Biblical preeminence for the concept of God within a Catholic concept leaves much to be desired; it reverts to apologetics and has no solid base on what the book actually says, nor does it conform with archaeological and historical texts.
1.“Elohim” as a royal “we” does not cut it. Throughout the Bible God is referred to in the singular and hardly does the “we” come into the picture. In fact only in 4 or 5 occasions is the royal “we” used and in the case of Lot and Sodom God was talking to the 2 angels that accompanied him. The “I” “he” and “him” is the overwhelming way of referring to God throughout the Scriptures. As a sign of respect or rank it does not work.
2.As to the way Catholics are allowed to interpret Genesis shows a very liberal position on the part of the Holy See a position normally lacking in other contentious issues. If the Pope endorses evolution, Catholics have no call to understand Genesis literally. It seems the CC picks and choses what is to be believed literally, allegorically or figuratively, according to its agenda, along with the ad nauseam claim that the Holy Spirit guides it in its doctrines.
3.The existence of Abraham, Moses, and other characters in early Jewish “history”, as well as the Exodus story, have not been verified by independent scholars and the only documentation on them stems from the Bible. Biblical archeology is riddle with extraordinary interpretations and exaggerations designed to boost belief rather than to the pursuit of facts.
4.Interaction between the various peoples in the ancient world was far more than you give credit to. They did not live in bubbles and the flow of commerce and ideals was much greater than you think.
5.Islam states that as Allah spoke it was done while the Bible gives a time period between Jehovah’s intention and final results. No such thing, in the Koran, as Adam waiting for God to realize that “it was not good that man should be alone” or of God having to repent for his ideas or actions. But that shows that by the time the Koran was written they knew how silly the Biblical passages were and left them out. A case of evolution of thought and discernment.
7.The very fact that God was “upset” at the divided attention of the people shows that other “Elohim” existed, as recorded in Genesis 1.
Don’t you think it’s time that one should read the book for oneself and see what it really says without the “explanations” of the Catechism or the “apologies” of churchmen?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To TheQuestioner
Your attempt at proving Biblical preeminence for the concept of God within a Catholic concept leaves much to be desired; it reverts to apologetics and has no solid base on what the book actually says, nor does it conform with archaeological and historical texts.
1.“Elohim” as a royal “we” does not cut it. Throughout the Bible God is referred to in the singular and hardly does the “we” come into the picture.

What you are doing is sola scripture. You are abstracting scripture from ancient Judaic culture and tradition assuming that you can define what the author meant by simply reading the word “we” within our own cultural context and understanding; and you are putting words in their mouth based on appearance without revealing any independent sources to back your claim. The truth is, with out a commentary from the author who wrote genesis, you are merely making biased assumptions, and you are unfairly putting words in to the mouth of Judaism. The fact that scripture does develop a strong exclusive belief of one God equally suggests the possibility that they always believed in one God and perhaps they understood that God to be a “trinity”; and thus at heart, Judaism began as a Trinitarian based religion. That this idea gets lost or is not explicitly mentioned until Christianity turned up, is not proof that ancient Judaism believed in many Gods and then changed their belief to one God. To simply assume that they began as polytheists is reflective of an unrelenting biased intention to reduce Judaism to nothing more than a pagan mythology. I see nothing that necessarily suggests that they did in fact do that; and presenting a mere possibility as a definitive argument doesn’t make any sense to me. Your basis for polytheism is baseless, and your charge of propaganda apologetics is evidence only of the fact that you are not open to any view other than you own propaganda.

 

[dj_dave]

[SIGN]avflf;
But this idea of the one and only deity is found in ancient Egypt: You’ll find other sites too if you Google “Egyptian Monotheism”, and no, they did not get the idea from the Jews when their God was plaguing Pharaoh.[/SIGN]

Actually, i found that any mythological accounts portray lots of Egyptian deities. Many as having human weaknesses and imperfections. They were said to have experienced anguish and fright and repeatedly found themselves in peril. The god Osiris was slain. Horus, in childhood, was said to have suffered from internal pains, headaches, and dysentery and to have died from a scorpion’s sting, but then was said to have been restored to life. Isis was believed to have suffered from abscess of the breast. With advancing years, it was taught, the strength of the sun-god Ra waned and saliva dripped from his mouth. His very life was in jeopardy after being bitten by a magical serpent formed by Isis, although he recovered as a result of Isis’ words of magic.

Sekhmet, a goddess representing the destructive power of the sun, was depicted as being bloodthirsty. She took such delight in killing men that Ra was said to have feared for the future of the human race. To save humankind from extermination, Ra distributed 7,000 jugs of a beer and pomegranate mixture over the battlefield. Thinking it to be human blood, Sekhmet drank it ardently until too intoxicated to continue her slaughter. Nephthys was said to have got her brother Osiris, the husband of her sister Isis, drunk and then had relations with him. The sun-gods Tem and Horus were portrayed as those who practiced self abuse.

Regarding the plagues he visited upon the Egyptians, Jehovah humiliated and executed judgment upon their gods. (Ex 12:12; Nu 33:4; The first plague, the turning of the Nile and all the waters of Egypt into blood, brought disgrace to the Nile-god Hapi. The death of the fish in the Nile was also a blow to Egypt’s religion, for certain kinds of fish were actually venerated and even mummified. (Ex 7:19-21) The frog, regarded as a symbol of fertility and the Egyptian concept of resurrection, was considered sacred to the frog-goddess Heqt. Hence, the plague of frogs brought disgrace to this goddess. (Ex 8:5-14) The third plague saw the magic-practicing priests acknowledging defeat when they proved to be unable by means of their secret arts to turn dust into gnats. (Ex 8:16-19) **The god Thoth **was credited with the invention of magic or secret arts, but even this god could not help the magic-practicing priests to duplicate the third plague.

The line of demarcation between the Egyptians and the worshipers of the true God came to be sharply drawn from the fourth plague onward. While swarms of gadflies invaded the homes of the Egyptians, the Israelites in the land of Goshen were not affected. (Ex 8:23, 24) The next plague, the pestilence upon the livestock, humiliated such deities as the cow-goddess Hathor, Apis, and the sky-goddess Nut, who was conceived of as a cow having the stars affixed to her belly. (Ex 9:1-6) The plague of boils brought disgrace to the gods and goddesses regarded as possessing healing abilities, such as Thoth, Isis, and Ptah. (Ex 9:8-11) The severe hailstorm put to shame the gods who were considered to have control of the natural elements; for example, **Reshpu, **who, it appears, was believed to control lightning, and Thoth, who was said to have power over the rain and thunder. (Ex 9:22-26) The locust plague spelled defeat for the gods thought to ensure a bountiful harvest, one of these being the fertility god Min, who was viewed as a protector of the crops. (Ex 10:12-15) Among the deities disgraced by the plague of darkness were sun-gods, such as Ra and Horus, and also Thoth the god of the moon and believed to be the systematizer of sun, moon, and stars.—Ex 10:21-23.

The death of the firstborn resulted in the greatest humiliation for the Egyptian gods and goddesses. (Ex 12:12) The rulers of Egypt actually styled themselves as gods, the sons of Ra, or Amon-Ra. It was claimed that Ra, or Amon-Ra, had intercourse with the queen. The son born was, therefore, viewed as a god incarnate and was dedicated to Ra, or Amon-Ra, at his temple. Hence, the death of Pharaoh’s firstborn, in effect, actually meant the death of a god. (Ex 12:29) This in itself would have been a severe blow to Egypt’s religion, and the complete impotence of all the deities was manifested in their being unable to save the firstborn of the Egyptians from death.

 

[avflf]

What you are doing is sola scripture. You are abstracting scripture from ancient Judaic culture and tradition assuming that you can define what the author meant by simply reading the word “we” within our own cultural context and understanding; and you are putting words in their mouth based on appearance without revealing any independent sources to back your claim. The truth is, with out a commentary from the author who wrote genesis, you are merely making biased assumptions, and you are unfairly putting words in to the mouth of Judaism. The fact that scripture does develop a strong exclusive belief of one God equally suggests the possibility that they always believed in one God and perhaps they understood that God to be a “trinity”; and thus at heart, Judaism began as a Trinitarian based religion. That this idea gets lost or is not explicitly mentioned until Christianity turned up, is not proof that ancient Judaism believed in many Gods and then changed their belief to one God. To simply assume that they began as polytheists is reflective of an unrelenting biased intention to reduce Judaism to nothing more than a pagan mythology. I see nothing that necessarily suggests that they did in fact do that; and presenting a mere possibility as a definitive argument doesn’t make any sense to me. Your basis for polytheism is baseless, and your charge of propaganda apologetics is evidence only of the fact that you are not open to any view other than you own propaganda.

class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

 

[edwest2]

To TheQuestioner
Your attempt at proving Biblical preeminence for the concept of God within a Catholic concept leaves much to be desired; it reverts to apologetics and has no solid base on what the book actually says, nor does it conform with archaeological and historical texts.
1.“Elohim” as a royal “we” does not cut it. Throughout the Bible God is referred to in the singular and hardly does the “we” come into the picture. In fact only in 4 or 5 occasions is the royal “we” used and in the case of Lot and Sodom God was talking to the 2 angels that accompanied him. The “I” “he” and “him” is the overwhelming way of referring to God throughout the Scriptures. As a sign of respect or rank it does not work.
2.As to the way Catholics are allowed to interpret Genesis shows a very liberal position on the part of the Holy See a position normally lacking in other contentious issues. If the Pope endorses evolution, Catholics have no call to understand Genesis literally. It seems the CC picks and choses what is to be believed literally, allegorically or figuratively, according to its agenda, along with the ad nauseam claim that the Holy Spirit guides it in its doctrines.
3.The existence of Abraham, Moses, and other characters in early Jewish “history”, as well as the Exodus story, have not been verified by independent scholars and the only documentation on them stems from the Bible. Biblical archeology is riddle with extraordinary interpretations and exaggerations designed to boost belief rather than to the pursuit of facts.
4.Interaction between the various peoples in the ancient world was far more than you give credit to. They did not live in bubbles and the flow of commerce and ideals was much greater than you think.
5.Islam states that as Allah spoke it was done while the Bible gives a time period between Jehovah’s intention and final results. No such thing, in the Koran, as Adam waiting for God to realize that “it was not good that man should be alone” or of God having to repent for his ideas or actions. But that shows that by the time the Koran was written they knew how silly the Biblical passages were and left them out. A case of evolution of thought and discernment.
7.The very fact that God was “upset” at the divided attention of the people shows that other “Elohim” existed, as recorded in Genesis 1.
Don’t you think it’s time that one should read the book for oneself and see what it really says without the “explanations” of the Catechism or the “apologies” of churchmen?

Catholics do not believe in private interpretation of the Bible. Point 3 is just a personal belief statement.

Peace,
Ed