Re: Genesis One and Concordism (was a lot of other things previously)

From: Walter Hicks (
Date: Sun Feb 24 2002 - 16:35:02 EST

  • Next message: Lyneatte: "We're giving away a 1970 Dodge Challenger!" wrote:
    > Walt wrote,
    > << Assuming I can read, I still fail to see much of a comparison to Chapter
    > one of Genesis. This is full of stories about gods and dragons and god
    > wars ............
    > Thanks for other references. >>
    > The underlying "theology" of Enuma elish is very different from the theology
    > of Gen 1. The "science" is the same. However, you will need to read some of
    > the references to really see it. Tiamat in Enuma elish is a goddess of the
    > water, and the water itself. It is not obvious to the English reader that her
    > name is Thm (Thm = Tehom = the Deep in Genesis 1) with a feminine ending, nor
    > that Tehom in Gen 1 is not just a common noun, thm, the sea, but is used
    > without the article which suggests a proper name. Tehom in Gen 1 is similar
    > to Adam: "Adam" with the article means "mankind"; without the article it
    > means the individual person, Adam.
    > It is a good example of why people not trained in the original languages must
    > read the commentaries of those who are so trained.

    That is interesting, since I would not consider the Bible or writings
    like these to be either science or theology. It is difficult for me to
    think of ancient people like these as dabbling in either concept. I read
    like they were wrtiting what they believed to be the history of

    Now, I agree that much of the Bible is not history, but Genesis one is
    written as though it is the history of creation. Enuma elish reads like
    that history also --- but it is a rather bad history.

    So I would have to say, that even though the various gods represent what
    you say, Genesis One tells a substantially different story. Genesis
    tells us the acts of our Creator, God, and the other tells us of god
    wars and dragons.


    > Paul

    Walt Hicks <>
    In any consistent theory, there must
    exist true but not provable statements.
    (Godel's Theorem)

    You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 24 2002 - 16:34:19 EST