Evolution and creation

Was reading the other day about how a Sumerians tablet had been discovered and its translations supported the order of things in Genesis. Suggesting Adam was the first king of Sumerian, and how his name may have got mistranslated from adapa to adama during the hewbrew translation.http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/ash/faqs/q001/q001006.htmlThis doesnt prove adam wasnt made by God. God could have simply made man and placed him down on earth. This would just simply prove there were men already placed upon the earth, decendants of the natural evolutionary process maybe.

---

Great minds think alike, but no-body thinks like this mind.Always use causion when reading the bible, remember the amount of times its been translated.If you cant prove just one side, then why not try proving both?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't know if it really "supports" Genesis rather than representing one of the sources for it - it's considerably older.On one of the related pages from the same site it states:"...fact and fantasy are freely blended...""This is a work of literature, not of history as we would understand it. "http://www.ashmol.ox.ac.uk/ash/faqs/q001/q001004.html

That is correct. It appears that much of Genesis was simply taken from the various Sumerian Legends. The correspondence is not as close as the quote you posted but it is similar. For example, the lifespans mentioned in the Sumerian legends are about a full order of magnitude longer than in the Biblical accounts. It's almost as though the Biblical writers said "Ain't no one gonna believe this, better tone it down some".You need to remember that the Sumerian legends predate the Bible by a long, long period of time. So they do not support Genesis, but rather were likely the source for much of the material in Genesis. Since the Biblical accounts in Genesis were first codified during the Hebrew exile in Babylon, it is likely that they were exposed to and familar with those tales.If you will google Gilgamesh you will find quite a bit of information available.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Maybe so, but it would suggest that is fact behind Genesis rather than just mostly fansity to start into Exodus.Apparently the first ages written in the Bible were really using the Sumerian counting system of base 60. Maybe this could be right, leaving Eve to be only 10 when she had Cain, you would then have to increase the age she was to get a more approiate answer, so that would tie in with what you were just saying.Would make Adam an easy 1,500 years before he died.This message has been edited by Harrism, 05-24-2004 07:27 PM

I am just beginning to research B.CE civilizations etc.. So if my facts/accusations are incorrect please reference me to a site for reading..I have read at Sumerian FAQ that "Sumer may very well be the first civilization in the world" although "long term settlements at Jericho and atal Hyk predate Sumer and examples of writing from Egypt and the Harappa, Indus valley sites may predate those from Sumer."This raises a few questions- Stated in this topic by jar

quote:

---

It appears that much of Genesis was simply taken from the various Sumerian Legends.

---

If I understand this, the works of Genesis are taken from stories of the Sumerians. Wouldn't this show that biblical readings, are merely stories taken from sources and incorporated into one big novel, in order to create the religious book we call the bible?
If so this presents a problem in my understanding. Was the bible supposed to be written by those under the direct influence of Gods word? Or was it merely stories which have no relevance to eachother shoved into one book, by different authors?- As for the Sumerian civilization.Our closest living surviving ancestors being the gorilla, the common chimpanzee, and the pygmy chimpanzee are all confined to Africa. Given this and the abundance of fossil evidence, we can indicate that the early stages of man originated from Africa as well. Human origin is estimated to have started between 5 - 9 million years ago in Africa. Around this time, a population of African Apes broke off into three seperate evolutionary species, the modern gorilla, the modern chimps, and humans. To keep things short, the evolutionary line went something like this Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus. Although Homo erectus, was close to modern man, its brain size was considerably smaller (about half ours). However, Homo erectus is considered the first 'humans' to spread beyond Africa, which is attested by fossils discovered on the Southeast Asian Island of Java, these Homo erectus are conventianally known as 'Java men.' (this fossil known as 'Java man' was actually that of a women).

I discussed what the Bible should be viewed as in Message 43 and in Message 72. Of course, those are only my personal beliefs about it and others will have differing viewpoints.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Edited out extremely long cut and paste from this site.Teaspoonicine Morphological DevelopmentLucyman, this isn't how we do things around here. If you have no pertinant discussion to add to the topic, please do not post cut and pastes. We are a discussion board. Please review the Forum Guidelines.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 07-10-2004 12:15 PM

---

My speculations run beyond the bounds of true scienceIt is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] and holes as sound parts.
Charles Darwin letter to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475. [b] "Why do we not find beneath this system great piles of strata stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Cambrian fossils? [b]
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 617, 618.

quote:

---

Maybe so, but it would suggest that is fact behind Genesis rather than just mostly fansity to start into Exodus.

---

Since the Sumerian writings are older than the Old Testament, would the Old Testament give support that the Babylonian myths were actually real accounts?

quote:

---

Apparently the first ages written in the Bible were really using the Sumerian counting system of base 60.

---

Which could mean that the Hebrews were a cult that started in Sumerian and used the Sumerian legends to start theiry own religion.What sometimes strikes me as shortsighted is the use of other cultures legends to support the veracity of the OT. Take for instance the story of Noah. People claim that the numerous flood stories found around the globe support the accuracy of Noah's flood. However, wouldn't Noah's flood also support the veracity of any other culture's flood story? The problem is that with this sort of argument people are assuming the premise (the OT is true) and then fitting the evidence to it. I could just as easily claim that the Epic of Gilgamesh is true and show that the OT supports it with the same leaps in logic and common sense.

it's rather well known that the hebrews borrowed heavily from sumerian and babylonian mythology. this is further evidence of it.although the adapa bit is probably largely coincidental -- adam is the hebrew word for "man"