Atrahasis Creation Epic

shawn

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,085
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
No longer here
[youtube]B2Z-VyCcLvY[/youtube]
a short vid clip of it.

The Atrahasis Creation Epic was discovered and first translated in 1876. However, only one-fifth of it had been known until 1965. Then in a museum cellar there was discovered a number of clay tablets which were recognized to be part of this same account. Now about four-fifths of the myth is available. It is probably the most important creation myth of the Ancient Near East outside the Bible. It dates to about 1500 BC, or 3500 years ago, but it probably comes from an earlier source. So it was written before the time of Moses.
According to some scholars, Moses would have borrowed from it. As we examine it, see if you agree.
Actually, no account of the creation of the world is found in the Atrahasis Epic. It is concerned exclusively with the story of man and his relationship with the gods, which is hinted at in the beginning statement, "When the gods, manlike . . ." The introduction describes the situation at the outset of the story, when the world had been divided between three major deities of the Sumerian-Akkadian pantheon.
A.R. Millard analyzed this "New Babylonian Genesis" text.8 The quotations in the following section are found in his article.
The gods took one hand in the other,
They cast the lot, made division!
Anu went up to heaven.
Enlil ... the earth to his subjects.
The lock, the bar of the sea,
They gave to Enki, the prince.​
In this text, Anu is the god of heaven, Enlil the god of the earth, Enki is the ruling king. The introductory description of the world situation in the Atrahasis Epic depicts the junior gods laboring at the behest of the senior deities. Note that the gods are like men.
When the gods, manlike,
Bore the labor, carried the load,
The gods' load was great,
The toil grievous, the toil excessive.
The great Annunnaku, the Seven,
Were making the Igigu undertake the toil.​
The underlying idea of the Atrahasis Epic and the other Babylonian Creation stories is that man was made to free the gods from the toil of ordering the earth to produce their food. The gods instructed the Mother-goddess (Nintu) to:
Create a human to bear the yoke.
Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil,
Let man carry the load of the gods.
Let them slaughter one god,
So that all the gods may be purified by dipping.​
With his flesh and blood
Let Nintu mix clay.
So let god and man be mingled
Together in the clay.​
After she had mixed the clay
She called the Anunna, the great gods.
The Igigu, the great gods,
Spat upon the clay.
Mami opened her mouth
And said to the great gods,
You commanded me a task
And I have finished it.
I have removed your toil
I have imposed your load on man.
http://www.ancientdays.net/creationstories.htm
:cool:
like genesis says: we were made to work the mines (land)
By a God who said:
King James Bible
The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts
 
[youtube]B2Z-VyCcLvY[/youtube]
a short vid clip of it.

:cool:
like genesis says: we were made to work the mines (land)
By a God who said:

Genesis doesn't say that. You are quoting from Haggai, not Genesis. In addition, you conveniently neglected the full context of the verse. It was describing the appearance of the future Temple.
 
Genesis doesn't say that. You are quoting from Haggai, not Genesis. In addition, you conveniently neglected the full context of the verse. It was describing the appearance of the future Temple.
The first part is from genesis and yes, the second part is not.
Thanks for splitting that hair, which I overlooked.
But in so doing, the point is missed.


Personally, I don't accept any version of the creation stories. I believe in a God, yet the stories of how things began all are contrived in some fashion.
I am intrigued by Sitchin's version of creation as it does take material from other sources and weaves them together to make a sensible account.
But I think that he is off in places as well.
At the end of the day......none of us really knows for certain just how it all began, we just know that it did.
 
What I look for is not an historical account of events, but the metaphysics of relation, by which I mean the philosophy contained therein ...

Thomas
 
I love how every historian assumes that similarities must be the product of the writer of a later document borrowing from an earlier document, completely ignoring the fact that if we assume God exists, every account he would give would be consistent with the others. I seem to remember Jesus once saying that many are called, but few are chosen. It would not be surprising to me if God spoke to individuals in every ancient Middle Eastern civilization, and chose the Israelites because they were the only ones who actually listened.
 
Back
Top