In the Beginning...

[Berzerker]

Thanks, that makes more sense. I am not sure how God created Heaven though, as that seems to be done by the Asteroids. I am not sure that you can say that God created Heaven and Earth either. God did not use the Asteroids, so God creating the Asteroids would not make sense. God causing the land to come out of the Seas, is not creation. It may be manipulation, but pulling out what was already accreting, is not an act of creation.

here is how the enuma elish describes heaven and earth

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/stc07.htm

Then the lord rested, gazing upon her dead body,

136. While he divided the flesh of the ..., and devised a cunning plan.

137. He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;

138. One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.

as you can see Heaven and Earth were made by splitting Tiamat's carcass in two...of course Heaven is more than just a bunch of asteroids, it is the abode of God while the heavens became synonymous with our sky.

God "placed" the Heaven/firmament amidst the waters but revealed the Earth (dry land), so the word create depends on the context.

Both acts of creation manipulated existing material, like an artist painting a canvas or sculptor chiseling a block of stone to form a statue.

What the text does not support is the notion God created Heaven and Earth from nothingness (ex nihilo?)

 

[Berzerker]

If I'd meant to quote you directly, I would have done. However, feel free to point out the non-existence difference between:

A) The world did have a sky, the dry land didn't until it appeared on the 3rd day.

B) The world did have a sky, but the dry land didn't because it didn't exist until then.

You used quotation marks around something I didn't say and then accused me of deceitful sophistry

B) makes no sense, "the dry land didn't because it didn't exist until then" - until when?

A) means the water covered world of Gen 1:2 had a sky, but the dry land appearing on the 3rd day had a different sky by virtue of creation - the situation between Gen 1:2 and the 3rd day when Earth appeared from under the water had changed

 

[Arakhor]

You used quotation marks around something I didn't say and then accused me of deceitful sophistry

Mea culpa - I should have just said sophistry, as that implies deceit by its very meaning. The speech-marks were meant to highlight what our benevolent overlords told our ancestors, but it was extremely close to what you wrote, as I highlighted in my post.

B) makes no sense, "the dry land didn't because it didn't exist until then" - until when?

The third day, obviously.

A) means the water covered world of Gen 1:2 had a sky, but the dry land appearing on the 3rd day had a different sky by virtue of creation - the situation between Gen 1:2 and the 3rd day when Earth appeared from under the water had changed

That's one hell of a wriggle to "explain" a creation myth. Why didn't the alien overlords say something sensible?

 

[Berzerker]

Mea culpa - I should have just said sophistry, as that implies deceit by its very meaning. The speech-marks were meant to highlight what our benevolent overlords told our ancestors, but it was extremely close to what you wrote, as I highlighted in my post.

Our benevolent overlords didn't say that either. And your version is not extremely close, it doesn't even make sense.

The third day, obviously.

Then why didn't you say so? Looks like accuracy wasn't a priority, kinda strange given your use of quotation marks.

That's one hell of a wriggle to "explain" a creation myth. Why didn't the alien overlords say something sensible?

So where is the sophistry? You dont understand what something means so you call it deceitful sophistry?

The world before the light of the 1st day had a sky but neither that world or its sky was created by God - thats why Genesis doesn't describe their creation.

The dry land called Earth revealed on the 3rd day had a different sky and both were created by God. Thats why both the dry land revealed on the 3rd day and the appearance of its sky described on the 4th day are relevant to the story of God's creation. The authors were telling us what God created and what he didn't create.

 

[timtofly]

here is how the enuma elish describes heaven and earth

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/stc07.htm

as you can see Heaven and Earth were made by splitting Tiamat's carcass in two...of course Heaven is more than just a bunch of asteroids, it is the abode of God while the heavens became synonymous with our sky.

God "placed" the Heaven/firmament amidst the waters but revealed the Earth (dry land), so the word create depends on the context.

Both acts of creation manipulated existing material, like an artist painting a canvas or sculpture chiseling a block of stone to form a statue.

What the text does not support is the notion God created Heaven and Earth from nothingness (ex nihilo?)

Both accounts are viewed as a "creation" event, but there was no creating going on (according to you). In Genesis God separated the waters, but you state that it was when the earth collided at the asteroid belt, and the top waters were lost. That is compared to the Enuma Elish when earth is cut in half, when it collided with the asteroid belt. In Genesis, you say God placed the firmament, but that is not the same as saying the asteroid belt did it. Which version are you going with?

In the Enuma Elish, half of the world was the disk shaped earth and the other half became the sky (heaven). In Genesis the firmament is still the sky (heaven). There is no mention of the abode of the gods in either as being in heaven, unless the earth half of the Enuma Elish was were humans lived, and the other half (heaven) was were the gods lived. The problem with gods living any where, is because there were no gods. They were the names given to the planets and the sun in the Solar System. That is why there is only one God, because only one God was named.

According to you neither accounts are the actual beginning of anything related to the physical universe. Except for the fact that the part of the Enuma Elish you are using (tablet 4), is not even the beginning. There are 3 tablets before the one you are taking the account from. It happens in the last half of the narrative. Marduk is the one credited for splitting earth, but he was a 3rd or 4th generation god. Apsu is the one credited for creating Tiamat, and then they both created all the gods equating to some unknown/unnamed part of the universe. Apsu was named first and called the primeval. Tiamat was chaos before there was any form to the universe. In Genesis God is not Marduk. God is Apsu. Genesis also claims that at the very beginning, God created Tiamat which was the chaos before Heaven and Earth were named. Even if the term "heavens and earths" is just a place holder, God still created, because the term created is an action verb. God is the first being that could bring about anything. You keep saying that God came along "in the Beginning" and his Spirit hovered over Tiamat, which was there before God. But that is not how the Enuma Elish reads, nor the Genesis account. If you are going to compare accounts, why change one, and not even mention the other?

The first 3 tablets explain that over time, assumingly "lots" of time, Tiamat accreted several planets or "gods", and they had become unruly and very disrespectful of Tiamat and Apsu. Apsu got upset, and was going to get rid of the whole bunch, but was thwarted and assumingly out of the picture when Tiamat herself raised her own army to take care of the situation. It was then that the "hero" solved the issue and turned Tiamat into the "last" planet of the solar system. The Genesis account, more than likely on the "point" the Hebrews only accepted one God, did not even mention the other planets/gods that can be found in the Enuma Elish. Other than one was the sun, and the stars may have been any unnamed body in the night sky.

If Marduk was the planet that collided with the earth and became the asteroid belt, it would hardly make him a hero, but a broken up jumble of asteroids. Perhaps a "resurrection" story may have brought him back to a god status at some point, but that is just speculation. For all we know the asteroid belt could indicate that Marduk was a third generation god, and the result of the collision.

 

[Arakhor]

The dry land called Earth revealed on the 3rd day had a different sky and both were created by God. Thats why both the dry land revealed on the 3rd day and the appearance of its sky described on the 4th day are relevant to the story of God's creation. The authors were telling us what God created and what he didn't create.

Just so we're clear, we are still talking about the Earth, in the Solar System, as understood today, not some sort of bizarre ultra-tech creation that apparently exists only in the mind of Sitchen, right? If so, how exactly did our Earth gain a mysterious new sky that was fashioned by God? Is God still one of those half-million-year-ago ancient astronauts with anachronistic Sumerian names?

 

[Berzerker]

Both accounts are viewed as a "creation" event, but there was no creating going on (according to you). In Genesis God separated the waters, but you state that it was when the earth collided at the asteroid belt, and the top waters were lost. That is compared to the Enuma Elish when earth is cut in half, when it collided with the asteroid belt. In Genesis, you say God placed the firmament, but that is not the same as saying the asteroid belt did it. Which version are you going with?

The primordial water covered world in Gen 1:2 (Tehom/Tiamat) collided with Marduk and his "wind(s)" (the same term is used to describe God's spirit hovering above the face of the deep) at what is now the asteroid belt.

As a result of those collisions the firmament called Heaven was created - the hammered out bracelet (asteroid belt) - and Tehom/Tiamat was pushed into an orbit closer to the sun with a new spin or rotation (the creation of day and night).

The water of Tehom was divided or separated by the asteroid belt with Tehom taking some water with it closer to the sun while another batch of water remained at and beyond the asteroid belt (snow line).

That was followed by the waters below the firmament being gathered together to form Seas thereby revealing the dry land. When the Earth (dry land) appeared on the 3rd day it had a new sky which is described on the 4th day.

There is no mention of the abode of the gods in either as being in heaven, unless the earth half of the Enuma Elish was were humans lived, and the other half (heaven) was were the gods lived. The problem with gods living any where, is because there were no gods. They were the names given to the planets and the sun in the Solar System. That is why there is only one God, because only one God was named.

There are multiple gods named in the enuma elish, Apsu (sun), his companion Mummu (Mercury), and Tiamat. Three pairs of gods followed, in their midst were born Lahmu and Lahamu (the warrior twins Venus and Mars) followed by another pair beyond Tiamat, Kishar (Jupiter) and Anshar (Saturn).

The last pair were Anu and Nudimmud/Ea... One last God, Gaga (Pluto?) was sent by Anshar (Saturn) to the other gods to announce Marduk's supremacy as he accepted the challenge to battle Tiamat. Marduk was clothed with the halo of 10 gods.

 

[Berzerker]

Just so we're clear, we are still talking about the Earth, in the Solar System, as understood today, not some sort of bizarre ultra-tech creation that apparently exists only in the mind of Sitchen, right? If so, how exactly did our Earth gain a mysterious new sky that was fashioned by God? Is God still one of those half-million-year-ago ancient astronauts with anachronistic Sumerian names?

According to Genesis Earth is the name God gave the dry land when it was revealed from under the water on the 3rd day. It is not this planet... I dont know why you think the sky is mysterious, but it was new. It was not the same sky above the primordial waters in Gen 1:2.

That earlier world was in darkness (further from the sun), but the world that had dry land was not dark. It had day and night (rotation) and the sun and moon were appointed prominent roles. Thats why the Earth's sky is described on the 4th day, the Earth didn't appear until the 3rd day.

The "God" of creation is not an alien from a 1/2 million years ago, these events in Genesis were celestial and date back ~ 4 bya as plate tectonics began building continents followed by life.

 

[Agent327]

That earlier world was in darkness (further from the sun)

According to Genesis the sun was created after Earth.

The primordial water covered world in Gen 1:2 (Tehom/Tiamat) collided with Marduk and his "wind(s)" (the same term is used to describe God's spirit hovering above the face of the deep) at what is now the asteroid belt.

That doesn't follow at all - if only because Genesis reveals no knowledge of an asteroid belt.

Both accounts are viewed as a "creation" event, but there was no creating going on (according to you).

Again, this is not what was said at all. To repeat the example, an artist creating a painting doesn't use new materials, but existing ones. It doesn't follow the artists didn't create anything - to the contrary.

"The Earth was without form because land submerged by water is not dry"

Earth is the name God gave the dry land when it appeared from under the water on the 3rd day. Why did we have to wait until the 3rd day for the Earth to have form? Because submerged land isn't dry.

I'd like to point out that there's a water planet in the universe. It's not formless, even though its submerged land isn't dry. I hope that clarifies things for you.

We'll continue with our list later.

 

[timtofly]

The primordial water covered world in Gen 1:2 (Tehom/Tiamat) collided with Marduk and his "wind(s)" (the same term is used to describe God's spirit hovering above the face of the deep) at what is now the asteroid belt.

As a result of those collisions the firmament called Heaven was created - the hammered out bracelet (asteroid belt) - and Tehom/Tiamat was pushed into an orbit closer to the sun with a new spin or rotation (the creation of day and night).

The water of Tehom was divided or separated by the asteroid belt with Tehom taking some water with it closer to the sun while another batch of water remained at and beyond the asteroid belt (snow line).

That was followed by the waters below the firmament being gathered together to form Seas thereby revealing the dry land. When the Earth (dry land) appeared on the 3rd day it had a new sky which is described on the 4th day.

There are multiple gods named in the enuma elish, Apsu (sun), his companion Mummu (Mercury), and Tiamat. Three pairs of gods followed, in their midst were born Lahmu and Lahamu (the warrior twins Venus and Mars) followed by another pair beyond Tiamat, Kishar (Jupiter) and Anshar (Saturn).

The last pair were Anu and Nudimmud/Ea... One last God, Gaga (Pluto?) was sent by Anshar (Saturn) to the other gods to announce Marduk's supremacy as he accepted the challenge to battle Tiamat. Marduk was clothed with the halo of 10 gods.

If Apsu had been the sun, the Enuma Elish would probably be closer to accepted reality than we have thought. Utu is the sun, and is a third generation part of the solar system, although in the scheme of things, Genesis says that the sun started to shine on day 4.

Today it is accepted that the sun was accreting along with the rest of the planets, and the Enuma Elish explained it closer than Genesis does, but I guess it would depend on changing what people thought the Enuma Elish says. I guess they don't think the ancients knew what they were talking about. I don't think that Sitchin was totally correct either. Some claim that Apsu was the primordial fresh water, and Tiamat was the salty water. As pointed out they used to think that the universe was a gigantic ocean.

Here is my take:

Apsu and God represent the universe itself.

Tiamat is the chaos happening during the formation of the Solar System. She represents the birth pangs of the accretion process.

As the sun is forming and starting to shine and attracting the planetary bodies, it starts out well, but there was some confusion in where exactly all the planetary bodies would end up. Un-technically the universe (Apsu/God) about to step in and take over management of the chaos/Tiamat, forced her to take matters into her own hand and sent for help from outside the solar system. This enraged the already forming planets so they crafted their own chaos and the planet earth was sent as a warning shot. This covert planet was called Marduk.

There were two collisions (the splitting of the last chaos into two parts) to finish and bring peace to the solar system. The first one resulted in the Asteroid belt, and the last one was when the earth collided at it's final spot in the planetary order, and the creation of the moon.

Why is Marduk the actual earth? That represented the actual struggle between chaos/Tiamat, and Marduk. He was the hero, because in sacrificing, and splitting his internal chaos into two parts, he brought peace to the solar system. Tiamat can never be a planet, she only represents the planets in a chaotic accreting act of formation. The whole of the solar system was changing from chaos into planets in a regular orbit.

The earth never has a given god title. There is no planet other than the earth that would fill in as the god Marduk. I realize that planets do not have minds of their own, but it goes back to a physical body with a spiritual component. Also the earth as the "center" was pictured as Marduk surrounded by the planets and the sun.

Somehow there was a planet that was further out, and because of that had more water, than heavier metals for land formation. In the process of arrangement and accretion, it did get nudged or pulled closer into the sun. It hit a planet on it's way in, forming the asteroid belt. It ended up in it's current place after being stopped by a planet which allowed the formation of the moon. Marduk was able to use winds like a rocket propulsion system and propel himself/earth into position.

I don't think the point should be they got it wrong. They had a story that in their own vernacular explained an event that a being actually told them about. At that point in history why would they even think that the earth had more water than would be normal for a planet in that orbit to have. They would have had to have knowledge of the water content on all the planets to even know that the earth had a higher proportion of water, to even start to come up with an explanation.

They more than likely were not around when it happened. In the evolutionary scheme of things, they would have had to retain that information for -4 billion years (time frame given by modern standards) It could have happened recently in known history, but I think that has been vetoed by the -4 billion time frame. I am open to suggestions how they even had the sense to claim what happened when modern humans with their technology cannot prove nor accept that the earth came from a position further out. I think that it would have been cool though to be living on the earth when that happened. Other than the last collision with the moon, which would have left an indelible memory on a lot of people groups around the planet.

There are two main ideas. There are aliens with such knowledge who visited and told them. The other is that there is a spiritual dimension that has at one time had the ability of two way communication with humans. The act of giving the planets, god names, and teaching that these gods had minds of their own that could influence the very physical aspect of nature, would be proof.

Aliens may have universe movement cycles that only bring them around at certain points in time, so that is almost un-provable, unless they visit again, and survive any incidents involving government cover-ups. Although how a race of beings smart enough to traverse the universe, cannot get past the government is beyond me. That may be part of letting all the common folk sit in the "Dark Ages" instead of knowing the truth.

The other idea which there seems to be a strong support for all over the planet, involves a link to another dimension and we call it the spiritual world.

How close the Bible sticks to the narrative has already been stated that the Hebrews left out all the god stuff, because they were told to not mention other gods, but only name God as part of the process. Why are names so important as to not be used in vain? For some reason names seemed to be able to invoke some kind of connection with the "other side".

According to Genesis the sun was created after Earth.

Not necessarily, it was there , just not shining yet. "Made" may not mean "create", but "forced" the sun into completing it's accretion.

That doesn't follow at all - if only because Genesis reveals no knowledge of an asteroid belt.

There are no planets mentioned at all. The Hebrews were to have "no other gods".

Again, this is not what was said at all. To repeat the example, an artist creating a painting doesn't use new materials, but existing ones. It doesn't follow the artists didn't create anything - to the contrary.

You view God as an artist. They viewed God as an aloof universe. The solar system did form out of the universe. Some just said that it was on "it's" own, and there are no beings capable of controlling things from another dimension.

I'd like to point out that there's a water planet in the universe. It's not formless, even though its submerged land isn't dry. I hope that clarifies things for you.

It would seem that the word accretion, may not have been a concept for them. They described it as "rowdy kids on a playground".

 

[Berzerker]

According to Genesis the sun was created after Earth.

According to Genesis neither the Sun nor Earth was created, Earth was revealed from under the water on the 3rd day and the Sun was appointed to rule over it's day time sky on the 4th day. But the Sun already existed, its why the world had day and night on the 1st day.

That doesn't follow at all - if only because Genesis reveals no knowledge of an asteroid belt.

The hammered out bracelet or firmament separated the water above the Heaven from the water below. The water above is still out there at and beyond the asteroid belt and the water below became our seas. So Genesis says something of a firm nature was expanded to form a ring or bracelet and its between these waters, nothing else in our solar system fits that description better than the asteroid belt.

I'd like to point out that there's a water planet in the universe. It's not formless, even though its submerged land isn't dry. I hope that clarifies things for you.

Gen 1:2 doesn't say the water was formless, just the dry land. How can dry land be without form? When its submerged, ie not dry.

 

[Arakhor]

According to Genesis neither the Sun nor Earth was created, Earth was revealed from under the water on the 3rd day and the Sun was appointed to rule over it's day time sky on the 4th day. But the Sun already existed, its why the world had day and night on the 1st day.

Now you're simply wrong: God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

In verses 14-19, He very clearly creates the Sun, Moon and stars and does so after splitting the light from the darkness to create Day and Night. This apparently takes up the entirety of the fourth day.

Gen 1:2 doesn't say the water was formless, just the dry land. How can dry land be without form? When its submerged, ie not dry.

Whilst that would be a reasonable interpretation of whence it came, the dry land is also described as void (in some translations empty). Submerged land is not typically described as such.

 

[Berzerker]

If Apsu had been the sun, the Enuma Elish would probably be closer to accepted reality than we have thought. Utu is the sun, and is a third generation part of the solar system, although in the scheme of things, Genesis says that the sun started to shine on day 4.

Utu is a flesh and blood deity associated with the Sun. Inanna/Istar is a flesh and blood deity (goddess) associated with Venus and Nergal was the flesh and blood deity associated with Mars. These are not the names of the olden gods described before creation.

Some claim that Apsu was the primordial fresh water, and Tiamat was the salty water. As pointed out they used to think that the universe was a gigantic ocean.

The ocean is not freshwater or the universe, the text says their waters mingled and planetary gods (Lahmu and Lahamu, ie Venus and Mars) were born in their midst as a result. This was a metaphor based on the mingling of river water and the Persian Gulf along the southern marshlands.

Tiamat is the chaos happening during the formation of the Solar System. She represents the birth pangs of the accretion process.

Tiamat represents chaos because of the ensuing disorder as the planets migrated about in their orbits, their "destinies" were not set. Marduk entered the picture and established order.

As the sun is forming and starting to shine and attracting the planetary bodies, it starts out well, but there was some confusion in where exactly all the planetary bodies would end up. Un-technically the universe (Apsu/God) about to step in and take over management of the chaos/Tiamat, forced her to take matters into her own hand and sent for help from outside the solar system. This enraged the already forming planets so they crafted their own chaos and the planet earth was sent as a warning shot. This covert planet was called Marduk.

Marduk preceded and created Earth. Apsu (Sun) and Tiamat brought forth planets but then Apsu's ability to continue the process ceased. Nudimmud/Ea (Neptune) took his mantle and brought forth Marduk from beyond, an invading planet entered the solar system and collided with Tiamat leaving the asteroid belt to mark the spot of the battle while pushing her remains (Earth) to a new orbit.

Thats why creation took 6 days with a 7th devoted to praise and rest - Tiamat was the 6th planet from the outside looking in and the Earth is the 7th planet - the number 7 represents Earth in mythology.

The Fremont Indians of Utah left us a picture at Nine Mile Canyon showing the planets, the horned deity in the middle (Tiamat) is being stalked by the hunter - there are 5 planets between them, ie Tiamat is the 6th planet.

There were two collisions (the splitting of the last chaos into two parts) to finish and bring peace to the solar system. The first one resulted in the Asteroid belt, and the last one was when the earth collided at it's final spot in the planetary order, and the creation of the moon.

Sin is the Moon god, but in the enuma elish the Moon was born of Kingu's demise. Kingu was the leader of Tiamat's forces. Marduk forced the rest of her army to flee ensnaring some in his net, this is why Sitchin believed Marduk follows a retrograde orbit opposite the other planets. Many comets follow highly elliptical retrograde orbits.

Tiamat can never be a planet, she only represents the planets in a chaotic accreting act of formation. The whole of the solar system was changing from chaos into planets in a regular orbit.

Tiamat was covered by water, the deep called Tehom in the Bible. From her carcass was born Heaven and Earth.

Also the earth as the "center" was pictured as Marduk surrounded by the planets and the sun.

Cylinder seal VA 243 shows a star surrounded by 11 orbs roughly matching the sequence of "gods" appearing in the enuma elish.

Somehow there was a planet that was further out, and because of that had more water, than heavier metals for land formation. In the process of arrangement and accretion, it did get nudged or pulled closer into the sun. It hit a planet on it's way in, forming the asteroid belt.

Whatever hit the primordial world of water ~4 bya was laden with heavy elements. Its believed nearby supernova triggered the collapse of our nebula ~4.6 bya and its possible material from these blasts entered the solar system about a 1/2 billion years later.

Aliens may have universe movement cycles that only bring them around at certain points in time

Sitchin believes their planet approaches us every ~3,600 years, the kings list shows divine kings reigning for very long periods divisible by 3,600 (the Sar).

Eusebius reports that Apollodorus reports that Berossus recounts 432,000 years from the first king, Aloros, to Xisouthros and the Babylonian Flood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berossus

And thats why Sitchin believed the 120 years mentioned in the Bible as representing the amount of time God's spirit would reside in man refers to the 432,000 years between the 1st king and the Flood. Multiply 120 by 3,600 and we get 432,000 years. The same number appears in both the Hindu epics and the Norse story of Ragnarok.

It would seem that the word accretion, may not have been a concept for them. They described it as "rowdy kids on a playground".

Researchers believe the early solar system was chaotic, they've even got Jupiter migrating in and out of the region now occupied by the asteroid belt.

 

[Berzerker]

Now you're simply wrong: God made two great lights - the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

In verses 14-19, He very clearly creates the Sun, Moon and stars and does so after splitting the light from the darkness to create Day and Night. This apparently takes up the entirety of the fourth day.

These lights were made to appear, they were appointed - assigned roles in Earth's new sky. And they were appointed roles to serve a purpose, for signs and seasons, timekeeping, providing light. The vastness of the universe doesn't play a part in this story.

Whilst that would be a reasonable interpretation of whence it came, the dry land is also described as void (in some translations empty). Submerged land is not typically described as such.

The surface was void or empty of dry land... What is the difference between the Earth in Gen 1:2 and the Earth on the 3rd day? The former was under water and the latter was above water.

 

[timtofly]

The ocean is not freshwater or the universe, the text says their waters mingled and planetary gods (Lahmu and Lahamu, ie Venus and Mars) were born in their midst as a result. This was a metaphor based on the mingling of river water and the Persian Gulf along the southern marshlands.

I never mentioned what an ocean was. I said the ancients believed the universe was represented as an ocean. That is; when they said ocean, they meant the universe. Has nothing to do with any usage of the word water in the Genesis account. In Genesis God is and God created the universe. God is the universe, because it was a production of God's Word as in the physical extension of who God is. God owns all of the thoughts and Words that describe the whole of the God experience.


Jumping around the way the Enuma Elish does; if you take it in chronological order, the Earth would have had to have come from far, far away in a different galaxy.

Tiamat represents chaos because of the ensuing disorder as the planets migrated about in their orbits, their "destinies" were not set. Marduk entered the picture and established order.

From what you have tried to argue, Tiamat existed before the universe did. Once a planet has it's own form, it is no longer considered, Tiamat.

Marduk preceded and created Earth. Apsu (Sun) and Tiamat brought forth planets but then Apsu's ability to continue the process ceased. Nudimmud/Ea (Neptune) took his mantle and brought forth Marduk from beyond, an invading planet entered the solar system and collided with Tiamat leaving the asteroid belt to mark the spot of the battle while pushing her remains (Earth) to a new orbit.

Marduk was a Flesh and blood god, if you are going to argue against what I said. Ea was the earth, and the father of Marduk. Marduk, cannot precede his Father Ea. Ea was the son of Anu, the god of the sky. Anu was the result of the points of the horizon Anshar and Kishar. These points was the "first" act of creation performed by Apsu and Tiamat. I need a link that Apsu is the sun, because I have looked, and cannot find any reference to the fact. In the Enuma Elish Apsu is the primeval, and that is not the sun. It may be a reference to the whole of whatever exploded to form the Solar system, but the sun came much later as Utu. The primeval just means the rest of the universe in relation to the Solar system as it formed. The Solar system was the Chaos/Tiamet until everything stopped the action of accretion.

Thats why creation took 6 days with a 7th devoted to praise and rest - Tiamat was the 6th planet from the outside looking in and the Earth is the 7th planet - the number 7 represents Earth in mythology.

Tiamat can never be a planet "looking in". Tiamat is only chaos, once a planet, no more chaos.

The Fremont Indians of Utah left us a picture at Nine Mile Canyon showing the planets, the horned deity in the middle (Tiamat) is being stalked by the hunter - there are 5 planets between them, ie Tiamat is the 6th planet.

So what? There was still chaos until the planet found it's final orbit. Tiamat ceases to exist at that point, but Tiamat is never the actual planet. Tiamat may be a planet in transition, but up to the point of completion, there is neither total planet or total chaos, but a mixture of both.

Sin is the Moon god, but in the enuma elish the Moon was born of Kingu's demise. Kingu was the leader of Tiamat's forces. Marduk forced the rest of her army to flee ensnaring some in his net, this is why Sitchin believed Marduk follows a retrograde orbit opposite the other planets. Many comets follow highly elliptical retrograde orbits.

Marduk was manipulating his father Ea, the earth and it stopped when it hit Kingu a planet that no longer exist. The result was the earth in it's final orbit, and the moon as it's satellite.

Whatever hit the primordial world of water ~4 bya was laden with heavy elements. Its believed nearby supernova triggered the collapse of our nebula ~4.6 bya and its possible material from these blasts entered the solar system about a 1/2 billion years later.

Sounds like Tiamat gathering her forces.

 

[Arakhor]

These lights were made to appear, they were appointed - assigned roles in Earth's new sky. And they were appointed roles to serve a purpose, for signs and seasons, timekeeping, providing light. The vastness of the universe doesn't play a part in this story.

Except that they weren't just assigned roles to play: they were created first. Saying that they'd actually been around since the first day is simply incorrect according to the text.

"Fecitque Deus duo magna luminaria" - "And God made two great lights..." Not appointed, requisitioned or re-purposed, but literally made. I can't see how you can argue with that.

 

[Lexicus]

"Fecitque Deus duo magna luminaria" - "And God made two great lights..." Not appointed, requisitioned or re-purposed, but literally made. I can't see how you can argue with that.

To be fair that's a Latin translation, not the original.

 

[Lohrenswald]

I'm sorry this is in the broken reply style. I sort of wish I would instead write a cohesive counter-text, but I have neither the skill or resolve

I am curious why you think the authors needed to know about everything, that all of humanity would ever know? That would seem like an unreasonable request to make of them.

I don't, mate. But if they don't know about the origin of the world, what they write about it is (most likely (and in this case definately)) wrong.

You may not accept God, but there are humans that do. That does not prove there is a GOD, but by what are you going to use to determine who is right and who is wrong? It falls under the improvable, so that means no one can say, "I know there is not a GOD". One cannot prove non-existence. If something does not exist, then it does not exist. That is the only proof. A human could have the knowledge and experience, and make the claim, "There is a GOD", but that is not going to help those who have no knowledge or experience of GOD. Then there are those who believe there is a GOD, but they have no knowledge or experience, they just trust those who do know.

You can prove non-existance. Two ways come to mind:

1) Know the totality of everything, and thus know everything that isn't
of course, this is impossible for humans

2) Show beyond a shadow of a doubt that that something the thing requires is impossible or doesn't exist
This applies for every single religion

The whole knowledge of god thing is irrelevant

The claim is that the Bible is God's Word given to humans and they wrote it down. It tells about private things that perhaps the humans themselves would not openly talk about, but someone did and wrote them down. I don't see the need to make the book or writings sacred, but that is the nature of human's and their need to have a tangible form of God, they can attach their belief to. Those who know GOD, do not need a tangible relic on the earth, because they have experienced GOD. But the WORD has always been used to create, what is physical in the universe. The Bible is the physical presence of God even though it is not a religious relic with any special powers in and of the physical aspect. The point of the Bible is actually reading and accepting what is read. Before we jump to the conclusion that this is all internal mumble jumble, that is self re-enforcing belief system, and which sacred text is right and which is wrong, we have to go back to what a person knows and what they do not know. Just believing is not important. Belief can self re-enforce, but it can also lie. Someone can also lie about what they know, but knowledge is the term that humans use to claim they do know something, and if they are truthful internally, they do not have to re-enforce such knowledge, because it is not themselves, but something outside of themselves.

Surely that is untrue. The physical presence of god would be Jesus

The old testament describes god in many ways that contradict the teachings of christianity, no? Why would "genesis", which even contradicts itself, be any different?

As for the rest I can't discern anything but essencially "mumbo jumbo"

Knowledge is the sticking point, because some humans hold that one cannot know anything outside of the human experience. That is another negative that cannot be proven, because it proves itself, so that argument cannot even be considered. People may accept that fact, and that is not wrong. It may be foolish, but not wrong. It is probably even foolish to convince one otherwise.

I'm not sure if I agree with that, but religion is part of the human experience, so I don't see how that matters

So we have some who claim to know something outside of the human experience which is not part of the whole human experience, and only some humans have the knowledge but others do not. That leads to determinism, and lack of free will. Or does it? No one is claiming that other humans cannot know. Their free will is the ability to not know. It does not stop them from knowing, but it prevents them from wanting too. Their free will is greater than their ability to choose, but does not totally eradicate it. Neither does it mean that there is determinism, because you have a majority who do not know, but trust the one's who do. That gives free will to them also as they can freely choose between the two. The ones who have the knowledge can also chose not to accept it, and they have the ability to reject it, because even the Devil is afforded the opportunity to change it's mind. To human knowledge that is the being who rejected God first.

You seem here to do some weird gymnastics to make some point (that I don't understand), on the premise of free will. But this is flawed, because the world is deterministic, and what I believe is the common notion of free will doesn't exist.

But at this point I don't understand what you're trying to get at

One can argue that this can be used for every ideology and that is true. That is why there is the difference and the confusion in regards to the different religions. There is no way to prove which one is true and which one is not. It is not even wrong to claim that one is the only way. That is also part of the ability of free will.

Wrong for the same reasons I've already stated

Unless one actually knows that GOD created the universe, then it is just a belief to them, and no one can change another person's belief system.

Yes you can

Only that person has the ability to do that. And belief systems are self enforcing and that is why humans think that there is no free will. It is free will itself that makes that possible. One is free to do anything to hold onto one's belief system, even to the point of not being able to make a choice to change it. And yes it is possible that what I just said was only a belief system, but what is the point? To prove I am wrong? It cannot, because no one else knows what another human knows, unless they tell them. You cannot prove that I am wrong, you can only accept that I am right. The problem with some knowledge in the whole of human experience is because there are some people who are afraid to speak what they know, or the intentional withholding of knowledge to control the rest of humanity. One can only reject or accept what another human tells them. Why is it binary? Because we only live in one reality. It is either life or death. If we were able to live in other realities and dimensions, then we would have more choices, or perhaps no choice at all. Why is it that not every one knows God?

You can prove people wrong, there's some weird mental gymnastics you're doing here

As for the thing that what everyone says is either true or false, I more or less agree. There's a bit of a grayzone, in that something said can truly be what a person believes, but the belief itself is false. Not that it makes much difference

The universe is the knowledge of God, if one accepts that there is a God.

you what
that makes no sense

Knowledge comes from accepting.

I guess, but only by accepting what is true

Accepting comes from hearing.

Not neccesarily

Hearing comes from someone who knows, or reading and accepting the Word of God.

After all the wishy wash you've said, this can be believed to be true if you don't pay enough attention. But this conclusion is only halfheartedly built upon premises that don't fit togehter

 

[Berzerker]

From what you have tried to argue, Tiamat existed before the universe did.

The universe is ~13.7 byo, Tiamat is ~4.6 byo

Marduk was a Flesh and blood god, if you are going to argue against what I said.

Yes, the national god of Babylon. But he isn't the actual "creator", just one of the gods in whose image we were made.

Ea was the earth, and the father of Marduk. Marduk, cannot precede his Father Ea. Ea was the son of Anu, the god of the sky.

Ea is Neptune and he brought forth Marduk from beyond. He was the 1st planet to encounter Marduk as it approached the solar system.

Anu was the result of the points of the horizon Anshar and Kishar. These points was the "first" act of creation performed by Apsu and Tiamat.

Kishar is Jupiter and Anshar is Saturn, Anu is their "son" Uranus. Nudimmud/Ea is Anu's son.

I need a link that Apsu is the sun, because I have looked, and cannot find any reference to the fact. In the Enuma Elish Apsu is the primeval, and that is not the sun.

Any link I provided would be based on Sitchin's theory

but the sun came much later as Utu.

Utu is the flesh and blood "god" associated with the Sun, but he is not the Abzu.

Tiamat can never be a planet "looking in". Tiamat is only chaos, once a planet, no more chaos.

I'll rephrase that, Tiamat was the 6th planet as one approaches the solar system from beyond. Of course now that we've demoted Pluto, Tiamat would have been the 5th planet.

So what? There was still chaos until the planet found it's final orbit. Tiamat ceases to exist at that point, but Tiamat is never the actual planet. Tiamat may be a planet in transition, but up to the point of completion, there is neither total planet or total chaos, but a mixture of both.

Tiamat was covered by the deep, it had an ocean.

Marduk was manipulating his father Ea, the earth and it stopped when it hit Kingu a planet that no longer exist. The result was the earth in it's final orbit, and the moon as it's satellite.

Kingu was the Moon before the battle, Marduk slew him along with Tiamat. Perhaps thats why the Moon's orbit around the Earth is askew.

 

[Berzerker]

Except that they weren't just assigned roles to play: they were created first. Saying that they'd actually been around since the first day is simply incorrect according to the text.

"Fecitque Deus duo magna luminaria" - "And God made two great lights..." Not appointed, requisitioned or re-purposed, but literally made. I can't see how you can argue with that.

The text doesn't say God created the lights, it says he made them to serve a purpose - for signs, seasons, light, etc. I know this verse gives rise to the belief God created the universe but the text is describing Earth's new sky and the roles to be played by the lights that could be seen. The world before the 3rd day had night and day, that means the Sun was present before it was given its new assignment in Earth's sky.