You are making an assumption of borrowing that has no evidence to back
up your assumption. Just because surviving copies of Enuma Elish are
older than surviving copies of accounts of Genesis Flood, does not
make it the older account.
JCR: Your whole line of reasoning is based on your
interpretation of Isaiah 51 is correct and this in itself
lies on the assumption that your assumptions about the
Tehom/Tiamat relationship are correct. Surely you must
see how this is circular reasoning at its most evident.
There is absolutely no internal unambiguous references
that divinise Tehom whatsoever in the Tanakh. Reading
the text at face value could only ever lead the reader
to believe that Tehom is referring to the body of
water which the context evidently points to.
Yitzhak:
Again, I am not saying the reference is to the Babylonian
Tiamat, but rather to the Canaanite counterpart Tehom.
END QUOTE
JCR: Do you have any evidence of a Canaanite goddess
named Tehom? If not, this is merely speculation based
on non verifiable assumptions.
> Gen 49:25 The parallelism $mym/thwm immediately
> follows )l )byk/$dy, which is clearly a divine
>
...not!
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.