George, if you think that picture is ridiculous you’ll see how I feel about the usual “ANE cosmologies”. I can see from my own scattered reading where some of the ideas in this one arise, and they may be more correct in some ways. I’ve read sources, for example, that say the Bark of Re sails beneath Nut, or (more commonly) through her body, rather than above. That would make sense since in that cosmology she forms the upper limit of the cosmos. And the bark also sails on the Milky Way, which is (like the stars) suspended below the sky, or part of Nut’s starry body as Jon’s pretty tomb painting shows.
It remains to be seen whether any Egyptian envisaged the bark of Re sailing on actual water at all, and this is where I think all these attempts to make ancient physical cosmologies fail - it’s not just the Bible where I think the texts and graphics are abused by modern materialism. The Egyptian conceptions were enormously complex (and changing) theological schemes expressed in metaphorical and even directly contradictory ways. More than one author points out that in all the various schemes across Egypt and the millennia, Egyptians were less concerned with the physical structure of the cosmos, but in its unfolding in cyclical time. You can’t map that to any kind of “ancient science.”
One small example of how we ignore the theological: those pictures of Nut arching over the earth, interpreted as meaning a solid sky, were usually painted inside coffins, with the purpose of entreating the goddess, sometimes with associated written prayers, to do to the deceased what she does for the earth:
`O my mother Nut, spread yourself over me, so that I may be placed among the imperishable stars and may never die.’ Versions of this text were commonly written on coffin and sarcophagus lids and, beginning in the New Kingdom; figures of Nut in various protective attitudes were also depicted.
Anyone looking for a physical cosmology in that is barking up a tree.
Richard, first of all, I am amazed at how much attention this thread has generated; secondly, I can see that many posts raise points that can be of scholarly interest; but finally, I personally conclude that your two quotes above put concording into proper perspective: Of what use is concordance personally in how I should guide my life? I give thanks to fact I was born into a Christian home so the early impressions on my psyche was based on monotheism, rather than the polytheistic universe of the Greeks, Romans or Hindus. So what the people of the ANE got right, in terms of cosmology, is of academic interest to me. But if I dwell too much on how each group justified their existence and their relationship with their creator, I risk not being open to what God has to say to me directly, Yes, I do believe He speaks directly to me–not in words, of course, but in the sum of very subtle experiences. It is somewhat like being in a crowded room with several conversations going on simultaneously. If the most important information is soft-spoken, you may miss it entirely.
The writers of OT Scripture experienced God ‘speaking’ to them in their time, and I am grateful that I can learn from their experiences. But if I get too involved in deciphering what he was trying to communicate to them so very long ago, I may miss what he wants to communicate directly to me now.
Does this make any sense? Or is it just kooky?
Al Leo
I don’t want you to think I’m trying to offend you. I’m actually trying to figure out how not to offend you. But how to do it?
You have been a moving target during this whole protracted discussion.
Where’s the dome? - there’s no dome.
Where’s the vault? - there’s no vault.
Where’s the ocean? - there’s only waters.
Since there is only waters, we can forget the entire topic.
Egypt? They don’t have views like that.
Well, they have views “like” what we read about in the O.T.,
but it is it really what we think it is… and so forth.
Jon, with or without Egypt, the Old Testament has an amazingly well integrated system of presumptions and viewpoints, with one conclusion leading almost perfectly to the next conclusion. The only problem with the O.T. view of the Firmament is that it is not based on reality. < [Edited to include a reference to the Firmament.]
This should not be surprising. Why would you think that people living 4000 years ago would know anything about reliable cosmology?
When you chop out all the parts of the discussion that provide the context for the final sentence, it might mislead the reader. So I’ve gone back to edit my sentence to be less dependent on the other sentences around:
The only problem with the O.T. view of the Firmament is that it is not based on reality. < [Edited to include a reference to the Firmament.]
So, @Jon_Garvey, tell me again why we are supposed to accept not just inaccurate Biblical writings, but blindly inaccurate writings?
No, your comments are right on. One, I believe God talks to me and to all of us, even non-believers. For those of them who ever searched for meaning, something in their soul must have been telling them that there is something more to life than what they’re currently experiencing. Probably was God, right? And we’re in good company as well - when Abraham Lincoln was asked why he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, he responded, “because God told me to”.
I agree with you also that, in one sense anyway, this present discussion has gone on pretty long. But in another sense, it’s really talking about how we think the bible should be viewed. I’ve come to feel strongly against any kind of strong biblical inerrancy, because, for one, the term and concept IMO is not biblical, and two, it directs skeptics directly to Genesis 1-11 to look for, “errors”, putting the text under a burden it was never meant to bear. So there are greater forces at play here rather than just trying to win an online argument. Hope that helps.
So, I’m taking from this that the view that God used a broadly accepted view of the physical world at that time, that may consist of elements that don’t vibe with modern science, to couch his theological narrative would be too close to, “Genesis was, in fact, attempting to teach scientific cosmology as divine truth”. Therefore, the insistence that nothing in G1 could be actually be, “wrong” or, “inaccurate”. Well, for the record, I don’t think anyone can demonstrate that G1 is teaching any cosmology. If God is using creations and separations to form his cosmic temple, then why do those acts have to not contradict any knowledge of the physical world when, as you also believe, the purpose of the text is theological? I know you might respond that there isn’t a demonstrable ANE cosmology for the Hebrews to borrow, so the next question is, why isn’t it safe to say that God inspired the G1 author to have water above the sky and sun after daylight to set up the separations to show that He is forming the world as his temple, and not have it be about the world?
Anything’s possible, I suppose. But it seems to me that the basic aim of the text is to say something along the lines of “This is our world, guys, which God made by his own will and power to carry on as he created it. And look - it’s nothing more or less than a temple for his worship, like the tabernacle in the camp/temple in Jerusalem.”
In other words, there is a correspondence between the symbolism (or better, identification) and the encountered world.
Origins, being outside common experience, are of less factual importance for such a purpose: one can imagine (assuming for a moment the divine author’s viewpoint rather than Moses or P) a choice between an accurate scientific account, or an architectural account; or if we see the separations as a key theological factor, a theological account.
At all these levels we need to remember that ancient folks were better at holding symbols and material things in constructive balance than we are. That is probably the main reason we read naivety rather than intellectual sophistication into their writings, including those of the pagan Egyptians and Babylonians.
For example you mentioned in a previous post the question of God dwelling in heaven, which of course fits both the idea of temple imagery in Genesis and some of the surrounding ANE concepts. But Solomon’s words in 2 Kings makes it clear that the Israelite theologians could see God as so truly represented in the Jerusalem temple in the shekinah that it was death to encroach on the Holy of holies, and yet still say that they knew he couldn’t actally dwell there as even the highest heavens couldn’t contain him.
And we have the same thing in Christian theology - in a special way, the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, yet we don’t expect to find him by dissection, and we still have the eschatological hope of seeing God face to face … “somewhere”. The reality is somehow representational, and vice versa. The ancients were at least as aware of this as we are, and it seems they prioritised it over the merely material in their texts.
Your comments about Hebrew views regarding the location of God seem more appropriately fit to the Roman “invention” of Mithraism (post Roman but pre-Christianity) – where the location of the deity that moved the whole Zodiac every 2,200 years, had to be out beyond the Zodiac.
And thus the lion-headed deity, holding the key to the Heavens, and standing on a large-ish basket-ball sized Zodiac (within which rested the Earth and its sky), representing the great power of Aeon or Time itself, was represented in other illustrations as having a throne out beyond the Zodiac.
To think that the Zodiac was beyond the Earth some millions and millions of miles never really crossed anyone’s mind.
Sure he can. All you need is actual evidence, and a demonstrated knowledge of the relevant source material. Please feel free to gainsay him via this method.
Where does he do that?
[quote=“Jon_Garvey, post:124, topic:35992”]…he’s using the English translation, “firmament”, of a word occurring uniquely in the Hebrew account, and then saying how every other pre-scientific people employs it.
[/quote]
Where does he do that?
Evidence please.
[quote=“Jon_Garvey, post:124, topic:35992”]
However, in your post to me you have kindly provided an example that directly contradicts Seely’s claim that no cosmologies anywhere have air or space supporting the firmament,[/quote]
Where does he say that? You seem completely unaware that he actually cites Nut being held up by the goddess of air. He says it right here.
Also clearly showing that the Egyptians thought of the sky as solid is the fact that they like the Sumerians and Indians in the Rig Veda distinguished between the sky (firmament) and the atmosphere. The sky was personified by one goddess, Nut, while the air which upheld the sky was personified by an entirely different deity, Shu.
He says something similar about the Sumerians.
Sumerian literature, like the Rig Veda, distinguished between the firmament and the atmosphere. The Sumerians made this distinction by attributing to their air god, Enlil, the original act of separating heaven from earth. Hence Kramer noted the Sumerians believed that between heaven and earth was a substance called lil or wind which "corresponds roughly to our ‘atmosphere,’ " while they thought of the firmament as solid, possibly composed of tin since the Sumerian word for tin is literally “metal of heaven.”
This shows that both the Egyptians and the Sumerians differentiated between the air and the firmament (he also points out that early Christian era Jews made the same distinction). The firmament was not the air, and the air was not the firmament, and the firmament was solid. Have you actually read his work at all?
You keep claiming that the Jews and other ancient people just used all this language metaphorically, not literally. But where is the evidence for this? Seely makes this salient point.
Certainly anyone denying the solidity of the raqia in Genesis 1 bears a heavy burden of proof.
To consolidate my lengthy treatment of some new aspects of the Firmament I just posted (in another thread), I thought I would paste the same post here:
Gen 1:6
And God said, Let there be a firmament (raqiya) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gen 1:16 - 17
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament (raqiya] of the heaven (shamayim) to give light upon the earth, [when firmament and heaven are paired, it usually takes this form, avoiding the equation that “firmament” and “sky” are identical terms]
I can see Genesis 1:6 being relevant, but I couldn’t figure out what you meant by Genesis 7:22. Is that a typo?
Above I have listed the verses for Gen 1:6 and for Genesis 1:16-17.
Both of them use the Hebrew word for “firmament”. And the latter refers to the “firmament” as being “of the shamayim”, rather than the shamayim itself.
I believe it is King James Gen 1:20 that usually triggers the objections:
Gen 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
But if we look at some fairly reliable alternatives to King James, you can see that context often determines how the translation for English is constructed:
New King James Version
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
New International Version
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” [in this case, the word “vault” is a reference to a ceiling].
English Standard Version
And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[fn] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” [In this case, instead of a reference to a ceiling, the word “expanse” is used to refer to open air, but instead of “in” we have “across”, which is an odd pairing. Where there is open air, the English “in” presents no conflict.
Revised Standard Version:
And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." [In this case, the “ceiling” of the firmament is used, and then paired with “across” instead of “in” - - to avoid the English conundrum of "birds fly above the earth in the ceiling of the heavens]
New English Translation
God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” [Here again, we see “across” matched with “expanse” [i.e., air] rather than “firmament” [i.e. ceiling].
Reggie, could you produce the actual text of the verses that give you the most trouble?
I looked up more verses texts where the term for firmament and the term for heaven are in the same sentence:
Maybe this is the one you mean:
Gen 1:8
And God called the firmament [raqia] Heaven [shamayim]. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
I repeat the same exercise from other translations:
NIV
God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening…
[“vault” = “sky” is not as troubling I suppose, but it does leave us with “ceiling” = “sky”.]
ESV
And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening
[Here we have “expanse” paired with Heaven, which makes more sense in English - - where colloquial English equates “openness” with a “ceiling” that extends across the entire Earth.
RSV
And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening
[Revised Standard goes back to King James]
NET
God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening,
[New English Translation also converts “firmament/celing” to the colloquial “firmament/expanse” as a reference to the open air.
Vulgate/Latin
vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus
[Here is where the word “firmamentum” literally comes from. It is the Latin form of “firmus”, meaning “of a strengthening”, “a support”, “a prop” (as in propping something up).
This is along the same line as how Rabbinical ideas of the raqiya are intended. The Rabbi’s sometimes discuss more than one level of Heaven, with more than one raqiya . . . where the raqiya are described like “floors” or “flooring” which supports the realm immediately above.]
I can’t swear by this transliteration of the Greek letters into English-style syllables, but this is what Google Translate offers:
“kaí ekálesen o theós tó steréoma ouranón kaí eíden o theós óti kalón kaí egéneto espéra kaí egéneto proí iméra deftéra”
Translators believe the Latin writers of the Vulgate chose the Latin equivalent (firmamentum) for the Greek word “stereoma” - the Greek term said to have been chosen by Jewish scholars who knew their Hebrew and the Greek of ancient period.
From the Wiki article on the Firmament, we are referred to a Greek lexicon:
Stereoma
a…solid body, [as found in Hp.Flat.8, Anaxag. ap. Placit.2.25.9 ].
b. ἄϋλα ς. immaterial solids, [as found in Dam.Pr.425, cf. 205.]
foundation or framework, e.g. the skeleton, on which the body is, as it were, built, [as found in Arist.PA655a22; στερεώματος ἕνεκα τοῦ περιτρήτου to strengthen it, Hero Bel.95.8: metaph]
and
, solid part, strength of an army, [as found in LXX 1 Ma.9.14];
also, ratification, [as found in ἐπιστολῆς ib.Es.9.29; steadfastness, “τῆς πίστεως” Ep.Col.2.5.]
= στεῖρα (of a ship), [as found in Thphr. HP5.7.3.]
firmament, i.e. the sky, the heaven above, [as found in LXX Ge. 1.6, Ez.1.22, al.; “τὸν τῶν οὐρανίων ς. δεσπότην” Tab.Defix.Aud.242.8 (Carthage, iii A.D.).]
The Wiki article expands on the meaning of “stereoma”:
"According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:… ‘The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.’
[FN 8= from the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Cosmogony http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4684-cosmogony#2736 ]
For those who have been reading the other thread on the Firmament, there was considerable discussion as to whether “dome” was a legitimate interpretation. Apparently the rabbis think it is. In either case, the interpretation of the firmament doesn’t seem to depend on whether the “ceiling” above the Earth is dome-shaped or some other shape.
.
.
[Note: You can see from the language of the first paragraph of the Wiki article that the author is focusing his attention on the supposed dome shape of the firmament, rather than any dome above the firmament and the waters.
I think more writers should pay attention to the difference between the “firmament” (the layer that separates the two waters) and the presumed ceiling even higher up, above the waters. The firmament could be literally flat, while the dome is above it.
However, from a physics point of view, a partition that takes the form of a slight bowl, inverted so that the curve rises up (rather than down) would be physically more capable of sustaining a weight above, since the compression force of gravity would create pressure all along the convex curvature, and making it more solid in the process.
Even the Rabbi’s in the Jewish Encyclopedia article make a reference to the convex nature of the firmament … referencing how it would facilitate a bird flying underneath along it’s “expanse”.]
I think, generally, there is only one verse where this distinction is difficult, where Genesis says God called the firmament shamayim; which I will later show is intended to mean “the firmament is (double) lofty”.
Colloquially, and in the context of all the other uses of the terms for Firmament and for Heaven, it would appear that a better English translation is that God said the firmament was “of” Heaven (or i.e., “of” the sky, or skyward?).
Not only does the more explicit phrase “firmament of Heaven” appear several times, it is frequently described as having something attached to, or installed in, its structure.
Strong’s outlines the use of Heaven as follows:
I. Heaven, Heavens, Sky
A. visible heavens, sky
I. as abode of the stars
ii. as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
B. Heaven (as the abode of God)
Strong’s Definitions
שָׁמַיִם shâmayim, shaw-mah’-yim;
dual of an unused singular שָׁמֶה shâmeh; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch
in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the
celestial bodies revolve):—air, × astrologer, heaven(-s).
Compare this to the wording for the Firmament:
I. Extended Surface (solid), Expanse
A. Expanse (flat as base, support)
B.Firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
I. Considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above
Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee’-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse,
i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.
I suppose it can be awkward to try to separate the “solidness” of a ceiling constructed high in the sky - - and comparing it with, or even identifying it with, the “emptiness” of Air immediately below the ceiling!
Since the air is invisible, and it was believed the color of the sky came from the waters above (above a translucent or crystalline ceiling), there is not a lot of ways to describing “the space below the ceiling” … when that space extends all the way down to the ground.
The use of the term Heavens (Shamayim) appears to be the “loftiness” of the area - - (as Strong suggests “double lofty”), while the firmament shares the “loftiness” of the Sky, but with solidity as described in other verses.
There’s nothing in your post that I disagree with. You are making my case, though, with:
It follows from this, and the whole post really, that the physical descriptions of G1 are incidental to the meaning of the text. Then, from your last post,that Genesis 1 can’t be shown, if viewed properly, that it’s, “attempting to teach scientific cosmology as divine truth”. I think what you are trying to say that you can’t accept the message-incident principle since someone could make the claim that it’s endorsing a wrong cosmology, and that people not educated on the matter, which is the vast majority of believers, might be caused some angst.
As an aside, G1 is most likely a pre-Israelite account so there was no tabernacle or temple yet. But this post prompted me to read a review of one of John Walton’s book Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology in jhsonline (Journal of Hebrew Scriptures). Walton believes the 7 days in G1 were inspired by the 7-day temple inauguration ceremony that the ancient Mesopotamians employed, for whatever that’s worth.
However, when you say this:[quote=“Jon_Garvey, post:138, topic:35992”]
Anything’s possible, I suppose.
[/quote]
you make it appear as if the, “message-incident” view of G1 is the one that doesn’t accept the plain descriptions of the text. But I’ll be nice, you’ve done a lot of leg-work to carve out a nice niche between concordism and the message-incident principle so I’ll leave it at that.
Perhaps Seely would have been more precise if he had avoided using the term “Firmament” and spent more time dealing with the double-waters scenario in general. Below is a snapshot of some pages that concisely treat the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian mythological arc on the Waters of creation!
I actually remember reading about this, but had forgotten how it had flowed into the Semitic cosmology of Earth’s creation!
I think we can now safely say that Egypt, the Hebrew and the Babylonians all had an impression that there were waters up in the heavens…
I note your previous objection that we can’t be sure the Egyptians thought the Solar Barge, traveling above the Earth, was actually plying waters or not. And I understand that objection. But even here … if the Hebrew merely “jumped to the conclusion” that the Solar Barges traveled on real water in the sky … that would certainly be understandable.
The Egyptian culture was a very old, and presumably very wise, culture - - and so it is not like the Hebrew had to invent the whole notion on their own. I do think they had the most elaborate construction of the entire operation . . . even if they weren’t the ones to come up with the general idea first.
George - have you updated yourself on the current literature on the atypical nature of Enuma elish as creation myth within Babylonian tradition, of the current view that initial impressions of its comparability to the Hebrew creation were premature and ill-founded - and of course by reading the authoritative recent work on Babylonian cosmic geography of Horowitz?
Horowitz specifically points out how simplistic it is to reduce Tiamat and Apsu to symbols of salt and fresh water, when even in Enuma elish itself they are much more complex divinities : for example, the solid earth is made from half of Tiamat’s body (after her skull is smashed with a club) - with the deep against, not below it; mankind is made from her blood and bone; and the sky from the other half of her body to cover heaven and contain her own water. Your source identifies that as rain - maybe it is, but wasn’t Tiamat supposed to be the female salt water? How then does she "account for the division between the two sources of… fresh water?
These are all pretty diverse and contradictory results if she is just “salt water”. But once one has conceived that Enuma elish is all about promoting Babylonian’s patron god Marduk as chief god, and has no real interest in natural philosophy whatsoever, it’s blindingly obvious when you read Enuma elish itself again, and the parallels look increasingly like desperate attempts to accommodate chalk to cheese.
In the Egyptian case, by the New Kingdom of Moses’ time (it now appears) Egypt had a kind of henotheistic monotheism in Ptah, who was said to have (for example) put the air God Shu in place to support the sky. The emphasis was on Ptah’s omnipotence - even extended to being the final source of the primordial chaos from which (in the Old Kingdom theology) the primaeval hill had arisen. Matters of cosmogony, at that stage, the first stage at which Israel had dealings with Egypt, were not emphasised - and the cosmological pictures were placed (conservatively) in coffins to invoke the protection of Nut as immediate goddess of the dead, not to speculate on the nature of the cosmos.
If there were a significant influence on the Genesis creation story, surely it must be the theological development of God’s sole Creatorhood from the idea of the sovereignty of Ptah, which is as close as one can imagine to creation ex nihilo.
Of course there is upper water in all three cosmologies, because even in Egypt and Babylon the stuff falls from the sky sometimes, and in Israel it’s the source of all prosperity. That’s equally true in England or America, though - we have no reason to believe our nations have borrowed a cosmology from anyone: just an umbrella.
Are you grasping at straws my good friend? These mythologies are not systematic theologies. They are stories. Etymological stories… to attempt to explain the way things are in large sweeping arcs.
Let’s just look at a piece of the story, for ease of analysis, I have labeled different sections:
[a] Slicing Tiamat in half, he made from her ribs the vault of heaven and earth.
[b] Her weeping eyes became the source of the Tigris and the Euphrates,
[c] her tail became the Milky Way.
[d] Kingu, son of the father Abzu (fresh water), was captured and later was slain: his red blood mixed with the red clay of the Earth would make the body of humankind…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So -
[a] explains where the arching roof of Earth comes from … a monster’s giant rib cage.
[b] explains what was the source of two giant river systems that were unusually close together.
yes, Salt Water Tiamat is now being deconstructed into sources of fresh water, but the ancient world thought it was much easier to have salt water than fresh water. Any kind of corruption to fresh water, while Tiamat was alive and monstrous, would produce bitter waters. If one God kills another God, with all their godlike attributes, you are going to challenge how the carcass changed to producing fresh water? You are kidding, right?
[c] the “swoosh” of her tail explains where the Milky Way comes from. Does any of this make much sense? Not any more than testing Adam’s morality before he knows the difference between Good and Evil makes any sense.
[d] and here is where the Babylonians first proposed that humans could be made from red clay … with a particularly persuasive additional ingredient: the red blood of a deity mixed in!
Conclusion?:
In anycase, @Jon_Garvey, the point of my prior post was not to convince you that Genesis was just a re-write of Babylonian myth. It was to show that the Babylonians, and their predecessors, did indeed have a mythology which took a water god and divided her/it into two major pieces, one associated with water in the heaven and water in the underworld.
You can kavetch about the salt water part … but we are talking about gods here … why not complain that you can’t make really good humans if you taint good clay with the blood of an evil dragon? Why don’t we? Because it’s all mythical to begin with … just like the waters of heaven of Genesis.
Or are you telling me that the Genesis version makes so much more sense you think maybe there used to be waters up there?
No, referring to original sources, specifically the text, rather than a précis, of Enuma elish, and summarising modern secondary sources such as Walton, Lambert and Horowitz to show that the parallels between ANE sources and the biblical account are sparse and often coincidental or, at most, vague reflections of a common cultural tradition.
So, in support of my suggestion that cosmology is subject to theology in Enuma elish Lambert:
In ancient Mesopotamia there was comparatively little interest in cosmogony as such… a much greater interest was taken in the ancestries of the gods, and these frequently have cosmogenic associations. Either a deity is an element in the universe, or he controls one.
In his view, nobody is telling aetiological tales: it’s the gods who require explanation, not the world.
Walton (citing Lambert):
It cannot be said that the Hebrew term (tehom) derives from the Babylonian one (tiamat), for they are both reflections of a common semitic root… [The] dividing of the waters is unique to Enuma elish in Mesopotamian literature.
In other words, the complex and historically late saga involving Tiamat’s conquered body in a range of “creation events” does not reflect any common cosmology, but is all composed in the context of establishing Marduk’s supremacy in a mighty battle. It is not an aetiological cosmological tale, but a political polemic on religious ascendancy. Once again, reading the actual text makes that clear - any “cosmology” is disposed of in a few lines of the narrative.
You can’t argue on the one hand that Enuma Elish is an aetiological tale to explain the world around, and then in the next breath dismiss the lack of application to the real world, such as salt rain and drinking water, as the result of its being “just myth”.
So did Israel borrow from this source? Certainly not if Gen 1 predates a historical Exodus, because Enuma elish is probably too late to be an influence, and if you date Genesis to the Persian period, Enuma elish would have become a forgotten fable. But as Walton (again) writes:
These [similarities] are hardly convincing, in that most of the similarities occur in situations where cosmological choices are limited. For example, the belief in a primeval watery mass is perfectly logical and one of only a few possibilities.
Hence my previous point that no culture can avoid some kind of waters above and below, because given that there is rain, and given that there are seas and rivers, there is no alternative. The idea of division of an original single body of water to produce them may have had some cultural currency across the ANE, but if so the evidence is sparse: solely Enuma Elish in Babylon (within a welter of other ideas), Genesis in the Bible, and vague inferences made from the sun-god using a boat to traverse the Milky Way etc in Egypt. The same Egyptian sources say unequivocally that the sky-god is held up by the air-god, not by a solid vault - but they’re all gods, not physical materials.
As you well know by now, I have argued from every reference to the matter in the Old Testament that Genesis makes perfect phenomenological sense by seeing the waters above as the rain-bearing clouds. It is not copying the idea of a celestial sea from its neighbours because there is no good evidence that those neighbours envisaged one either.
