Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave Hawkins · 07-09-2007, 08:47 AM

MORE ON ORIGINAL MONOTHEISM IN EGYPT

Quote:

Monotheism in Ancient Egypt

Monotheism was known in very early times. The Egyptian Book of the Dead demonstrates that the Egyptian people originally believed in one great God and not many. With the passage of time, each of the known attributes of the true God were personified as new and individual deities - and so, polytheism developed.

That view is well documented by the famous Egyptologist, Sir Wallis Budge, in his best-known text, The Book of the Dead. Following are statements from the Book of the Dead as to the attributes of the true God, selected from The Papyrus of Ani:

"A Hymn To Amen-Ra ... president of all the gods ... Lord of the heavens ... Lord of Truth ... maker of men; creator of beasts ... Ra, whose word is truth, the Governor of the world, the mighty one of valour, the chiefs who made the world as he made himself. His forms are more numerous than those of any god ... "Adoration be to thee, O Maker of the Gods, who hast stretched out the heavens and founded the earth! ... Lord of eternity, maker of the everlastingness ... creator of light ... He heareth the prayer of the oppressed one, he is kind of heart to him that calleth upon him, he delivereth the timid man from the oppressor ... He is the Lord of knowledge, and Wisdom is the utterance of his mouth. "He maketh the green herb whereon the cattle live, and the staff of life whereon men live. He maketh the fish to live in the rivers, and the feathered fowl in the sky. He giveth life to that which is in the egg ... "Hail to thee, O thou maker of all these things, thou ONLY ONE. In his mightiness he taketh many forms."

Wallis Budge states: "After reading the above extracts it is impossible not to conclude that the ideas of the ancient Egyptians about God were of a very exalted character, and it is clear that they made in their minds a sharp distinction between God and the "gods" ... Here then we have One God who was self-created, self-existent and almighty, who created the universe."
http://www.submission.info/perspecti...ent_times.html

ericmurphy · 07-09-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I don't know what YOU mean by physical evidence, but the only evidence I have consists of the following ...

1) Literary sources already discussed, plus some more that I have not listed yet

NOT physical evidence.

Quote:

2) Evidence for environmental and genetic influence on the ageing process, discussed in the Nature article posted and similar sources

NOT evidence that humans ever lived more than 150 years.

Quote:

3) Evidence from geology and many other fields that there was, in fact, a Global Flood which would have been responsible for drastic environmental changes

You have NO EVIDENCE that such a flood ever occurred.

Quote:

Those are the three main evidences. You probably say that these are weak.

They're not weak. They're nonexistent.

ericmurphy · 07-09-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Don't close it yet. I'm about to post some more literary evidence which I think some will find quite interesting.

Dave, when are you going to get that "literary evidence" that is not supported by "empirical evidence" is worthless?

Until you can come up with some empirical evidence that these individuals ever lived at all, let alone for centuries, you have nothing to say on the matter.

Whether you believe empirical evidence is necessary to support these claims or not, you know that we do. So why do you think finding more literary evidence is going to persuade us? That is your goal, isn't it? To persuade us that you're right? Or are you just talking to yourself?

Rhaedas · 07-09-2007, 08:55 AM

Does having an initial creator who then populates the universe with various gods make a religion monotheistic? If so, most religions are monotheistic in their beginning. I can't think of a mythology that has multiple creators.

ericmurphy · 07-09-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Several posts ago I highlighted that statements of this kind had no content, since no-one questioned that the ante-diluvians under discussion were not like us, if only because the point was that they lived these vast periods. People who live this long are not like us. I'm not sure that I can put that more simply. Merely reiterating that modern science knows of no such people today merely indicates unwillingness to read.

Ignoring my point by trying to shift an imaginary burden of proof likewise seems pointless to me.

What possible relevance to this thread does the observation that hypothetical centuries-old ante-diluvians would be different from modern humans have?

That is not the question. The question is, did they exist in the first place? You seem to be taking this as a given. It is not. What Calillasiea is asking for, and what you are failing to provide, is evidence that they ever existed.

YOU are the one attempting to shift the burden of proof.

deadman_932 · 07-09-2007, 09:08 AM

No comment on the lack of monotheistic beliefs at the earliest stages of Sumer, according to Kramer, Dave?

If Langdon believes all the Sumerian gods are manifestations of one god...what's the name of that god, dave? And why isn't it Yahweh?

And why do radiocarbon and other absolute dating methods (that you have never demonstrated to be flawed) show Sumerian inscriptions both prior to and after your flood date?

nogods4me · 07-09-2007, 09:12 AM

It seems to me the most obvious reason that the pre-flood folks could not have lived for 1000 years is that there was never a global flood, so how could there have been pre-flood persons?

Dave Hawkins · 07-09-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhaedas

Does having an initial creator who then populates the universe with various gods make a religion monotheistic? If so, most religions are monotheistic in their beginning. I can't think of a mythology that has multiple creators.

Sure, initially. Remember that the many 'gods' are often just men who have been 'deified.'

Roger Pearse · 07-09-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Several posts ago I highlighted that statements of this kind had no content, since no-one questioned that the ante-diluvians under discussion were not like us, if only because the point was that they lived these vast periods. People who live this long are not like us. I'm not sure that I can put that more simply. Merely reiterating that modern science knows of no such people today merely indicates unwillingness to read.

Ignoring my point by trying to shift an imaginary burden of proof likewise seems pointless to me.

What possible relevance to this thread does the observation that hypothetical centuries-old ante-diluvians would be different from modern humans have?

That is not the question. The question is, did they exist in the first place? You seem to be taking this as a given. It is not. What Calillasiea is asking for, and what you are failing to provide, is evidence that they ever existed.

YOU are the one attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Thank you for your thoughts, but in fact I have, as I have said, no interest in the (useless) question that you want to discuss.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 07-09-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Roger seems to be of the opinion that the existence of this mythical population of extremely long-lived humans is not subject to debate.

I'm not the only one having difficulty with this thread, I see! I did not express any such view, nor do I hold it. My point was about the kinds of arguments that were being made; that both sides agreed that any such people were not like us today, precisely in that they lived for a long time.

Quote:

Apparently he never read the OP here, because that is supposedly the topic here. He hasn't addressed that particular topic at all, other than to imply it's not worth debating because it's self-evidently true.

Have a look at my posts and see the connection. Unlike most posters I really *did* read the OP and think about what it meant, and what would be involved.

But the difficulty with this thread is that 90% of the posters have now turned off their minds and are parrotting stale old invective almost in set terms. This of course squeezes out any possibility of intelligent discussion, and leads to people attributing to others views that they do not hold on subjects that they have not discussed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2007, 08:55 AM	#314
Rhaedas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,440	Does having an initial creator who then populates the universe with various gods make a religion monotheistic? If so, most religions are monotheistic in their beginning. I can't think of a mythology that has multiple creators.

07-09-2007, 09:08 AM	#316
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	No comment on the lack of monotheistic beliefs at the earliest stages of Sumer, according to Kramer, Dave? If Langdon believes all the Sumerian gods are manifestations of one god...what's the name of that god, dave? And why isn't it Yahweh? And why do radiocarbon and other absolute dating methods (that you have never demonstrated to be flawed) show Sumerian inscriptions both prior to and after your flood date?

07-09-2007, 09:12 AM	#317
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	It seems to me the most obvious reason that the pre-flood folks could not have lived for 1000 years is that there was never a global flood, so how could there have been pre-flood persons?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.