Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jedi Mind Trick · 07-21-2011, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

The story, if I am not mistaken, comes to the Hebrews from earlier Sumerian sources. There it was the gods and not a one God who were afraid of the undertakings of man. The Hebrews just adopted the Sumerian myth to a monotheistic God, but notice that they kept the plurality of the dialogue between the gods about their concerns.

You may, actually, be mistaken; there is a Sumerian myth that mentions languages and a construction project, but I don't think it's similar enough to definitely be a derivative or a predecessor of the Hebrew account.

Here's a translation of the myth (see it in context here; this section is taken from lines 134-155):

Quote:

At such a time, may the lands of Cubur and Hamazi, the many-tongued, and Sumer, the great mountain of the me of magnificence, and Akkad, the land possessing all that is befitting, and the Martu land, resting in security -- the whole universe, the well-guarded people -- may they all address Enlil together in a single language! For at that time....Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.

As far as I can tell, they are building some kind of temple and pray that Enki, one of the gods, might make their speech all the same so they can all worship together. That's not quite similar enough to be a derivative of the Hebrew account or vice versa. I don't know of any other Mesopotamian valley "language myths" that predate the Hebrews'.

There are, however, many other myths concerning the origin of language. Some are probably quite accurate; the Salishan account (southwestern Canada) states that one tribe's language divided into two over many years after an unresolved dispute split the tribe up.

Oddly enough, many of those geographically distant from Mesopotamia are too similar to the Hebrew account to be unrelated. Myths in India, Polynesia, Indonesia, Mexico, and South America all describe humanity existing in one place before the gods curse them with a confusion of languages that causes them to disperse. I don't see how this specific mytheme could have arisen independently in so many different places without some derivation.

Interesting... thanks for that.

davidstarlingm · 07-21-2011, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

As far as similar "complex" myths appearing in different cultures, there's more than one way that could happen. The "combined archetypes" way is but one way. Another is through cross-cultural contamination. Take the Central American myths as an example. A priest goes in amongst the indigenous people and tells them the story of the Tower of Babel. This story may even get passed amongs tribes. It's a nice myth and fits right in with the way the tribes see the world; it makes sense to them. Some time later, a researcher goes in to collect myths from the indigenous people. They discover that, amazingly enough, they have a myth that is quite similar to the Biblical Babel myth.

Not saying that's the way it did happen, just that it's a way it could happen.

Interestingly enough, the Central American myth that I referenced was testified to by the earliest priests to visit under Cortez et al. But yes, that could certainly be the source of such legends in India and Africa.

Consider, though, that it would not have been the purvey of the earliest Catholic priests to pass Genesis on to indigenous peoples. They didn't hold the Old Testament in very high regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So what is your preferred explanation of these common themes?

Derivation, like Jedi Mind Trick suggested. Perhaps the evolution of religion traces back to a common faith that goes a lot farther back than is commonly believed.

Jimmy Higgins · 07-21-2011, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So what is your preferred explanation of these common themes?

Derivation, like Jedi Mind Trick suggested. Perhaps the evolution of religion traces back to a common faith that goes a lot farther back than is commonly believed.

Wouldn't that have been animism?

Toto · 07-21-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

...

Consider, though, that it would not have been the purvey of the earliest Catholic priests to pass Genesis on to indigenous peoples. They didn't hold the Old Testament in very high regard.

...

It is true that the primary emphasis of Catholic priests was Jesus, and a lot of apparent references to a crucified savior around the world seem to originate in Catholic priests interpreting other religions as pale imitations or precursors of their own story about Jesus, but I don't think you can say that they didn't hold the Hebrew scriptures in high regard.

davidstarlingm · 07-21-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So what is your preferred explanation of these common themes?

Derivation, like Jedi Mind Trick suggested. Perhaps the evolution of religion traces back to a common faith that goes a lot farther back than is commonly believed.

Wouldn't that have been animism?

Not so much. The Enlightenment-era model of religion progressing from animism or ancestor worship to polytheism and slowly working up to monotheism and further was discarded a long time ago. It was popular in the 19th century to assume that everything could be modeled according to some grand theme, but it's the same as the old misconception that fish evolved into reptiles and then into mammals and then into humans. To paraquote Dawkins, "Modern fish are modern fish; they're just as modern as we are."

The idea of linear evolution goes back to Lamark. It's not well evidenced by history at all.

Horatio Parker · 07-21-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shalak

My problem with that is assuming the young creationists use the genealogy and come up with about 4000 to 6000 years from Adam to Christ that means human's as we know it have only been in existence/evolved to their present state for a lot less time then science shows..... I guess my question for that is how in the world is that consistent? Or am I being ignorant and ignoring some relevant fact?

Even if you take a non-literal view of the Genesis creation account.... The Genealogies can be used to get a pretty rough approximation of mankind's existence from Adam until now. I guess Adam is not the first created man in a theistic evolution standpoint but rather the first evolved man? Even so don't we have a lot of evidence for more advanced forms of humanity that far exceed 6000 years?

With all due respect, I think you're going about this all wrong. Adam is all of us. The universe is creating itself all of the time and we all come into existence without understanding. And we all attain self awareness and get expelled from the garden. It's a myth, which is a dramatic representation of an abstract truth. Tying these stories to historical events will just interfere with your spiritual life. It's religion, not archaeology. I suggest another approach.

davidstarlingm · 07-21-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Adam is all of us. The universe is creating itself all of the time and we all come into existence without understanding. And we all attain self awareness and get expelled from the garden.

....special.:frown:

Horatio Parker · 07-21-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Adam is all of us. The universe is creating itself all of the time and we all come into existence without understanding. And we all attain self awareness and get expelled from the garden.

....special.:frown:

I'm shooting from the hip, but it's something like that.

mountainman · 07-22-2011, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Adam is all of us. The universe is creating itself all of the time and we all come into existence without understanding. And we all attain self awareness and get expelled from the garden.

....special.:frown:

I'm shooting from the hip, but it's something like that.

A reading of the Gnostic material from the Nag Hammadi codices that makes mention of Adam, and/or his son Seth, seem to follow this drift. These texts about Adam include:

5 5 The Apocalypse of Adam
9 2 The Thought of Norea
9 3 The Testimony of Truth

and about Seth include:

3 2 The Gospel of the Egyptians
5 2 The Apocalypse of Paul
7 2 The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
7 5 The Three Steles of Seth
8 1 Zostrianos
9 1 Melchizedek
10 1 Marsanes
11 4 Hypsiphrone

Horatio Parker · 07-22-2011, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

I'm shooting from the hip, but it's something like that.

A reading of the Gnostic material from the Nag Hammadi codices that makes mention of Adam, and/or his son Seth, seem to follow this drift. These texts about Adam include:

5 5 The Apocalypse of Adam
9 2 The Thought of Norea
9 3 The Testimony of Truth

and about Seth include:

3 2 The Gospel of the Egyptians
5 2 The Apocalypse of Paul
7 2 The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
7 5 The Three Steles of Seth
8 1 Zostrianos
9 1 Melchizedek
10 1 Marsanes
11 4 Hypsiphrone

I haven't read those, thanks for pointing them out, but it's clear that the garden of eden story is about loss of innocence.

And if you consider the story as if it were happening now in an archetypal way, there's more truth to it than trying to figure out if Adam preferred figs to dates.

Gnosticism is a big subject, and I don't know much about it, but from what I've seen, they were on the right track in many respects. Little wonder they had to be ruthlessly stomped out.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.