Print Page | Close Window

Noah's ark revisited

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: SCHOLARLY PURSUITS
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Description: Topics relating to the philosophy of science and religion
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=129820
Printed Date: 07 Dec 2019 at 01:49
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Noah's ark revisited
Posted By: franciscosan
Subject: Noah's ark revisited
Date Posted: 13 Jun 2019 at 12:41
Isn't the "Noah story" in Genesis, actually two stories with different details (opposing details) given?  So, I think the question of whether Noah's story happened as given, is an inappropriate question.  On the other hand, flood stories are found world wide, a flood story is just the ancient version of a disaster movie.  It is a message to 'get your act together _now_,' instead of waiting for later.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the wrath of God is involved, whether that is the case for other (polytheistic, or anima religions), I don't know.



Replies:
Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2019 at 03:28
Not as much inconsistency as I thought, just alternate statements about whether Noah brought two of each living thing or seven of the pure and two of the impure.  But, 8.2 "The fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were stopped up, and the rain from the sky was held back;' I don't know how you take "floodgates of the sky" as factical.  Are there floodgates of the sky? btw, the translation I am using is the Tanakh Translation given in the Jewish Study Bible.  In other words, I doubt if you could get a more accurate ('Jewish') translation, after all it is their book.  
On the other hand, I think it is after the Baptism of Jesus, that it says, 'and the sky opened up,' how do you 'literally' (factically) mean that?

I use the term "factically" as something having the quality of being (presented as) a fact.  It may be a true fact or a false fact, but it is not a simile or a metaphor.  It is different from 'factual.'   'sky opened up' is a metaphor and therefore, a literary usage.  Things can be symbolic or figurative, and in that sense you take them "literally" as a literary convention, not _necessarily_ as factical.  For example, taking miracle stories as not factical is kind of to miss the point.  That does not mean that the story ever "factually" happened.  A miracle elicits wonder or awe, a fact can elicit wonder and awe (the Apollo launches), but more likely it will be about the dusty bunnies under the bed, or the weeds in the sidewalk cracks.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2019 at 19:38
Ragnarock, the end of days (Norse).

"Sky opening up" is, in modern days, a term meaning heavy rain.

What it meant in the old days, I wouldn't have a clue.


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 15 Jun 2019 at 02:54
My apologies, again, I am just not remembering scripture accurately, but the point is still valid:

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

The "heaven" not the sky, was opened and "like a dove" (but _not_ a dove), the Spirit of God descending and alighting on him [jesus].  

My point is that you take the passage factically (literally) and its does not clarify anything.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2019 at 01:41
Is it something only John the baptist saw? We don't read "they" saw. John is expected to have visions and an intimate relationship with the Father, So my expectation is for John's experience to be supra natural. John sees the Spirit descending also because of his connection to Jesus and recognition of Jesus' Spiritual identity (since the womb).

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 16 Jun 2019 at 05:38
I think that is a thoughtful answer to just the part I presented, but if you look at the entire story (Matthew 3), you'll see that it is told in third person narration.

The Preaching of John the Baptist

https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A1&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 1 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A1&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A2&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 2 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A2&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near."  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A3&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 3 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A3&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' " https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3&ver=niv#f1" rel="nofollow - [1]   https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A4&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 4 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A4&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A5&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 5 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A5&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A6&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 6 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A6&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A7&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 7 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A7&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A8&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 8 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A8&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -  Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A9&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 9 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A9&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A10&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 10 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A10&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A11&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 11 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A11&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    "I baptize you with https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3&ver=niv#f2" rel="nofollow - [2]  water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3&ver=niv#f2" rel="nofollow - [2]  the Holy Spirit and fire.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A12&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 12 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A12&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

The Baptism of Jesus

https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A13&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 13 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A13&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A14&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 14 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A14&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A15&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 15 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A15&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A16&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 16 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A16&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.  https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A17&ver=niv" rel="nofollow - 17 https://www.christianity.com/bible/bible.php?q=Matthew+3%3A17&ver=niv" rel="nofollow -    And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

So in order to have it be from John the Baptist's eyes, it would have to transition from 3rd person narrative to 1st person narrative.  Visions from John the Baptist would account for the "heavens opened up, and the holy spirit descending onto Jesus' shoulder, but you would have to have a transition.  So, yes, it is an explanation, but it would have to do a kind of wonky moment which admittedly happens elsewhere in the Bible, like when either 2 of each, or 7 of the clean and 2 of the unclean are saved for the ark.





Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2019 at 04:43
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3&version=OJB" rel="nofollow - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+3&version=OJB
16 And having received the tevilah in the Yarden’s mikveh mayim, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach immediately came up. And, hinei! The Shomayim were opened to him, and he saw the Ruach Hakodesh of Hashem descending like a yonah (dove) and coming upon him.


"So in order to have it be from John the Baptist's eyes, it would have to transition from 3rd person narrative to 1st person narrative.  Visions from John the Baptist would account for the "heavens opened up, and the holy spirit descending onto Jesus' shoulder, but you would have to have a transition."

Looking at the versions of the Bible- even the Orthodox Jewish Bible tells the story third person. The author wants to tell us that everyone saw? Everyone hears the bit at the end about how Jesus is favored by God? They may have been using potent ritual tonics such as those made from acacia tree,

http://https://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/05/30/psychoactive-plants-in-the-bible/" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.wakingtimes.com/2015/05/30/psychoactive-plants-in-the-bible/  

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Acacia is a tree with bark that contains DMT and DMT derivatives. DMT is one of the strongest hallucinogens known to man. When combined with an MAOI chemical, DMT becomes highly orally active. Acacia is used widely in the bible as being part of the ark of the covenant as well as part of the tabernacle.

Syrian Rue is a bush that contains potent MAOI chemicals. It grows in the area the bible takes place.



-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2019 at 10:25
Matthew was written in Koine Greek, so I don't think that a Hebrew version/or a Hebrew/English version is any better (or perhaps worse) than the English translation.  I would suggest finding a Koine Greek interlinear English translation.  On second glance, it looks like it is saying Jesus saw, but of course, that could be the translation.  But, I don't think so.  I'll check when I can. 

I prefer the burning bush interpretation that explains the burning bush as a bush infested with a bright red mistletoe that is indigenous to the Middle East.  Mistletoe is a traditional symbol of mysticism.  However, the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible/OT) is quite un-mystic, and on that basis some people reject the mysticism.  I think there is a difference between the origin of the Pentateuch, and the nature of the Pentateuch.  But, if you want psychedelics, you can have psychedelics.  I can't say you are wrong.  On the other hand, we could both be right, for what it is worth.  I would say that the importance is the content, substance, of the teaching, not necessarily the origin.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2019 at 11:15
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Matthew was written in Koine Greek, so I don't think that a Hebrew version/or a Hebrew/English version is any better (or perhaps worse) than the English translation.  I would suggest finding a Koine Greek interlinear English translation.  On second glance, it looks like it is saying Jesus saw, but of course, that could be the translation.  But, I don't think so.  I'll check when I can.
Matthew is written in Hebrew, original. Only Luke was sourced as an original gospel written in Koine. And the assumption is that Luke was a physician. Which is why he knew Greek. I am not aware of anything considered original source material for the gospels written in Koine, in addition to Luke.

Quote I prefer the burning bush interpretation that explains the burning bush as a bush infested with a bright red mistletoe that is indigenous to the Middle East.  Mistletoe is a traditional symbol of mysticism.  However, the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible/OT) is quite un-mystic, and on that basis some people reject the mysticism.  I think there is a difference between the origin of the Pentateuch, and the nature of the Pentateuch.  But, if you want psychedelics, you can have psychedelics.  I can't say you are wrong.  On the other hand, we could both be right, for what it is worth.  I would say that the importance is the content, substance, of the teaching, not necessarily the origin.
Mistletoe is a parasite found on the Acacia tree. Just FYI.


-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2019 at 15:18
There are some people who would like to explain away religion as a drug trip.  I think that 1) often they like drugs, 2) they may be skeptical about religious experience thinking that all religious experiences are (just) drug trips.  Now it is true that various religions do use drugs in one form or another (Christians=wine), Eleusinian Mysteries probably mushrooms or ergot?. Peyote in Southwestern Indian tribes.  so I don't think that one can say that drugs of some form are not involved in mystical experiences.  But, I do feel that some people can get "there" without intoxicants, or at least get somewhere similar.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2019 at 09:28
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I don't think that one can say that drugs of some form are not involved in mystical experiences.  But, I do feel that some people can get "there" without intoxicants, or at least get somewhere similar.
In the east diet and postures are strict, drugs of any kind are said to interfere with meditation also dangerous bc seizures can happen, even without drugs.

Yoga is hard work I don't know what could be achieved under the influence. You need large rolling Theta brain waves and intoxicants crush Theta waves. Drugs don't require attention, patience, grounding, study, practice or intention. So the vision on drugs, in our time our space, is not the same as ecstatic vision.

I don't say drug visions are irrelevant or not legitimate visions, as you say so many have used the plants for so long it is legitimate in the context of the geography.

If you let an American teenager go to Brazil to do Ayahuasca, well he very well might die there. 
Not pretty.

Ecstatic vision is not necessarily going to be pretty, you sit down and immediately 10,000 things come at you. Images, monsters, memories, fears, parents! lol. It won't always work or be spectacular, through devotion you are satisfied in practice, then occasionally great things are revealed. Could be a revelation about yourself and your behavior, massive unloading of crap that you carried around too long or actual ecstatic experience like Parmenides, All in the One.

The Dali Llama walks into a pizza place says "Make me one with everything." Wink


-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: Basileos
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2019 at 14:54
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Matthew was written in Koine Greek, so I don't think that a Hebrew version/or a Hebrew/English version is any better (or perhaps worse) than the English translation.  I would suggest finding a Koine Greek interlinear English translation.  On second glance, it looks like it is saying Jesus saw, but of course, that could be the translation.  But, I don't think so.  I'll check when I can.
Matthew is written in Hebrew, original. Only Luke was sourced as an original gospel written in Koine. And the assumption is that Luke was a physician. Which is why he knew Greek. I am not aware of anything considered original source material for the gospels written in Koine, in addition to Luke.

Quote I prefer the burning bush interpretation that explains the burning bush as a bush infested with a bright red mistletoe that is indigenous to the Middle East.  Mistletoe is a traditional symbol of mysticism.  However, the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible/OT) is quite un-mystic, and on that basis some people reject the mysticism.  I think there is a difference between the origin of the Pentateuch, and the nature of the Pentateuch.  But, if you want psychedelics, you can have psychedelics.  I can't say you are wrong.  On the other hand, we could both be right, for what it is worth.  I would say that the importance is the content, substance, of the teaching, not necessarily the origin.
Mistletoe is a parasite found on the Acacia tree. Just FYI.


So, just a note: Older scholarship generally posits that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, but most scholars nowadays discount the theory. It derives from an ancient commentary, in which Hebrew and Aramaic might be conflated, if my memory serves me, but I don't have the energy to research it now.

I don't subscribe to the Q hypothesis, and I think Mark, combined with likely oral tradition, provides a valid alternative. Mark was written in Koine originally, and so was Luke. John definitely was. So of the four canonical Gospels, three of them were certainly composed in Greek, and one of them likely was. That said, the Old Testament I use is Greek as well, because I believe those 70 or 72 scholars were inspired in their own translation to provide the version that would best serve the Gospel. Tongue

-Akolouthos... I think, at least.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 11:34
Maybe the Hebrew or Aramaic theory was behind the passage Vanuatu gave, and such an experiment may reveal interesting things, but it was Hebrew terms in Roman alphabet connected together with English grammar.  Such an experiment could reveal Hebrew terminology behind the Greek (if is there, but also maybe if it is not:P ).  But, that is why I said that English translation is "better" than this Hebrew/English.  The mixture is interesting, but as far as looking at the whole passage, is kind of sitting on the fence.  I am not saying it is wrong or immoral to do so, on the other hand is should be used in caution, because it can confuse.

I also don't think an older scholarship is 'wrong' in "attributing" the original of Matthew as being in Hebrew or Aramaic.  Incorrect, not factually reflecting the ancient setting, but not "wrong."  People are foolish enough that they can take the wrong way to the right answer, or the right way to the wrong answer.  "Wrong" has a moral implication, which has inappropriate implications in matters of fact.  We like to think that the meaning of such a claim is obvious, but investigating what the people mean by the claim and what it means to them, we often discover that what is there, is not clear (to us), but paradoxically is clear to them.  What I mean by that is not that we are superior, are right, and they're wrong.  What I mean is that it is not clear to us, and yet "by its fruits we shall know them.'

I don't believe that the Septuagint was made by 72 scholars, but on the other hand I don't disbelieve it either.  It is not my place to say.  It is a myth and that does not mean a fiction or a falsehood.  For what it does mean, I would refer to Hesiod and what mythos meant before logos became a servant of a mundane rationality and logic.  _Works and Days_, near the beginning, I don't quite remember but it is there.

By the way, as I am sure you know, Akolouthos, truth in Greek is aletheia, the privative of lethe or forgetfulness.  That means if you forget that is the equivalent of lying.  Pindar shows that in Olympian Ode 10 (or 11?).  On the other hand, a misunderstanding is still an understanding(!?) [and by "you" I mean me.]

I have never read specifically about the Q Hypothesis, but from conversation I think what is meant is a little vague.  I think if you vague things up enough, you can say "truthful" statements, like the Earth is like a big ball.  Yes, and no (no and yes), but one can wonder if I have really said anything about the Earth.  On the other hand, once upon a time, the fact that Earth was round was a "revelation," revealed by the fact of the shadow of Earth on an eclipsed moon.  So I guess, such a vagueness in the Q Hypothesis is useful, but not as a destination, but as a stepping stone or maybe even a dead-end which must be exhausted before continuing on a better path.  I am talking only about mundane reason here, revelation is something different.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 13:58
This is being presented as news but the idea of a source from which all the Gospels draw on is a 
logical assumption and it was backed by just a few fragments of archaeological evidence dating 
from 1945 and the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas and other books at Nag Hammadi. 
It's a theory yes, that suggests a different relationship between Jesus and the people who knew him. 
It's debatable in my view, not claiming any particular insight I see what I read, seems logical. 

It's a bit much cut paste here but lately the links have become inactive the day after posting. Not sure why that is happening.

http://https//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/qthomas.html" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/qthomas.html

Q is the designation for a gospel that no longer exists, but many think must have existed at one time. 

In fact, even though no copy of this gospel has survived independently, some nineteenth-century scholars 

found fragments of such an early Christian composition embeded in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

By putting these two gospels beside that of Mark, scholars realized that when Matthew and Luke are telling the story 

about Jesus, for the most part they both follow the order and often even the wording of Mark. 

But, into this common narrative outline, Matthew and Luke each insert extra sayings and teachings of Jesus. 

And although Matthew and Luke do not put these sayings in the same order, nevertheless they each repeat 

many of the same sayings, sometimes word for word.

Since for other reasons it seems unlikely that either Matthew or Luke could have copied from the other, 

how can this sort of agreement be explained?

The answer appears to be that Matthew and Luke each had two sources in common: 

the Gospel of Mark and another gospel, now lost, a collection of sayings known only as Q.

In 1989, a team of researchers led by James M. Robinson of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont, CA,

began a most unlikely task: the "reconstruction" of the Gospel of Q. Robinson and his team are accomplishing this 

by a highly detailed literary analysis of Matthew, Luke, and Thomas. Their painstaking work goes "verse by verse,

word by word, case ending by case ending." After nearly ten years of work, the results of their efforts are soon to be 

published as the Critical Edition of Q.

The "recovery" of the Q gospel has stimulated a debate about the nature early Christian communities, and by extension, 

the origins of Christianity itself. One scholar, Burton Mack, has advanced a radical thesis: that at least some Christian 

communities did not see Jesus as a Messiah; they saw him as a teacher of wisdom, a man who tried to teach others 

how to live. For them, Jesus was not divine, but fully human. These first followers of Jesus differed from other Christians

whose ritual and practice was centered on the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Their did not emerge as the

"winners" of history; perhaps because the maintaining the faith required the existence of a story that included not 

only the life of Jesus but also his Passion.



-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 14:08
Quote lately the links have become inactive the day after posting. Not sure why that is happening.

Hmmmmmmmmm, another little bug. I'll see if I can fix it, otherwise, contact Bruce at WebWiz.


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2019 at 14:12
toyomotor, I think this is directly related to google withdrawing access to information. It's happening with political links for sure, if the PBS link is still here tomorrow then it's probably related to Google becoming fascists. 

-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: truthsetsfree
Date Posted: 13 Jul 2019 at 17:22
Re the flood gates of heaven: look up these:

cloudburst
great deep & waters above vs waters below Genesis 1.
canopy theory.
Ether?
exploded (watery) planet theory of Van Flanderen & of Alford
exploded planet Tiamat theory of Sitchin.
past water in Mars/Moon?
Shamayim "heavens" contains mayim/mem "water" in it.
Nun in Egyptian is celestial waters? (Nut sky goddess?)



Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 17 Jul 2019 at 14:44
In the Early Earth, there was a time when the rain lasted for 100,000s if not millions of years.  It is in a Smithsonian DVD on the ages of Earth.  I am not even sure there was life at this time.  There also was a freeze over, that got broken up by volcanism.



Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2019 at 21:40
I was interested by the biblical quote from Matthew, which seems to imply a Romanesque adoptive approach to Jesus' place as the 'Son of God'. No surprise there of course since the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus had gone, but then, that gospel is only one of four judged suitable by later Roman authorities. As many as fifty different gospels may have existed before the majority were rejected in the fourth century.

-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2019 at 02:39
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

I was interested by the biblical quote from Matthew, which seems to imply a Romanesque adoptive approach to Jesus' place as the 'Son of God'. No surprise there of course since the gospels weren't written until decades after Jesus had gone, but then, that gospel is only one of four judged suitable by later Roman authorities. As many as fifty different gospels may have existed before the majority were rejected in the fourth century.

 IMO
Since Son of God or Son of Man was used to describe Dionysus and others, I'd venture that the method for writing about Dionysus and Jesus is like the technical process for writing modern prose. The choice of words Son of Man/God endows the highest esteem possible to the protagonist. 
The events of birth and death that are similar employ the symbolism of the ancient world. Those symbols make the story concrete and verified by the very presence of these conditions to readers of that time. The article below is useful for a quick reference to these symbolic placements in the lives of people exalted by the writers. For the record, I do NOT think Jesus was "confused" with Dionysus.
http://https://eden-saga.com/en/dionysus-son-god.html - http://https://eden-saga.com/en/dionysus-son-god.html

Dionysus was born of a virgin on the 25th of December, and as a holy child he was placed in a manger, a traveling teacher who performed miracles, riding a donkey in a triumphal procession. he was killed and eaten during a Eucharistic ritual to bring fruitfulness and purification.He resuscitated the dead on March 25. God of wine, Dionysus changed the water into wine.He was called the King of Kings and God of the Gods He was regarded as the son of God, the savior, the bearer of sin, the anointed, the alpha and the omega.It was identified with a sheep and a lamb, and his sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or ” young man from the tree “indicates that he was hanged on a tree or crucified  ( https://books.google.fr/books?id=ZoQlCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT293&lpg=PT293&dq=Mithra+pendu&source=bl&ots=_xAr0P9PH2&sig=TYhjW9pTQkxmHgGb9QX9YuQfYIE&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4r-We6tLaAhUDCuwKHeLQChYQ6AEIYjAN#v=onepage&q=Mithra%20pendu&f=false - source ).”

Thus summed up, the life of Dionysus is confused with that of Jesus. As a new god, Jesus had to gather all the previous gods and summarize all the beliefs. Jesus took upon himself all the sins of the world, we are not surprised that he also takes upon himself  https://eden-saga.com/en/jesus-and-his-models.html - all the exploits of his models . In Jesus could be found  https://eden-saga.com/en/mithras.html - Mithras ,  https://eden-saga.com/en/mythology-egypt-hebrew-parallel-between-osiris-and-jesus.html - Osiris ,  https://eden-saga.com/en/constantine-emperor-consecration-christ-sol-invictus-ab-urbe-condita.html - Constantine ,  https://eden-saga.com/en/mythological-biblical-qumran-abduction-marie-jesus-enoch.html - Henoch , Dionysos and  https://eden-saga.com/en/jesus-and-his-models.html - many others  …



-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2019 at 21:15
Claims of descent from gods did happen in the ancient world - Julius Caesar claimed he was descended from Venus. On a more contemporary note, Augustus claimed he was descended from a God - his post-assassination deified adoptive father, Julius Caesar, and the title divi filius was a mark of status perhaps the Senate hadn't figured on :D
 
Strictly speaking Jesus did not take on board the sins of the world. This was something invented afterward to enable a more sanctified end rather than a simple criminal execution.


-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2019 at 03:20
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Claims of descent from gods did happen in the ancient world - Julius Caesar claimed he was descended from Venus. On a more contemporary note, Augustus claimed he was descended from a God - his post-assassination deified adoptive father, Julius Caesar, and the title divi filius was a mark of status perhaps the Senate hadn't figured on :D
 
Strictly speaking Jesus did not take on board the sins of the world. This was something invented afterward to enable a more sanctified end rather than a simple criminal execution.
True enough and for all intents and purposes Julius Caesar and Augustus were the gods of their world, and then came the dying part.Thumbs Down 
Gods killed each other in the histories of Rome and Greece, so did Brutus think he was killing his creator or the political equivalent in human form?

Theorizing here, the redemption of mankind by the selfless act of an innocent man is the message, this immortalizes the story (or insert your own reasoning-here). Assuming that Jesus was all that we read about in the Bible, then who among his followers would let him be crucified?

That church in old Glastonbury has always been associated with Joseph of Arimathea. The Egyptian archaeological finds in Ireland and England, especially the boats, prove that some people made that journey.  

Could the man crucified as "Jesus of Nazareth" have been someone else entirely, a fall guy?  
The threat of crucifixion could have been added as a dramatic devise to show how averse the society was to compassion, for the readers of the time.  

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England’s pleasant pastures seen!
William Blake


-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2019 at 12:48
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:


Could the man crucified as "Jesus of Nazareth" have been someone else entirely, a fall guy?  
The threat of crucifixion could have been added as a dramatic devise to show how averse the society was to compassion, for the readers of the time.  

Bearing in mind that the Bible wasn't compiled until some 300 years after the death of Jesus, or should I say the alleged death, there is plenty of scope for error and exaggeration.

Modern science has taught us that the so-called miracles could not possibly have happened, virgin birth is statistically impossible and so on, so there's every possibility, IMHO that it wasn't the Nazarene at all. 


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 24 Jul 2019 at 16:08
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:


Could the man crucified as "Jesus of Nazareth" have been someone else entirely, a fall guy?  
The threat of crucifixion could have been added as a dramatic devise to show how averse the society was to compassion, for the readers of the time.  

Bearing in mind that the Bible wasn't compiled until some 300 years after the death of Jesus, or should I say the alleged death, there is plenty of scope for error and exaggeration.

Modern science has taught us that the so-called miracles could not possibly have happened, virgin birth is statistically impossible and so on, so there's every possibility, IMHO that it wasn't the Nazarene at all. 
The Old Testament was written a couple thousand years before Jesus and the New Testament. Even after being scattered by war and Diaspora you can cross reference OT & NT and the connections are meaningful and consistent in the high percentage range- phenomenal for the time span referenced.

Yes Jesus could be an archetypal fiction but all archetypes represent actual humans who did exist (as far as we can conceive of existence in material reality) and some were highly emulated. That is a very compelling dimension to Jesus.
Was Achilles a fiction? The City of Troy was considered fantasy until it was unearthed, so who can say?


-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2019 at 13:01
The sophomore wrote that, "The Iliad and the Odyssey, were not written by Homer, but by another guy, called Homer."

So Jesus did not get crucified, but maybe another guy who we call Jesus?

Snakes have parthegenic births (rarely, all female).  Parthenos was a nickname in Greece for girls who ended up in the family way, with no potential father in sight.

Achilles is a type of fairy prince.  I'll explain later.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2019 at 13:57
toyomotor -haigh
Stories of Virgin births are common in the ancient world, Osiris was said to be a virgin birth and Zeus took many forms sneaking past a plethora of baby mamas.Wink
The allegory seems to be that those born of a virgin birth are akin to a force of nature. Natural forces were beyond man's control and Nature's offspring would be that force in human form, the Son of Man is the new and improved man. 

Miracles as defined by modern science? 
How about a doctor operating on a 13 week old fetus to correct spina bifita? Maybe humans make miracles. That baby was born at five months & her prognosis is excellent.
 




-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2019 at 14:51
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

The sophomore wrote that, "The Iliad and the Odyssey, were not written by Homer, but by another guy, called Homer."
Big smile

Quote So Jesus did not get crucified, but maybe another guy who we call Jesus?
Another guy who wasn't Jesus. Why would Jesus tell Pilate "Yes" when asked if he were King of the Jews?
Is that What Jesus Would Do?
We know Pilate is a bastard but Luke's account emphasizes a blood thirsty crowd. Pilate & Herod both hated by the Jews are trying to let him off the hook. Luke is pointing out the inversion of Jesus' teaching. No eye witness to the arrest of Jesus wrote the version that we read today. Correct?

The earliest British version of Joseph of Arimethea is hidden away in William Malmsbury's 
"The Antiquitate Glastonie Ecclesie" (1247), Malmsbury names Joseph of Arimethea as the original possessor of the Grail. And goes on to tell the story of the Twelve Apostles building the church at Glastonbury. 
There is an earlier Welsh version that focused on the conversion of Briton by Joseph and his descendant "Brons" his son "Allain" and "Bran" the Blessed.

Quote Snakes have parthegenic births (rarely, all female).  Parthenos was a nickname in Greece for girls who ended up in the family way, with no potential father in sight.

Achilles is a type of fairy prince.  I'll explain later.
Yes please do. 


-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 25 Jul 2019 at 21:15
Quote so did Brutus think he was killing his creator or the political equivalent in human form?
Brutus and his accomplices thought they were putting Rome back on track by removing a dangerous tyrant. The remarkable thing was that they clearly imagined Caesar's death would restore the previous status quo. It didn't, merely creating a power vacuum.
 
Caesar was deified after death - as was usual for those the Senate wanted to honour in memory. Pagan Romans considered that divine status was not something separate from mortal condition but one end of a power scale. A man who was charismatic, powerful, seemingly able to avoid obstacles, was in pagan Roman eyes a man marked by fate for greatness compared to ordinary people. Note how Roman historians sometimes dwell on anecdotes of unusual omens, such as Caesar once owning a horse with hooves shaped like a hand.


-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 26 Jul 2019 at 01:30
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote so did Brutus think he was killing his creator or the political equivalent in human form?
Brutus and his accomplices thought they were putting Rome back on track by removing a dangerous tyrant. The remarkable thing was that they clearly imagined Caesar's death would restore the previous status quo. It didn't, merely creating a power vacuum.
 
Caesar was deified after death - as was usual for those the Senate wanted to honour in memory.
thanks! Augustus, not Julius Caesar, called himself a God, he was a forward thinking lad.

Quote Pagan Romans considered that divine status was not something separate from mortal condition but one end of a power scale. A man who was charismatic, powerful, seemingly able to avoid obstacles, was in pagan Roman eyes a man marked by fate for greatness compared to ordinary people. Note how Roman historians sometimes dwell on anecdotes of unusual omens, such as Caesar once owning a horse with hooves shaped like a hand.
CALDRAIL! LOL Of course I looked that up, I mean Jasus!
http://www.macroevolution.net/human-horse-hybrids-antiquity.html - http://www.macroevolution.net/human-horse-hybrids-antiquity.html



-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 03 Aug 2019 at 15:22
Brutus' family helped overthrow the Roman kingship.  Kingship was something the Romans despised.  Therefore, he was just carrying out his patrimony, by killing Julius Caesar.  As cad rail said, it didn't work.

Julius Caesar was deified by Augustus.  "Caesar" in Julius Caesar's case was a family name, which later became a title for the Emperor.  So, technically, Julius 'Caesar' was not a "Caesar."

Shall we get back to Noah?  Or at least the Old Testament?


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 04 Aug 2019 at 06:52
Well, the subject of Romans was a bit of surprise in a thread about Noah Arks.

I am confident the Biblical story of Noah's Ark is from Sumner, and was a story about many gods that was plagiarized by Abraham's people when they were in Ur, a former Sumerian city.   Here is a brief explanation of the Sumerian story.   https://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm - https://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm

I believe the story of how the Jews got this flood story goes with the idea that the Jews originated in Egypt during the rule of Akhenaten.  Following is a link explaining him.  Some believe when his holy city was destroyed his followers fled Egypt and ended up in Ur, a former Sumner city and biblical place  where Abraham began his trek back to Egypt.  It was very important to Akhenaten to research actives for knowledge of the true god, and he was very strong on family and education values.  If his people did migrate to Ur, they obviously studied the archives there blending the one God of Akhenaten with Sumerian stories.  

The link says Egypt's former religion was gradually restored.  I serious doubt the return to the old religion was gradual.  I would bet the priest Akhenaten put out of business went underground and came back as fast as they could.   People do not take well to their gods not being appeased, and Egypt lost power during Akhenaten's time.  They must have been very glad to appease their gods and get their lives back in order as soon as possible.  

Quote  Akhenaten tried to shift his culture from Egypt's  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion - traditional religion , but the shifts were not widely accepted. After his death,  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae - his monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from the king lists . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#cite_note-12 - [12]  Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, and when some dozen years later rulers without clear rights of succession from the 18th Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors, referring to Akhenaten himself as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#cite_note-13 - [13]    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten  






Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2019 at 11:29
Originally posted by Athena Athena wrote:

Well, the subject of Romans was a bit of surprise in a thread about Noah Arks.
Right, that's bc this is continued from an old thread was accidentally deleted ,toyomotor?
It represents a lot of time and interest from this group.

Quote I am confident the Biblical story of Noah's Ark is from Sumner, and was a story about many gods that was plagiarized by Abraham's people when they were in Ur, a former Sumerian city.   Here is a brief explanation of the Sumerian story.   https://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm - https://www.historywiz.com/flood.htm
Multiple places experienced devastating flash flooding over eons in different parts of the world. That doesn't make the Bible plagiarized. You try to draw that conclusion as a convenience, intellectual laziness.
Be honest, this past year we had deaths from flash flooding.



-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2019 at 11:45
Actually, there was a Roman Emperor who had the ark on a coin, on the coin it is just a box but it is meant to be the ark, it is on the coin of (if I remember right) Septimus Severus.  The emperor was very syncretic.  Kind of like Bao Daism in '50s Vietnam.

It could also be that the Noah is a nickname (since it is playing an etymological game) actually for Utnapishtim, and so the Abrahamic tradition is in the lineage of the priesthood of Utnapishtim.

plagiarism is such a harsh term in this context, it is not like things were copyrighted or exclusive cultural intelectual property.  It is an interesting question of which came first, but they are stories and so later versions might be more interesting because the story has developed.



Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2019 at 12:16
I think Freud liked the idea of the Israelite monotheism (actually, henotheism) coming from Akhenaten.  But, the real important part of Judaism was the form of the covenant, which in some ways is like a Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty turned inward to make Yahweh the Suzerain, and the Israelite people the vassals.  The Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty is prevalent in the Mesopotamian region.  A Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty was between a big, client king, and lesser vassal kings.  The vassals had to have an exclusive relationship with the Suzerain (although they probably were allowed to relate to each other).  The treaty gave them responsibilities and probably rights.  At the end, it specified what would happen if they did not carry out their responsibilities.  

But, the turning inward of the Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty between a God and a people is something new.  Akenaten worshipping the sun disk does not have that level of sophistication.  Of course, not all scholars go by the Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty theory of the covenant, still there is a complexity and sophistication to the Jewish covenant that other religions did not have at that time.  Not that religions were as separate as we like to think, back then.


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 02:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I think Freud liked the idea of the Israelite monotheism (actually, henotheism) coming from Akhenaten.  But, the real important part of Judaism was the form of the covenant, which in some ways is like a Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty turned inward to make Yahweh the Suzerain, and the Israelite people the vassals.  The Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty is prevalent in the Mesopotamian region.  A Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty was between a big, client king, and lesser vassal kings.  The vassals had to have an exclusive relationship with the Suzerain (although they probably were allowed to relate to each other).  The treaty gave them responsibilities and probably rights.  At the end, it specified what would happen if they did not carry out their responsibilities.  

But, the turning inward of the Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty between a God and a people is something new.  Akenaten worshipping the sun disk does not have that level of sophistication.  Of course, not all scholars go by the Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty theory of the covenant, still there is a complexity and sophistication to the Jewish covenant that other religions did not have at that time.  Not that religions were as separate as we like to think, back then.

I read an explanation of the Suzerainty-Vassal Treaty Joshua, God, and the promised land.  I am impressed by how worldly it is.  Yes, I would say the suxarain  was probably  jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing.  It does sound like the consciousness of the time did become an explanation of a relationship with an imagined God.   Wasn't it common for all these people to have a patron god or goddess who had to be appeased to have the blessings and protection of the god/goddess.   What is in question is how did this consciousness become a notion of that there  can be only one true god instead of always believing there are many gods and those with the most powerful god win wars.

In a world where everyone believes those with the most powerful god win wars, and it is invading Romans with better military technology, who win the wars, of course, they have the strongest god, right?  This is ideal for conversion.  Adopting the customs, stories and celebrations shared by all humans who experience the changing seasons, and giving it all a Christian meaning, was another part of the conversion.   

As I understand history Akhenaten was not a not a king of war, and his understanding of the true god was not a god of war.  Not at all a war god, but a god that had strong family values and encouraged learning.  The followers of the God of Abraham also have strong family values and are very much into learning.  That is why I think they translated the Sumerian stories and corrected them to fit their idea of one god.  Here is a comparison between Akhenaten's Hymn and Psalm of the Bible. 
http://princeonlinemuseum.com/love4oneanother/love/light/maat/nefertiti.html - http://princeonlinemuseum.com/love4oneanother/love/light/maat/nefertiti.html   

It may be helpful to clarify the god Christians worship is a god of war.  Maybe that realization would make us a little less insane, talking of a god of love and complete organized around the power of war and incapable of dealing with the suffering of the world other than to build walls and weapons of mass destruction to destroy those who have weapons of mass destruction.  

Thanks for the explanation of suxarain.  It does make the Bible more understandable.   Oh, and I do not believe there was a lot of religious differences in the past.  It all comes from the same consciousness, only different environments can result is slightly different consciousness.  For example Genghis Khan thought it was insane to believe there is a sky god who cares about people and their well being.  Those in the east believed in demons because of their environment and around the time of Jesus, those demons had a stronger role to play in the religion.   The sky god of Genghis Khan could not care less about people and just assume kill them in deadly storms.  Whereas live in the crescent was abundant in food and easy, so it was easier to believe in caring fertility goddess, and then a caring sky god. The Christian notion that God sent the Mongols to punish them, reduced their ability to form a good defense.   I don't think we have to worry about fearing God's punishment today.  We know we are this God's favorite people and He loves us.  Heart


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2019 at 11:12
In the decalogue, the first commandment is, "thou shalt not have any other gods before me."  The Israelites 'recognized' that there were other gods, they just couldn't recognize them/acknowledge them.  Later that becomes there is only one God, but that is not how it is in the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible)

But, the Christian God is not a god of war.  He was the God of slaves and women.  The biggest thing that Jesus as God did, was suffer.  Thus, God became one of us.


Posted By: Athena
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 01:48
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

In the decalogue, the first commandment is, "thou shalt not have any other gods before me."  The Israelites 'recognized' that there were other gods, they just couldn't recognize them/acknowledge them.  Later that becomes there is only one God, but that is not how it is in the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible)

But, the Christian God is not a god of war.  He was the God of slaves and women.  The biggest thing that Jesus as God did, was suffer.  Thus, God became one of us.

You are saying God became a mortal?  When He walked in the garden with Adam and Eve, evidently He had human form but we was not human?   So if He became human when did that happen if it did happen?  And really, God's personality changed?  If He isn't a war god why is the US denying the poor health care while enjoying being the most expensive and strongest military force on earth?  It is the Christian Right, followers of Bill Graham who are gun ho for war.  Billy Graham told us God wants us to send our young to serve in the war with Iraq, that many of us think Bush and Cheney should face war crime charges for getting us into that, and the women forced to flee with their children should receive a large compensation for what they went through.  We didn't invade their country prepared to defend them!  


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 07:52
Through Jesus, God came to know suffering, which is a very odd thing for a God to come to know.  Jesus never ran anyone through with a spear or a sword, but he was stabbed in the side with a spear.  If he was placed on this Earth to conquer and kick ass, he had a very odd way to do it.

The shortest line in the Bible is, "and Jesus wept." when he saw what would be done in his name.  So, I am not sure why you are talking about Billy Graham or for that matter Bush or Cheney.  Although, I am sure that each of them would consider themselves imperfect and incomplete in how they follow Christ.  It is easy to be perfect, if you are already there.  On the other hand, it is hard to _become_ perfect.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2019 at 12:11
Haven't finished it, but looks interesting:  "Noah's Flood and the Development of Geology" by David Montgomery on youtube.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2019 at 13:17
If I can't see it, smell it, hear it, taste it or touch it, does it exist?

-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 13:52
You're right, obliviousness is a reason deny the existence of things, it may not be a "good" reason, but for the oblivious, they won't know the difference.  I am not sure what your point is, toyomotor....


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 18 Sep 2019 at 19:09
My point is, that in common with other ancient tales, there is no proof really that it existed .

If we confine the worlds animals to the known world, do you really think that they all would have fitted on the Ark?

My point is, show me some proof.


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 03:41
Let me reassure you the story existed, back into ancient times, there is a Sumerian version,
and a Greek, and others.  Floods happen, that is a certain reality, and the stories are based
on that.
As far as seeking to prove or disprove the story, I find that ridiculous.
If you are a believer, you take it on faith that the flood or something like that,
happened.  If you are not a believer no matter how much "proof" you are
offered is not going to convince you.  If you are a smart believer or disbeliever
you will realize that that is not the point.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 14:58
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Let me reassure you the story existed, back into ancient times, there is a Sumerian version, and a Greek, and others.  Floods happen, that is a certain reality, and the stories are based
on that.
As far as seeking to prove or disprove the story, I find that ridiculous.
If you are a believer, you take it on faith that the flood or something like that,
happened.  If you are not a believer no matter how much "proof" you are
offered is not going to convince you.  If you are a smart believer or disbeliever
you will realize that that is not the point.

I haven't challenged the fact that there was a major flood event, I challenge the stories that two of every animal in the known world was loaded onto a boat in order to save them.

You may call seeking the truth rediculous, but isn't that what scientists do every day?




-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 19 Sep 2019 at 17:11
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Let me reassure you the story existed, back into ancient times, there is a Sumerian version, and a Greek, and others.  Floods happen, that is a certain reality, and the stories are based
on that.
As far as seeking to prove or disprove the story, I find that ridiculous.
If you are a believer, you take it on faith that the flood or something like that,
happened.  If you are not a believer no matter how much "proof" you are
offered is not going to convince you.  If you are a smart believer or disbeliever
you will realize that that is not the point.

I haven't challenged the fact that there was a major flood event, I challenge the stories that two of every animal in the known world was loaded onto a boat in order to save them.

You may call seeking the truth rediculous, but isn't that what scientists do every day?


Science is searching with it's tunnel vision. For an ancient population, the known world could have been an island. 
Assume we can't be sure of the point about two of every kind of animal.
Could this not simply mean, two birds, two cows, two goats ?
You know animals that people can normally get their hands on, domesticated stock animals. Hmmm?Wink
If you don't let that part enter into it, is it really unbelievable?


-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2019 at 13:07
Mark Twain pointed out that beetles alone (with all the species) would be enough to sink the ark.  But, I don't think of the story as an factual description.  Look at the tale of Gilgamesh compared to the Iliad and the Odyssey.  Like Gilgamesh, the Biblical stories seem like skeletons made by priestly scribes, whereas the Iliad and Odyssey are all fleshed out.  Now imagine what a bard or poet would do with Sampson, or Jacob/Israel, or Joseph, or Moses.  Now, I am not knocking the priestly scribes, they are succinctly copying down the essence of these stories.  And recopying them, and yes, altering them often in the process.  But if you are looking for 'the facts,' then you are probably anachronistically imposing a kind of secular reality that would be out of place in Davidic Israel (or before). That is one reason to deal with the original thing, or at least as original as you can make it, given the issues of translation.  We try to retell Biblical stories in order to remove the difficulties.  But those 'difficulties' are part of the texture which shows the stories to be authentic, and real.

There are two different versions of the call for animals, one version is two of everything, the other is six of clean animals, and two of unclean animals.  Is this a contradiction?  I prefer to think of it as two different scribal traditions, each pushing his agenda.  Should we criticize the Bible for not selecting "for" us the correct one?  Or maybe we should praise it for not deciding, and being inclusive of multiple traditions.  Not that what the ancient scribes were doing, has anything to do with our modern mantra of "inclusiveness."



Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2019 at 17:52
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Let me reassure you the story existed, back into ancient times, there is a Sumerian version, and a Greek, and others.  Floods happen, that is a certain reality, and the stories are based
on that.
As far as seeking to prove or disprove the story, I find that ridiculous.
If you are a believer, you take it on faith that the flood or something like that,
happened.  If you are not a believer no matter how much "proof" you are
offered is not going to convince you.  If you are a smart believer or disbeliever
you will realize that that is not the point.

I haven't challenged the fact that there was a major flood event, I challenge the stories that two of every animal in the known world was loaded onto a boat in order to save them.

You may call seeking the truth rediculous, but isn't that what scientists do every day?


Science is searching with it's tunnel vision. For an ancient population, the known world could have been an island.  
Assume we can't be sure of the point about two of every kind of animal.
Could this not simply mean, two birds, two cows, two goats ?
You know animals that people can normally get their hands on, domesticated stock animals. Hmmm?Wink
If you don't let that part enter into it, is it really unbelievable?

Yes, you're quite right. But you know me, a cynic from way back.Wink


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Sep 2019 at 22:33
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Let me reassure you the story existed, back into ancient times, there is a Sumerian version, and a Greek, and others.  Floods happen, that is a certain reality, and the stories are based
on that.
As far as seeking to prove or disprove the story, I find that ridiculous.
If you are a believer, you take it on faith that the flood or something like that,
happened.  If you are not a believer no matter how much "proof" you are
offered is not going to convince you.  If you are a smart believer or disbeliever
you will realize that that is not the point.

I haven't challenged the fact that there was a major flood event, I challenge the stories that two of every animal in the known world was loaded onto a boat in order to save them.

You may call seeking the truth rediculous, but isn't that what scientists do every day?


Science is searching with it's tunnel vision. For an ancient population, the known world could have been an island.  
Assume we can't be sure of the point about two of every kind of animal.
Could this not simply mean, two birds, two cows, two goats ?
You know animals that people can normally get their hands on, domesticated stock animals. Hmmm?Wink
If you don't let that part enter into it, is it really unbelievable?

Yes, you're quite right. But you know me, a cynic from way back.Wink
Not cynical about everything. I salute your typically suspicious take on doubtful things. You don't allow yourself to accept things what don't ring true. The best compass is that BS indicator unless or until your view_ or_ question changes. 

What do you make of the idea that man's bad behavior, usually greed is built in to these ancient stories? 

Jordan Petersen points out a parallel in a modern flood story, New Orleans. In 2005 the hurricane Katrina caused the damage but it came to light that monies allotted for maintaining the flood wall had been pocketed for decades. Common political corruption, a crime of humans and a devastating correction from nature. 


-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 28 Sep 2019 at 11:44
Quote What do you make of the idea that man's bad behavior, usually greed is built in to these ancient stories?

You're probably right. Remember the ancient parrabels-they were lessons on how to live and conduct oneself.

I don't argue that the story of Atlantis has been mentioned by other scholars, I'd just like to see some evidence.


-------------
“The biggest surprise in a man’s life is old age.”


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 29 Sep 2019 at 02:51
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Haven't finished it, but looks interesting:  "Noah's Flood and the Development of Geology" by David Montgomery on youtube.
Montgomery provides a fairly expansive history of geology and the church, as it pertains to the flood and the story of Noah. At time annotation 10:05 you see his chart comparing world flood stories, most have details of the Bible idea that people and animals are saved. Not every culture has a retribution aspect to their destruction by water oral histories.  Every culture on his chart does have a hero who saves himself and others. 
Montgomery seems fairly sure that the Noah story & Gilgamesh refer to when the Black Sea was a valley. Geological evidence presented here with a model shows how the valley flooded after the second ice age melt. 
Also outlines some anecdotal evidence for humans having oral histories about geological events going back at least 8,000 years.



-------------
Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Oct 2019 at 11:15
Check out on youtube:  Irving Finkel, the ark before Noah.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2019 at 10:33
"Why an ancient tablet is key to our future learning"  Tiffany Jenkins, TEDxSquareMile 



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net