Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, let me apologize for my last sentence of that post. That was supposed to be a "lol" moment. I wasn't trying to convert you, and I didn't mean to pry. However, I truly appreciate your sharing. It is odd how our lives meander round about to bring us to a specific point. I'm glad you came out on the other side and feel more positive about your life now. I hope this will not offend you, because that is the last thing I would want to do, but I'm glad you got out. OCR is way too much of a cult for my liking.
Some people never "get away". My maternal grandmother was tormented by her religious beliefs. She was Church of God (a "Holy Roller") and her religion taught that God was hiding behind every tree with a lightning bolt in each hand just waiting for her to breathe wrong so he could strike her dead and send her to hell. Her OCR taught that any and all jewelry was a mortal sin. She wore a thin, small gold wedding band on her hand and her friends at church tormented her over it. As she approached her 90th birthday and deep in the throes of congestive heart failure, she was terrified of dying and terrified of God. It broke my heart to see her so tormented. She was in hell - made by OCR.
It is so easy to say "if you are tormented, miserable, hurting, etc, just walk away", but the indoctrination is so deep and so wide, that she (and others) just couldn't (can't). It's like being addicted to drugs.
My story is much different. I was born into a home of "believers". Religion didn't really enter in to anything in my daily life. The grandmother above lived out of state and was not a daily influence in my life. My parents and paternal grandparents talked about God and Jesus as if they were a father and son living down the street. It was always a "friendly" relationship and God was never trying to kill us or send us to hell. God was never used as a battering ram to keep us in line. We were taught right from wrong, proper conduct, etc because it was "right", not because God was skulking around to pounce on us. My parents and grandparents read the Bible as their source of knowledge. They tried to do "good" and taught their children to strive to do good. We said "Grace" at the dinner table. My grandmother sang hymns as she went about her housework. We kids said our prayers at bedtime. Everyone was baptized. We went to church, but my dad was clear on the difference in "text" and dogma and doctrine. Therefore, I was never indoctrinated in organized religion, though I investigated many when I was searching for my path to God as a teenager. So, I have a totally different take on God than most of the OCR people and thus, a different take on the Bible.
My paternal grandparents were salt-of-the-earth, down-home, good hearted, poor, Southern (USA), farming people, from a long line of the same. Because of their very rural roots, the Bible was a major source of reading material and of information about God. The area had one little church, but they couldn't afford a preacher, so itinerate preachers roamed the rural areas and preached for Sunday dinner and a chicken or some flour here and there. Two weeks a month, the Baptist preacher came and the other two Sundays, it was the Methodist. Doctrine was real easy to see. So, life was all very simple and plain. My people were not drinkers or cursers. There wasn't a town, much less any mischief to get into. Farmers worked from two hours before daylight until dark. Who had time for sin?? So, they weren't afraid of God. They also had no reason to believe that belief in God would get them anything, so I was taught not to expect anything (earthly) in return for my belief. As my dad became "upwardly mobile", the core values, ideas, and principles remained - for better or worse.
OK. I think I see what you are saying about Gen 6. I haven't read any of the books you referenced, so I really can't speak to any of them. I did notice the similarities between the Greek and Roman Mythologies - and even the Norse - decades ago. I never read any of the information that you have - save some parts of the Mythologies. Your range of exposure to all these texts and different ideas is truly impressive. I am really in awe of the scope of it all. I truly feel that it is the height of arrogance for me to even try and defend my position on Gen 6 in light of the fact that you have a body of information that I do not have. By the same token, I cannot change my position without reading/studying those same texts for myself and drawing my own conclusions. A lot of questions come to mind which I would want to ask myself if I were reading those accounts. A lot of questions come to mind that haven't anything to do with any text. I'm not disputing the information. The info I read from the sources you gave me prove to me that these accounts exist and make some viable points. Yet, I just do not have enough info to discuss - much less debate - the possibilities.
Ella
Thanks for the response, Ella. Thanks for sharing that. I think it is so important to know where the folks are coming from on this forum. I think this would go a long way in helping us to understand each other and our positions.
Before I go any further, what exactly is "OCR?"
You don't have to be in awe of my collection of knowledge. I posted that information because some on here have erroneously concluded that I have NO idea what I am talking about regarding the bible and chalk me up as just another atheist (which I am really not, per se) who is just spouting atheist speak without any experience. When most of the fundamentalist christians here write something, I KNOW what they are saying, i know where they are coming from and I know what their responses will be before they even type it out. I know because I was once where they are now.
Anyway, I will get back to the "sons of God" in my upcoming posts, ok?
Being history buff, I've been aware for some time that at least the first five books of the bible were not credibly history(didn't happen), but only recently did I read the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein (an archaeologist with Tel Aviv University( and Silberman, the editor of Archaeology magazine).
Their thesis is that the events described in the first seven (7) books of the Bible were gathered from folklore, the Hebrews never were slaves (or even in) Egypt, but were nomadic herders and later farmers in Cananna. Over 250 of their settlements have been located since 1967.
Opinions?
I think you misunderstood what you read.
If you want a simplistic classification scheme, then you have laws, literature and prophets.
If you want to move up to university level, there are more complex classification schemes. For example, the prophets are often divided into the major prophets and the minor prophets, or better yet, the early prophets and the latter prophets, the latter being far more descriptive and accurate.
The reason is due to the wholesale shift in theology. The early prophets emphasize loyalty to Yahweh, while the latter prophets emphasize social justice. In other words, you don't need to obey Yahweh, you just need to feed the poor and the orphans and the widows and take care of the ill in order to please Yahweh.
Literature can be quite involved, and be broken down into the Histories, the Psalms, Proverbs and Prose. The Prose is subdivided into individual works, such as the story of Ruth. Psalms and Proverbs are also grouped together with Ecclesiastes.
The Histories consist of Kings, Chronicles and Judges, and often Samuel. These works are accurate in terms of the regnal orders and lengths (who ruled when and for how long) and a few other things, but they also containing gross exaggerations and glaring omissions.
In that regard, you cannot criticize the Hebrews without also criticizing the US, since the US does the same thing....tell its history with gross exaggerations and glaring omissions.
For example, you're told of the genius of the United States in building the Panama Canal.
That is lie. The real truth is that Colombia approached the US with the idea of building a canal in the Colombian Province of Panama, and Colombia was willing to supply labor, financing and other support in exchange for US engineering skill and equipment, and both Colombia and the US would share the profits 50-50.
The US didn't want to share the profits 50-50; the US wanted 100% of the profits, because, you know, that's the chrisitan thing, so the US sent mercenaries to the Colombian Province of Panama, murdered Colombian government officials in cold blood, murdered Colombian civilians in cold blood, declared Panama to be independent, and then the US sent in the Marines, because, you know, that's what Jesus would do.
Governments lie for many reasons, and the Hebrew governments were no different.
Then we come to the Pentatuech.
That is actually the Tetrateuch, plus the Deuteronomistic Histories (which includes Deuteronomy, Joshua and others post-Deuteronomy works).
Deuteronomy represents another wholesale shift in theology. For example, temples are no longer permitted to exist, save the Temple in Jerusalem; it is now illegal to build an altar outside of Jerusalem; sacrifices must take place at the Temple in Jerusalem; the entire ritual of sacrifice is completely changed round; there are changes to the Commandments; and then many changes to the laws, not to mention history is re-written in part.
As an analogy, Deuteronomy is to the Tetrateuch as Vatican II was to Catholicism, or as Protestantism was to Catholicism (during the Reformation).
The changes in Deuteronomy were traumatic, resulting in the massacre of the entire Mosaic Priesthood, save one Mosaic Priest, by members of the Aaronid Priesthood.
The Tetrateuch can be divided into Genesis, and then what I call the Exodus Trilogy, which is a cleverly written National Unity Document, that also contains some really ridiculous laws written by an anal retentive person who was very clearly suffering from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
Genesis can be viewed as the pre-history, and further subdivided into the Hebrew Mythology, and then Hebrew Pre-History.
The first several chapters of Genesis can be divided further still into the Cosmogony and the Mythology.
Not that it matters, since the Cosmogony and Mythology are all of Sumerian/Akkadian origin.
Everything up through the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is nothing more than abridged versions of much older Sumerian and Akkadian stories, many of which have been differently twisted to suit the political-religious agenda the priest-hood was trying to foist on the people. You can also add Job to that, since Job was written several thousand years before Abrahm was born.
As far as being folklore, you have to be careful where you tread there, because science is on the verge of proving much of Sumerian Cosmogony to be true.
But none of that matters.
Their days are numbered, because it's only a matter of time before they find one of the original J versions or one of the original E versions or one of the original P versions and then that will be the end of that and christians will go sulk in a corner somewhere and the restivus won't have to put up with their nonsense any longer.
Opining...
You are welcome, and thank you for your courteousness and civility. Discussion does not have to be a battle. We don't have to agree on everything to have meaningful conversation. I welcome knowledge - even when it pokes at my beliefs. And, I don't think you are godless pondslime. You may not believe in God, but you certainly conduct yourself better than many who profess to believe. I understand your agenda as you have outlined it. I find no fault with that.
First of all let me say that I am totally overwhelmed by your post. Your knowledge and depth of study far exceeds anything that I possess or have done. I don't know that I can even exchange ideas in enough of a reasonably intelligent way to even converse with you on these topics. I'm going to be saying, "I just don't have any knowledge about that" a lot. If you will be patient, I will endeavor to keep up.
Also, please note that when I reference "the text" (the Bible), I am using what it says without any judgment as to whether or not that text is factual or allegorical or untrue - unless that is part of the conversation. Actually, I only joined this thread to try and separate the text from organized Christian religion's teachings, which usually do not support each other, because a poster had offered organized religion as Bible text.
I suppose that my interest is historical puzzles and my knowledge is simply what I have picked up here. My only argument, I suppose, is with those who argue that the events in the Bible all occurred pretty much as they say, bearing in mind that we have to be wary of anything in the way of history – it was pointed out that even today, two sides can give a very different take on the same event.
Quote:
I don't mean to poke you with a stick here, but didn't everybody (and don't they still today) with a god think theirs was/is the trump? Why else would they have believed in him? In a Jewish text, with the "of the, by the, for the", isn't it a given that their God would be the real, only, trump card, best, superior, etc. God? Didn't every group hold that belief? The text tells of all kinds of conquests and the various gods that came and went with the victors. They must have believed that their god was the best. Didn't all the mythologies do the same?
Now, I am waving a stick at you and I beg your forgiveness upfront. There were lots of gods back in those days. The text names many of them and the ancient mythologies that I have been reading name dozens (maybe hundreds) more. Of those, how many of them survive as a viable deity (real or not real, notwithstanding) in the world today? The God of the Jews did (not that that is a statement of "real", just that it is a statement of survival). [I don't know anything about the Hindu, Shinto, or Buddhist, etc. so I didn't include them is this statement.] I find it thought-provoking that the God of the Jews survives, when so many, many others in the region did not. And, the God of the Jews did finally take over the entire region. While Judaism and Islam certainly differ in the dogma and doctrine, the God is the same.
You can say anything you like, for me. I welcome ideas and questions. Indeed, I suspect that Yahweh was the tribal god of the Israelites and their bearing the Ark of the covenant (where God dwelt) into battle in a litter was pretty much standard amongst the peoples of the time – and up ‘till recently, too. They all believed that their god was best, as you say, and (as in the recent conflicts) that you get beat doesn’t mean that your god doesn’t exist or is inferior; just means you have to prove yourself worthy by trying harder.
Of course it is a fallacy to assume that what we do now is what they did then, but I do think that our ingrained instincts (particularly here as regards divine mandates by way of self – justification) is not an invalid parallel.
Now, your point regarding just why the religion of a relatively obscure people evolved one invisible god and enabled them to survive as Jews, despite the pressure of Hellenism and indeed Islam and Christianity. One has to note that organized religions with a code of conduct can engender a persistence that the ‘pick your own’ pantheons of gods didn’t. I note that Buddhism, which doesn’t even HAVE a god, is remarkably resistant to the religions of the book, in a way that even Hinduism wasn’t. I also note that Jewish resistance to Christianity does raise the question of does that indicate adherence to a true religion or stubborn clinging to a false one?
I don’t want to start jabbing at you, and that is moving off- topic, but I do suspect that the persistence of Judaism (and the tenacity of its offshoots) is to be found in the nature of the religion. I suspect (and I use that term a lot as it is merely a working hypothesis based on current archaeological data) that the nature of the god (which was known, amongst others, in Canaanite writings) was constrained by the need to avoid identity with the other gods and peoples. I was puzzled by the hints that the right way to live was goatherding, not farming and city – life, with hints of sliding into worshipping false gods. When I learned that the Israelites might have come down from a hillfolk –life because the cities had gone and they needed to produce the goods themselves, that did fit in rather nicely. They were pastoralists and had a need to keep the old ways and not get absorbed into the city –dwelling –pantheon worshipping communities. The religion was formed by the need to keep their identity, and their identity was very effectively preserved by the religion.
Quote:
I think that man[kind] has always used "God" or some deity to lord over his fellow man. That is certainly still alive and well today. However, is that "God's" fault or man's fault? Sometimes, we don't separate the two. I'm reverting back to OCR here as an example. The Westboro church that pickets military funerals in the name of God is appalling to most of us. Many would look at these people and ask, "What kind of a god would promote such a thing?" Attributing this to any kind of a god (real or not) is not accurate. The point I am trying, very ineptly, to make is that what man does in the name of God (or god, or gods etc) should never be intertwined with what God (god, gods, etc.) does in the name of God (god, gods, etc). Proving what man does in the name of God (god, gods, etc) is very easy, but it is not a sound basis for indicting God (god, gods, etc).
Interesting points. While I can’t blame something I don’t believe exists for what we do, I can point to the concept of divine self –justification for, as they say, good men doing evil. If I ‘indight’ God, (apart from pointing up moral inconsistencies that throw doubt on whether such a being can feasibly be real) it is because ‘God says so’ is not a valid reason for saying that this or that must be done.
You mention Westboro’. In a way, I find them refreshing. They have thought it all through without regard to human morality and they see that this it what God must think. Those Christians who disagree with them, must ask why and I suspect they will find that they are applying human moral standards to what they can point to in the Bible. Though to be sure, one can justify much by cherry – picking script.
Quote:
If you would like to start such a thread, I will meet you there. I don't know what I have of value to offer, but I'm up for discussion.
Yes, It might be worth doing. And I have no reason to suppose that your contribution is of less value than anyone elses’. I am an not an expert, but an all trades jack who has had to pick up snippits of everything from large wooden ships of antiquity, their seaworthiness and need for metal structure, to Ontological arguments for God’s existence, from Pilate, his coinage and relations with the Sanhedrin to Miracles and spiritual experiences; brain –scanning and related research relevant to.
Quote:
Which is why I have relied only on the text and have made an overt attempt to separate text from OCR. I've tried to be forthcoming in answering any questions that I was asked, but I haven't jumped in to promote any OCR or the basic Christian views of God or the Bible. I certainly did not come here to defend "my side" against "your side" or to try and tell you [all on this list] what you should believe. It would be my assumption (and my stance) that spirituality "is" or it "is not" and that what is true or not "lies in the eyes of the beholder." As far as the discussion at the heart of this thread, I have [for the most part] found it interesting and filled with knowledge, much of which I was unfamiliar. I have done a lot of reading of these areas unknown to me in the short time that I have had and I find it interesting and well worth knowing.
In a way, I have come to realize that discussions don’t persuade anyone one way or the other (mine don’t seem to, anyway) and it is the individual thinking things through that will do a mind –change; and it might be an atheist going agnostic and being half convinced that a creative will must exist (where is Boxcar these days?) as much as Bible –literalist going unbeliever, which also happened.
The bottom line is that anything worth believing can stand up to discussion, and discussion should be as open – minded and with regard to sound reason and valid data (otherwise discussion is pointless) as possible, or one is simply rehearsing prejudice, and I would only cheat myself in doing that.
Quote:
I realize that there are glaring inconsistencies and questions in the text. I also know that there was an entire planet teeming with people at the place and time of the account of the text. I'm pretty sure that there was no scribe following God (should he exist, of course) around in those early days of the text, so that, per se, tells me that there was only an oral account of whatever/something passed down through generations - and that is folklore by definition. What of the written accounts once scribes were at hand? With all due respect to historians everywhere, history is notoriously unreliable and incomplete. And not even going back to ancient times, I base this statement on the recorded American history of the USA. Just look at current events - those which we all are witnessing. If you watch Fox News AND MSNBC, you'd think you were viewing two parallel and opposite worlds. Which version will go into the official history record? And, what conclusions will be drawn about this block of time. Will it be anywhere close to accurate?
So, I think there will always be questions and those who ask them - and I think that is a good thing.
Ella
So it was you raised that point. Yes, while it is true that witnesses don’t always agree and reportage can vary alarmingly, that only means that we can’t always trust what we read. The implications of that are obvious. I do find that archaeology can very often illuminate and sometimes correct the historical writings,
Historical reconstruction is a tempting intellectual succubus, and it easy to get to having personal – credit investment in prediluvian civilizations, Daniel a piece of Hasmonean polemic, the Hebrews were identical with the Habiru and were provably in Egypt or a Pet theory about Jesus and Paul. We just have to try to evaluate what we have objectively and not try to make it fit our pet theories. Which is sometimes what I get accused of doing and maybe I do. So some questions about what I plonk down, no matter how impressive it may seem, may be just what I need.
Thanks for the response, Ella. Thanks for sharing that. I think it is so important to know where the folks are coming from on this forum. I think this would go a long way in helping us to understand each other and our positions.
Before I go any further, what exactly is "OCR?"
You don't have to be in awe of my collection of knowledge. I posted that information because some on here have erroneously concluded that I have NO idea what I am talking about regarding the bible and chalk me up as just another atheist (which I am really not, per se) who is just spouting atheist speak without any experience. When most of the fundamentalist christians here write something, I KNOW what they are saying, i know where they are coming from and I know what their responses will be before they even type it out. I know because I was once where they are now.
Anyway, I will get back to the "sons of God" in my upcoming posts, ok?
Anyway, I will get back to the "sons of God" in my upcoming posts, ok?
Yes. I look forward to it.
I agree that knowing where one has been helps to understand where that one is coming from. The art of really good discussion is, at least, endeavoring to stand in another's shoes and see through another's eyes to try and understand that one's point - whether or not there is an acceptance of that point after it is made. I think we are doing pretty good!
Would you be willing to take a journey with me to a different vantage point?
Please know that none of this includes the argument of "real" or "unreal"; just a continuation of our conversation.
How about we endeavor to apply the theory of Synergy (2+2=5, because the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts)? In doing so, I would like to step away from the specifics of this topic (Gen. 6) by using an analogy [sorry, that's the teacher in me].
You have a car. It is a basic, functional car.
I say that you do not have a car.
You drive the car over to my garage as proof.
I disassemble the car, looking very carefully at each and every piece. I tell you, piece by piece, when and where I have seen this before and that it isn't unique and it isn't the only one. Soon, each piece and part is laying scattered about my garage. I spread out my arms to show you all the pieces and parts. I tell you, "You do NOT have a car! I told you so. Here is the proof."
Rightly you say to me, "I DO have a car. I drove it over here myself, and here it is right here, scattered all over this garage."
"OK," I say, "If you do have a car, then get in it and drive away."
Do you have a car or not? Technically, those pieces and parts do represent the pieces of a working, dependable car, and yet, it is not a car that you can drive away.
Here, the synergy is that the Whole is much different than the sum of its parts. The pieces and parts are vital and yet, pick up any one piece and no matter what it is or can do, it is not a car. Technically, there is no car without the assembly. It is the assembled pieces and parts that are the actual product called "car", and it has a different function than each piece or even the whole pile of parts.
So, relating to Gen 6: We each had a Whole Genesis (and the rest of it, too). You disassembled yours so that you could examine and scrutinize the pieces and parts in order for a better understanding of those pieces and parts and, subsequently, the Whole. I left mine intact and took it as a Whole, not closely scrutinizing the pieces and parts.
Could it be that, like our car and its pieces and parts, the two are technically the same, but not equally the same? Could it be that the meaning you found for your disassembled text is correct, while the meaning of my assembled text is also correct? Could it be that the function (purpose) of the Whole is totally different from the function (purpose) of the individual pieces and parts? Could context be in play here? Is it possible that the same phrase could have several different meanings - especially when considering context?
I agree that knowing where one has been helps to understand where that one is coming from. The art of really good discussion is, at least, endeavoring to stand in another's shoes and see through another's eyes to try and understand that one's point - whether or not there is an acceptance of that point after it is made. I think we are doing pretty good!
Would you be willing to take a journey with me to a different vantage point?
Please know that none of this includes the argument of "real" or "unreal"; just a continuation of our conversation.
How about we endeavor to apply the theory of Synergy (2+2=5, because the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts)? In doing so, I would like to step away from the specifics of this topic (Gen. 6) by using an analogy [sorry, that's the teacher in me].
You have a car. It is a basic, functional car.
I say that you do not have a car.
You drive the car over to my garage as proof.
I disassemble the car, looking very carefully at each and every piece. I tell you, piece by piece, when and where I have seen this before and that it isn't unique and it isn't the only one. Soon, each piece and part is laying scattered about my garage. I spread out my arms to show you all the pieces and parts. I tell you, "You do NOT have a car! I told you so. Here is the proof."
Rightly you say to me, "I DO have a car. I drove it over here myself, and here it is right here, scattered all over this garage."
"OK," I say, "If you do have a car, then get in it and drive away."
Do you have a car or not? Technically, those pieces and parts do represent the pieces of a working, dependable car, and yet, it is not a car that you can drive away.
Here, the synergy is that the Whole is much different than the sum of its parts. The pieces and parts are vital and yet, pick up any one piece and no matter what it is or can do, it is not a car. Technically, there is no car without the assembly. It is the assembled pieces and parts that are the actual product called "car", and it has a different function than each piece or even the whole pile of parts.
So, relating to Gen 6: We each had a Whole Genesis (and the rest of it, too). You disassembled yours so that you could examine and scrutinize the pieces and parts in order for a better understanding of those pieces and parts and, subsequently, the Whole. I left mine intact and took it as a Whole, not closely scrutinizing the pieces and parts.
Could it be that, like our car and its pieces and parts, the two are technically the same, but not equally the same? Could it be that the meaning you found for your disassembled text is correct, while the meaning of my assembled text is also correct? Could it be that the function (purpose) of the Whole is totally different from the function (purpose) of the individual pieces and parts? Could context be in play here? Is it possible that the same phrase could have several different meanings - especially when considering context?
Ella
Well, I guess we shall see, Ella. There is a great possibility of a right interpretation of passages such as these and an incorrect interpretation. One, in my estimation keeps a consistent trend of thought, based on the evidence, and the other presents some serious problems.
I concede that there are a considerable number of flood legends, but if you look at them, they don't really support the Biblical version, though they may possibly be a folk memory of a huge (but not global) flood such as the one that occurred in the Black Sea area at the end of the Ice age.
The point is, that without a total flood and extinction of everything but what was on the Ark, the Biblical Flood is simply not true.
The Sargon/Moses resemblance is as striking as the Biblical/mesopotamian Flood story. Given that there is no good evidence for a Biblical - scale flood and no good evidence for an Exodus and your argument that there is no proof is simply ignoring the evidence and insisting that it must be true before any decent supportive evidence is forthcoming.
That is a faith -belief and not an evidence -belief and thus a denial of the evidence that indicates that Genesis and exodus are folklore or more likely polemic history creation.
Bible apologists do like to toss in random bits of archaeology as evidence of Bible- truth. Your scarab from Jerusalem is evidence only of Egyptian influence in Canaan - as was mentioned as evidence against the Exodus being possible at the time of the emergence of the Israelite state. Egypt pretty much oversaw the area and the scarab indicates that political dominance of Egypt.
I'm not sure I agree with no evidence of a flood. There, apparently, was an incident that would have caused serious flooding. But, I doubt that the boat ride would have lasted 370 days. I think that part was embellished. If memory serves me right, the Quran and the clay tablets, both, state that the flood lasted only 6 days. That, I can believe.
When you look at the damage of the tsunamis that hit Bangladesh and Japan, they were nothing compared to a large impact in the world's oceans. Using the data contained in the PDF file, they did a computer simulation of an impact 100 miles west of San Francisco. The result was that a 2-mile-wide rock from space would destroy one half of the earth.
Near the time of the Biblical flood, there seems to have been such an impact, but something much larger. Somewhere, I read that the object was estimated at some 30 Km across (18 miles). The tsunami sent out by that kind of impact would have made both Bangladesh and Japan look like a drop in the bucket.
And, I've also read the arguments against the evidence, and it does not hold as much water as the claim for the impact. The "chevrons" on Madagascar point to a crater. The crater was found because of the 'chevrons". Having marine micro-fossil ejecta deposited on the shore, that deep, would suggest a very large impact. The fact that there are no micro-fossil "chevrons" on the coast of Africa not withstanding. The ejecta will not travel as fast or as far as the wave itself. The wave would have been saturated with ejecta when it swept across Madagascar, but by the time it reached the African coast, the ejecta would have settled out and down to the sea floor. And, to have deposited marine micro-fossils along the coast, hundreds of feet deep, the size of the wave must have been unimaginable. It is the "MOMENTUM' of the wave that continues to move, not the molecules of water themselves. It isn't the same as skipping a rock across a pond. Throw a rock into a pond with algae floating on top. Around the point of impact, the algae is splashed out. But beyond that, all the algae stays in place as the wave travels to the shoreline. The same would happen to the ejecta. By the time it reached the coast of Africa, it would no longer contain any evidence. So, if it looks like a horse, runs like a horse, sounds like a horse, and smells like a horse, it must be a horse. The crater was found by following the direction of the chevrons. That, very strongly, suggests that the crater and the chevrons have something in common.
Now, the portion of the tsunami that went north and north east would have reduced slightly by the time it got to the areas around mesopotamia, but it would still be more than large enough to cause massive flooding and countless loss of life. And, the billions, or even trillions, of tons of water that were vaporized and atomized into the atmosphere would have provided days on end of heavy rain, all over the world. I doubt that the rain would be heavy enough to cause that kind of flooding, but I don't know that. However, coupled with the tsunami, it would certainly have added to the flooding.
The date of the impact is placed at 4,800 to 5,000 years ago (2,800 BC to 3,000 BC). While Biblical experts date the flood of Noah as November, 2,345 BC, I'm also aware that the Ancient Hebrews had to have copied the clay tablets from memory. Given the other differences between the texts, I have no doubt that the timeline is also in error. That the flood of Noah actually happened about 500 years earlier than given by Biblical text. A thousand years after the fact, they didn't even get Noah's name right.
A wave of that size would have hit South America and washed over the mountains to drain off into the Atlantic. In North America, it would probably have spared the east coast. It may have also crossed much of the African continent to drain off into the Atlantic. And, it would lend an explanation to the flood myths of so many cultures around the world.
I know we will. Problem is: We're both going to be dead when we do. <wink>
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
There is a great possibility of a right interpretation of passages such as these and an incorrect interpretation. One, in my estimation keeps a consistent trend of thought, based on the evidence, and the other presents some serious problems.
Perfectly (and so politely, too) said. This is exactly how I feel. These could be my own words.
That brings us to an impasse. And... We are back to The Wizard of Oz. Broken down into its respective pieces and parts, it is a provable flight of fancy. Taken as a Whole, it is an allegory. The message within the message is "there's no place like home". Each reader must apply whatever value to that message as he/she sees fit. For some, home is a haven of peace and comfort. For others, it is a hell on earth. Either way, "no place like home" is true - whether its a place to run to or a place to run from. If one misses the message within the message altogether, then it is easily dismissed as either nice entertainment or a total waste of time. Put the book on the shelf or toss it in the trash, because it just doesn't matter.
I agree that knowing where one has been helps to understand where that one is coming from. The art of really good discussion is, at least, endeavoring to stand in another's shoes and see through another's eyes to try and understand that one's point - whether or not there is an acceptance of that point after it is made. I think we are doing pretty good!
Would you be willing to take a journey with me to a different vantage point?
Please know that none of this includes the argument of "real" or "unreal"; just a continuation of our conversation.
How about we endeavor to apply the theory of Synergy (2+2=5, because the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts)? In doing so, I would like to step away from the specifics of this topic (Gen. 6) by using an analogy [sorry, that's the teacher in me].
You have a car. It is a basic, functional car.
I say that you do not have a car.
You drive the car over to my garage as proof.
I disassemble the car, looking very carefully at each and every piece. I tell you, piece by piece, when and where I have seen this before and that it isn't unique and it isn't the only one. Soon, each piece and part is laying scattered about my garage. I spread out my arms to show you all the pieces and parts. I tell you, "You do NOT have a car! I told you so. Here is the proof."
Rightly you say to me, "I DO have a car. I drove it over here myself, and here it is right here, scattered all over this garage."
"OK," I say, "If you do have a car, then get in it and drive away."
Do you have a car or not? Technically, those pieces and parts do represent the pieces of a working, dependable car, and yet, it is not a car that you can drive away.
Here, the synergy is that the Whole is much different than the sum of its parts. The pieces and parts are vital and yet, pick up any one piece and no matter what it is or can do, it is not a car. Technically, there is no car without the assembly. It is the assembled pieces and parts that are the actual product called "car", and it has a different function than each piece or even the whole pile of parts.
So, relating to Gen 6: We each had a Whole Genesis (and the rest of it, too). You disassembled yours so that you could examine and scrutinize the pieces and parts in order for a better understanding of those pieces and parts and, subsequently, the Whole. I left mine intact and took it as a Whole, not closely scrutinizing the pieces and parts.
Could it be that, like our car and its pieces and parts, the two are technically the same, but not equally the same? Could it be that the meaning you found for your disassembled text is correct, while the meaning of my assembled text is also correct? Could it be that the function (purpose) of the Whole is totally different from the function (purpose) of the individual pieces and parts? Could context be in play here? Is it possible that the same phrase could have several different meanings - especially when considering context?
Ella
I think that the analogy between a car and Genesis is that a car taken apart is not a functioning car. Semantics apart, it is an exploded flat – pack of a car and will not function as a vehicle but a car is what the components would make and that is all it could make.
Take Genesis to pieces and we could say that it does not add up to what it is. Make all sorts of comments about this or that passage, relating it to Paul, or a parable or a sermon in John. But together it is…what it is. And as the components of a car, once identified as parts of a car, must make a car, then the components of Genesis put together make a non – factual story derived from various sources and intended to outline creation, and how man fell into sin.
Now I am sure that you didn’t intend that conclusion, but were suggesting that there was More to Genesis than just a folktale. Indeed, we are aware of what it is and why it is and, more we know where the components came from and what is Japanese electronics, German engine, Italian styling, American paintwork and a British – made cupholder. We understand where it came from and someone telling us that it is more than that, we know it doesn’t fit the facts.
So maybe that analogy doesn’t convey what you were intending to argue. Perhaps it would be better just to say what more than just a stab at the origins of the world and sin Genesis is conveying.
Well Ella, since I have some time I will try to jump right into what I have to say about Genesis 6.
Like I said, just before I exited, stage left, out of Christianity I was investigating the whole "sons of God" bit. The interesting thing was, it led me into the secular world and to myths and other fantastic tales of the past I read about over the years. I came to understand that there were myths (and by myths, I mean exaggerated and embellished stories that MAY have a foundation of truth some place) all over the world. From place to place, you find stories of "gods" who came down to earth from among the stars. You read of gods coming down to earth and imparting civilization to man; things they make them self-sustaining. One story I remember all the way from third grade was the story of Prometheus. He the "savior god" who stole the fire of the gods (their immortality) and brought it down to man to practically make him equal with the gods to THEIR chagrin. The symbolisms imply that here was a divine being that came down to earth to dwell amongst men and "save" him or civilize him. The gods on Olympus did not fancy the competition on earth and Zeus strung him up to a rock and had him eternally punished, but I digress at the moment before I run off of my patented tangents.
I realized that not everyone had a "bible" in the ancient world to know that in the bible [alleged] divine beings came down to earth to dwell among men and mate with mortal women. Interestingly enough, some of these civilizations that spoke about these "divine visits" were considered ancient by the time there was even an Israel or their founder. One such civilization was the Sumerians who stories were also absorbed and preserved by the later Babylonians. All this before one word of the bible was written.
So, it became evident to me that like other cultures in the region, the bible's account came from an early source and was not, as some believed, dictated from god to the ears of scribes.
The early Hebrews emerged into a world that was already well ancient. They, like so many others before them, simply took and adopted older stories that came before them. In fact, the Hebrew patriarch, Abram, (assuming he was real), was actually born in a city-state that was once a major religious center in the ancient Sumerian Empire that sat between the lower ends of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers in Mesopotamia. That city was Ur and extrabiblical Jewish sources claim that his father was actually a priest of the ancient Sumerian gods and it was these gods that his personal god asked him to remove himself from and move northwest. We see these Sumerian gods pop up later on in the story of Jacob/Rachel and Laban and we also hear about them in Joshua's farewell speech where he put the Israelites on the spot by asking them which god they would serve going forward. He exhorted them to "put away the gods from across the rivers that belonged to your fore-fathers" and to choose Yahweh instead.
This then begs the question, how much influence and how much of these handed down oral and written stories did Abram depart Ur with? Did he just drop it all and teach his posterity something else entirely different and new? Judging from the early chapters of the book of Genesis and the older source stories of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and others in the region, it becomes very clear that the Jewish scribes, in writing down their own national stories of how things began and what happened in the early years of human existence on earth, they simply echoed much of what had already been said hundreds to thousands of year prior to them from other peoples.
Apparently, to the early Hebrews and Israelites, the idea that a supreme god existed who had sons was not really a bother. We find this in Moses' farewell song when he took the minds of his audience back to when the nations were first divided across the earth. This is what he said after exhorting the new generation of Israelites to consult their elders on HOW the LORD (Yahweh) became the god of Israel:
"Remember the days of old,
consider the years of many generations;
ask your father, and he will show you;
your elders, and they will tell you.
When the Most High [El Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.[a]
For the Lord’s [Yahweh] portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:7-9, brackets mine)
Note VERY carefully a few things from this passage. Moses takes them back to an ancient time long before there was an Israel. He tells them the the Most High (El Elyon) divides the nations according to his sons (Sons of God) which were their inheritances AND, note most importantly of all that 'the Most High' and 'the LORD' are two separate distinct entities. One inherits something from the other. Now, if you pick up your King James Bible or just about any other bible, you will notice three different words that changes the entire meaning of this passage. Instead of reading "sons of God" you will find, "Children of Israel." This poses of myriad of problems, the biggest one being that when when the nations were divided in Genesis 10 (I believe), Abraham nor his father nor the Hebrews, nation of Israel nor the Jews were even a thought. Furthermore, why would nations be divided as an inheritance to another nation? So here we see how a later evolution in Jewish theology biased itself into older Israelite lore, because by the time the post-exilic monotheistic Jews sat down to compile their written and oral traditions, including an idea that their god had sons was blasphemous so, a little editing was needed to convey a more palatable meaning, but as I pointed out already, this posed a huge problem.
In addition, adding "children of Israel" also broke with regional consistency. The older, regional concept was that a father god, allotted the divided nations to his sons, for each to rule over their individual nations. It was believed that there were 72 such sons and thus, it is not surprising that the nations that were divided in Genesis 10 totaled 72. Clearly the early Israelites continued the consistency of this concept. Later Jews, followed by Christians and Muslims, however, had a different idea by the time the evolved concept got to their point in history.
More to come...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your scarab from Jerusalem is evidence only of Egyptian influence in Canaan - as was mentioned as evidence against the Exodus being possible at the time of the emergence of the Israelite state. Egypt pretty much oversaw the area and the scarab indicates that political dominance of Egypt.
