Nature Worship of the Ancients

[whag]

Given the environment that early human beings lived in and circumstances they endured, isn’t it obvious why they worshiped nature and made fertility statues? The belief that human beings worshiped nature as a rebellious act seems to me implausible in the context of that. If early human beings were in the ineffable presence of God, worshiping fat pregnant statues would’ve literally been retarded. We have good evidence we weren’t literally retarded. Our epistemological curiosity and early subsequent knowledge gains (coordinated cooperative hunting, smelting of ore, etc) would be a good example of that evidence. We weren't so insane that we'd choose statues over a loving and providential God, or were we?

Early civilizations appear to have behaved exactly as one would have expected them to in the environment they found themselves in and with the intelligence they had. Lately I’ve been wondering what should have been expected from the conservative religious Judeo-Christian perspective. Can someone sophisticated outline his or her views on this?

[Leonhard]

We weren't so insane that we'd choose statues over a loving and providential God, or were we?

There's a quite a bit of difference between those who rejected God, and their descendants, they're not entirely guilty of the crimes their parents. I think if we limit the discussion entirely to those who were the ones to initially reject him, I agree it would seem nonsense, but the Bible clearly documents, and history has a lot of examples showing that not all people want what God wants. Go the Old Testament and read about the Israelites, newly freed, grumbling about not having meat in the desert, or being impatient on the mountain.

I think following God can seem easy, but peoples faith and love is really only tested the day people, in the name of God are asked to abstain from something they want, or to do something they don't want to.

This isn't much of an answer, but I don't know much about ancient history and what we can say with good evidence (and not merely by importing materialistic assumptions, which would question begging here) about the beliefs of early mankind.

[whag]

There's a quite a bit of difference between those who rejected God, and their descendants, they're not entirely guilty of the crimes their parents. I think if we limit the discussion entirely to those who were the ones to initially reject him, I agree it would seem nonsense, but the Bible clearly documents, and history has a lot of examples showing that not all people want what God wants. Go the Old Testament and read about the Israelites, newly freed, grumbling about not having meat in the desert, or being impatient on the mountain.

Would a group that had clearly been divinely rescued complain about not being in slavery again? Give me all the beef brisket in the world, and I’ll still rebel against being whipped for not building the pyramids fast enough.

I think following God can seem easy, but peoples faith and love is really only tested the day people, in the name of God are asked to abstain from something they want, or to do something they don't want to.

I don’t think so. I think it’s pretty obvious that even the early bronze age was terrible enough that the intervention of a unique divine personality would easily be distinguished from Ra, who was inactive apart from his dull daily shining.

This isn't much of an answer, but I don't know much about ancient history and what we can say with good evidence (and not merely by importing materialistic assumptions, which would question begging here) about the beliefs of early mankind.

We have enough to see animistic perspectives in early humankind. We don’t have enough to assume monotheism antedated the animistic perspective.

[37818]

Post flood third or forth generation. Or some time after the confounding of human language.

[whag]

Post flood third or forth generation. Or some time after the confounding of human language.

There was no confounding of human language.

[37818]

". . . And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. . . ." -- Genesis 11:1.

There was no confounding of human language.

You know this because?

[Tassman]

". . . And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. . . ." -- Genesis 11:1.

You know this because?

Because, apart from the folklore of Genesis, there's no reason to think there was one language.

[whag]

". . . And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. . . ." -- Genesis 11:1.

You know this because?

Human beings had already radiated into other parts of the world from Africa approximately 100,000 years before that was written. The author of Genesis didn't know that.

[whag]

Because, apart from the folklore of Genesis, there's no reason to think there was one language.

Even if there was one language, it would have originated in Africa and been a primitive collection of vocalizations and body language. Granting the non-literalist Christians that Babel was a metaphor, it still wouldn't work. How would sin and God fit into the story of human beings migrating from the mother continent to other parts of the world?

It's ridiculous to think that one primitive language was divinely multiplied and for a reason like a collaborative architecture project. It just doesn't fit in the context of prehistory.

[37818]

Because, apart from the folklore of Genesis, . . .

Are you sure that there was such a folklore?

. . . . there's no reason to think there was one language.

How do you conclude that?

Human beings had already radiated into other parts of the world from Africa approximately 100,000 years before that was written. . . .

Yes, that is a theory. How was the 100,000 years arrived at?

. . . . The author of Genesis didn't know that.

From the point of view of the said writing being give as revelation, the writer wouldn't need to know any of that.

Even if there was one language, it would have originated in Africa and been a primitive collection of vocalizations and body language. Granting the non-literalist Christians that Babel was a metaphor, it still wouldn't work. How would sin and God fit into the story of human beings migrating from the mother continent to other parts of the world?

Well you are arguing interpretations. Geological flood evidence suggests that the contents were joined at one time. Oh, yeah, the science of the accepted geology interpretation has long ago rejected what was at one time called the flood theory of geology.

It's ridiculous to think that one primitive language was divinely multiplied and for a reason like a collaborative architecture project. It just doesn't fit in the context of prehistory.

Yeah, prehistory. Not history, being before history.

[whag]

Yes, that is a theory.

So is gravity.

How was the 100,000 years arrived at?

Reliable dating methods.

From the point of view of the said writing being give as revelation, the writer wouldn't need to know any of that.

Mmmkay.

Well you are arguing interpretations. Geological flood evidence suggests that the contents were joined at one time.

Geological evidence, yes. Flood evidence, no. Movement of the plates due to mantle convection is fairly uniform, so we can calculate with precision when the continents were connected. We're talking tens of millions of years, not anything like mere thousands.

Oh, yeah, the science of the accepted geology interpretation has long ago rejected what was at one time called the flood theory of geology.

Um....what?

Yeah, prehistory. Not history, being before history.

Prehistory means before written history; it doesn't discount natural history and the record evident in rocks and fossiled bone.

I literally cannot have this discussion with you. In the OP, I addressed sophisticated believers. You and I don't speak a common epistemic language.

[Tassman]

Are you sure that there was such a folklore?

Yes, the Book of Genesis, it’s extant but it cannot be factually true, it’s folklore as I said.

How do you conclude that?

The Tower of Babel is a 'just-so' story to explain why there was a confusion of languages despite the claim in Genesis 11:1–9 that everyone on earth spoke the same language. There’s not a shred of evidence for either story, all the evidence contradicts it. Our ancestors lived thousands of years apart and it’s highly unlikely that they shared the same language.

"…the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true."…“This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans.”

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...and-a-contest/

[tabibito]

Yes, the Book of Genesis, it’s extant but it cannot be factually true, it’s folklore as I said.



The Tower of Babel is a 'just-so' story to explain why there was a confusion of languages despite the claim in Genesis 11:1–9 that everyone on earth spoke the same language. There’s not a shred of evidence for either story, all the evidence contradicts it. Our ancestors lived thousands of years apart and it’s highly unlikely that they shared the same language.

"…the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true."…“This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans.”

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...and-a-contest/

It is a mildly interesting article. ... But the science doesn't preclude Adam and Eve - just makes necessary a dispassionate reexamination (no, not a faith hope and baling wire reinterpretation) of what the record of Genesis actually says. Doing so would very quickly reveal that compatibility or incompatibility with the genealogical and geological records are not the only options.

But even if they were the only options available, which would almost certainly result in an assessment of the first 11 chapters of Genesis as wholly mythological, the claim that the story of Adam and Eve is "a bedrock of Christian faith" simply is incorrect.

As to Babel - "a just so" story is the most likely scenario.

[Adam]

Well you are arguing interpretations. Geological flood evidence suggests that the contents were joined at one time. Oh, yeah, the science of the accepted geology interpretation has long ago rejected what was at one time called the flood theory of geology.

How long have you lived in Southern California? Are you an illegal from Mexico--the above word I have italicized should read "continents".\?
Nor do you seem to have any grasp even of your OWN theology. It is Fundamentalists LIKE YOU who have believed in the "flood theory of geology", and here you are confessing that you believe in continental drift, which took hundreds of millions of years.
Time to give up on Seventh Day Baptist theology or Primitive Baptist theology and find real Christianity that's believable. (Your statement of faith is incoherent--did you write it yourself--I suppose no one else would have.)

[tabibito]

Yes, that is a theory. How was the 100,000 years arrived at?

From the archaeological record. All evidence suggests that humans (as in H. Sap. Sap.) first developed in Africa around 200 000 years ago - around the Omo River (Ethiopia), just south of the Red Sea.
The most recent findings show humans migrating out of Africa roughly 125 000 years ago, likely forced by climate change.