about Eden

[greentwiga]

Surely you jest. You mean a snake didn't speak perfect Hebew? But how can that be? People wrote about it. You mean someone lied? Gosh!

The word is serpent, not snake. Look at the mother goddess worship, and you will realize that God was rejecting that worship as he rejected all other religions. A great example is the Oracle at Delphi. This was located on a mountain, in a sacred grove of trees, by a spring. It was originally oriented around land, animal, and human fertility. There, they used female priests. They were called the Pythia. They spoke to the Python, (serpent) who gave them their Oracles. Later, as the Greeks tell it, Apollo defeated the Python and buried him underground. The Bible equates these false gods as not being real and as being Satan in disguise. It is exactly the same for the Garden of Eden.

[greentwiga]

hmm. Never heard that Adam and Eve were from Southern Turkey before. Although the oldest settlement ever found is in Tureky, at Catal Hoyuk (sp?).

The reality, though, is that Genesis is a creation myth that shouldnt be taken literally. The actual existence of Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden for that matter, is based purely on a literal reading of Genesis. Since Genesis was a rewrite of much older Sumerian documents, it seems a little silly to take it literally.

Cayonu is much older than Catal Hoyuk. All the very earliest farming communities are very near Karacadag (this region of S. Turkey was the region called Adin or Eden.

[JudahsLion]

Cayonu is much older than Catal Hoyuk. All the very earliest farming communities are very near Karacadag (this region of S. Turkey was the region called Adin or Eden.

So, do you think that Eden was literally the place we read about in Genesis?

To me, it seems more plausible that early people would've written these stories based on places they knew, and lets not forget that the first chapters of Genesis are clear copies of Sumerian stories.

I guess what Im asking is are you sticking your scripture into the archaeology?, or are you objectively looking at the information?

[mikeledo]

The word is serpent, not snake. Look at the mother goddess worship, and you will realize that God was rejecting that worship as he rejected all other religions. A great example is the Oracle at Delphi. This was located on a mountain, in a sacred grove of trees, by a spring. It was originally oriented around land, animal, and human fertility. There, they used female priests. They were called the Pythia. They spoke to the Python, (serpent) who gave them their Oracles. Later, as the Greeks tell it, Apollo defeated the Python and buried him underground. The Bible equates these false gods as not being real and as being Satan in disguise. It is exactly the same for the Garden of Eden.

KJV translates as "serpent." The same identical word used in Hebrew is also translated as "snake." The snake, or serpent is the constellation of "HYRDA" located near the horizon which gave it an appearance of being on the ground. Hence the curse. Leo's foot is also at the head of Hydra.

[greentwiga]

So, do you think that Eden was literally the place we read about in Genesis?

To me, it seems more plausible that early people would've written these stories based on places they knew, and lets not forget that the first chapters of Genesis are clear copies of Sumerian stories.

I guess what Im asking is are you sticking your scripture into the archaeology?, or are you objectively looking at the information?

First, I analyzed the scriptures. Just following scriptures and the applicable science (volcanology, biology of figs, etc., I decided, reluctantly, that the garden was at Karacadag. I preferred lake van because of the volcano. After deciding on Karacadag, I found that it was a volcano, and the only shiel volcano in the region (best to produce a lava fountain (flaming sword)) I then found the DNA analysis of wheat by the germans that concluded that wheat was only domesticated at Karacadag. So no, I did not stick or force my Bible interpretation to fit Archaeology, but was excited to find that they agreed.

[JudahsLion]

First, I analyzed the scriptures. Just following scriptures and the applicable science (volcanology, biology of figs, etc., I decided, reluctantly, that the garden was at Karacadag. I preferred lake van because of the volcano. After deciding on Karacadag, I found that it was a volcano, and the only shiel volcano in the region (best to produce a lava fountain (flaming sword)) I then found the DNA analysis of wheat by the germans that concluded that wheat was only domesticated at Karacadag. So no, I did not stick or force my Bible interpretation to fit Archaeology, but was excited to find that they agreed.

Cool Beans. Glad to hear it. So then, Do you think that the Genesis account is an accurate account of historical events? Or do you think it is more of a poetic Hebrew creation story?

I dont think the concurrence of the Genesis account with what we are discovering in Archaeology neccesitates that the Genesis account is literal. In fact, it makes sense that a story like this would be written in an area near the birth of civilization. The Hebrew version of the first chapters of Genesis is about 2000 years younger than the Sumerian stories.

[mikeledo]

Cool Beans. Glad to hear it. So then, Do you think that the Genesis account is an accurate account of historical events? Or do you think it is more of a poetic Hebrew creation story?

I dont think the concurrence of the Genesis account with what we are discovering in Archaeology neccesitates that the Genesis account is literal. In fact, it makes sense that a story like this would be written in an area near the birth of civilization. The Hebrew version of the first chapters of Genesis is about 2000 years younger than the Sumerian stories.

Certainly the more polished biblical version is centuries younger. However, I believe I have discovered an older version within the text. Knowing Tigay's expansion techniques for Gilgamesh; I have applied them in reverse in order to deconstruct the Bible to its most primitive or original text. I would contend this text originally was written circa 1930 BCE. Adam was based on the Amorite Adamah. Adam's wife had no name (as did Cain's wife and Noah's wife.) The name "Eve" would be adopted later from the Hittite "Heva." Adam's wife was astrologically the constellation Virgo and equated in many ways to Ishtar. In the original tale when Adam got kicked out of the garden, hsi wife remained behind and he took another wife. Hence the legend of Adam's "wife before Eve." Lilith, his first wife, I believe is simply a demoness form of Ishtar, who was created when the goddess became unpopular. Her worship was considered perversity and was blamed for the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven (meteor). I suspect this is why YHWH has no consort.

[greentwiga]

Cool Beans. Glad to hear it. So then, Do you think that the Genesis account is an accurate account of historical events? Or do you think it is more of a poetic Hebrew creation story?

I dont think the concurrence of the Genesis account with what we are discovering in Archaeology neccesitates that the Genesis account is literal. In fact, it makes sense that a story like this would be written in an area near the birth of civilization. The Hebrew version of the first chapters of Genesis is about 2000 years younger than the Sumerian stories.

Let's be clear, the written Hebrew account is about 2,000 years younger. That does not mean that the verbal version is younger. Polytheist stories, such as greek tended to be flexible and change a lot. The Semitic culture put a high emphasis on verbal memorization. It is amazing to listen to a person quote the Koran or the Mahabharata word perfect. I do not see why the account can't be literal. Still, when you look at the story as a rejection of the false religion of the time, that part is true whether or not the story is literally true. What I am amazed at is that the Bible preserved the location of the domestication of wheat for 10,000 years. If that part is literally true, why do we have to automatically assume that the rest is only myth?

[greentwiga]

Certainly the more polished biblical version is centuries younger. However, I believe I have discovered an older version within the text. Knowing Tigay's expansion techniques for Gilgamesh; I have applied them in reverse in order to deconstruct the Bible to its most primitive or original text. I would contend this text originally was written circa 1930 BCE. Adam was based on the Amorite Adamah. Adam's wife had no name (as did Cain's wife and Noah's wife.) The name "Eve" would be adopted later from the Hittite "Heva." Adam's wife was astrologically the constellation Virgo and equated in many ways to Ishtar. In the original tale when Adam got kicked out of the garden, hsi wife remained behind and he took another wife. Hence the legend of Adam's "wife before Eve." Lilith, his first wife, I believe is simply a demoness form of Ishtar, who was created when the goddess became unpopular. Her worship was considered perversity and was blamed for the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven (meteor). I suspect this is why YHWH has no consort.

I don't agree completely with your conclusions, but I do agree that the story showed Adam and Eve trying the mother goddess worship and God punishing them because of it. Interestingly, when something caused Cain's crops to not grow right, he killed his brother and poured his blood onto the ground in an attempt to get fertility, pure mother goddess/Ishtar worship. God cursed him for that with no crops growing.

[JudahsLion]

What I am amazed at is that the Bible preserved the location of the domestication of wheat for 10,000 years. If that part is literally true, why do we have to automatically assume that the rest is only myth?

This is a fair question. I would respond with a modern example. Take, for instance, the Godzilla movie that came out a few years ago (the modern one). Godzilla (fake) attacks New York City (a real place) in a fictional movie.

If people 2000 years from now watch that movie, should they suppose that this event actually happened solely because they have found the ruins of New York City?

It isnt unusual to use familiar things in a fictional story. It doesnt necessarily lend credibility to the story simply through association, dont you think?

[mikeledo]

I don't agree completely with your conclusions, but I do agree that the story showed Adam and Eve trying the mother goddess worship and God punishing them because of it. Interestingly, when something caused Cain's crops to not grow right, he killed his brother and poured his blood onto the ground in an attempt to get fertility, pure mother goddess/Ishtar worship. God cursed him for that with no crops growing.

The story of Cain killing Abel is not very important. I believe it was added later. The important aspect of Cain was that he built a city and sired those who founded civilization. That is the aspect I use for myth comparison. Cain was Enki. Pure mother goddess worship is very old. It would date to 4,000-6,000 BCE when Virgo was the constellation of the summer solstice.

[greentwiga]

This is a fair question. I would respond with a modern example. Take, for instance, the Godzilla movie that came out a few years ago (the modern one). Godzilla (fake) attacks New York City (a real place) in a fictional movie.

If people 2000 years from now watch that movie, should they suppose that this event actually happened solely because they have found the ruins of New York City?

It isnt unusual to use familiar things in a fictional story. It doesnt necessarily lend credibility to the story simply through association, dont you think?

There are some amazing stories such as Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan, Marco Polo, and Robin Hood. In a thousand years, how would we know which is real and which is fabrication. One shouldn't start out assuming that all three are myths. Careful and skeptical analysis should be used.

[runtmc2jc]

.

We are constrained by the two known rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates. The spot must be on the watershed divide between the two. We also know that they made clothes out of fig leaves, so the spot must be where wild figs grew. The border between Syria or Iraq and Turkey is and was too dry for figs. The Taurus and anti Taurus mountains provided an effective barrier preventing these figs from going north. There is only one mountain in Southern Turkey, Karacadag that fits the description. Since Adam and Eve made bread (out of wheat) it is also the only place between the tigris and Euphrates that satisfies this requirement. Scientists also say that wheat was domesticated only at Karacadag, and the Bible says that Adam was the first farmer.

I believe that general area in Turkey to be the settlement of Noah & his descendants after the flood.... I like the northern-most Persian Gulf area to be the area of the Garden....

some day we may find out the truth............ or not....

[mikeledo]

There are some amazing stories such as Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan, Marco Polo, and Robin Hood. In a thousand years, how would we know which is real and which is fabrication. One shouldn't start out assuming that all three are myths. Careful and skeptical analysis should be used.

But we can assume at minimum, all have been embellished.

[greentwiga]

I believe that general area in Turkey to be the settlement of Noah & his descendants after the flood.... I like the northern-most Persian Gulf area to be the area of the Garden....

some day we may find out the truth............ or not....

Yes, that is a popular area. Unfortunately, wild figs and wild wheat never grew in that area. Neither does it contain a volcano. The area I mentioned is the only one that fits all the Biblical clues. For a while, I considered Lake Van, very close to Mt Ararat, but could never get past the lack of figs.