Who Are They?

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Dondi,

There is hardly a religion in existence that does not have some parable about the tree of knowledge and it is pretty obvious that the myth stems from well before Judaism. But the way in which the Old Testament relates the myth is not the same as all and is, in my opinion, inserted in such a way as to make any questioning of religious authority a great sin. I find that not only in the wording of Genesis but in the differing interpretations given as the official positions of the given churches. This is not how the story began.

The Judaic/Christian version is likely a re-rendering of the ancient Sumerian myth of Lileth, (Goddess of the Beasts), who lived in the Tree of Knowledge. But likely is much older even than that. I am more interested in understanding the origins of these myths and can see in several pictures of Mesopotamian artefacts clear and unambiguous evidence that the Tree of Knowledge was central to much earlier religions than Judaism. These early religions placed the divinity of the female above that of the male and it is not lost on me that the male dominated subsequent religions turn the tables on "Eve" and make her the source of our sin.

How you approach the myth is important. If you take it in isolation from Genesis then it is used as the bedrock on which to thump the idea that we are forever tainted. This is especially reinforced in Genesis 8:21 where God says "The imagination from their hearts is evil from their youth". Sorry but that will never wash with me, not when I can clearly see this myth is borrowed and twisted from a quite different original meaning.

When you build any structure you first clear the ground and make it good then you lay down the foundations. Adam and Eve are the foundations of mankind's story according to the Bible. The structure of control over peoples thoughts requires first reducing them to sinners. It is no different than advertising that works best by first destroying your confidence and then offering a reprieve through purchase of a product. The Bible works in exactly the same way. The Bible also has much common sense for the basis communal, social law but it is all built on this corrupt foundation. Well that is my take on it anyway.

Regards

Tao


Hi Mee,

I think I agree with you if you substitute the word universal for Church.

Tao

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Dondi,

There is hardly a religion in existence that does not have some parable about the tree of knowledge and it is pretty obvious that the myth stems from well before Judaism. But the way in which the Old Testament relates the myth is not the same as all and is, in my opinion, inserted in such a way as to make any questioning of religious authority a great sin. I find that not only in the wording of Genesis but in the differing interpretations given as the official positions of the given churches. This is not how the story began.

The Judaic/Christian version is likely a re-rendering of the ancient Sumerian myth of Lileth, (Goddess of the Beasts), who lived in the Tree of Knowledge. But likely is much older even than that. I am more interested in understanding the origins of these myths and can see in several pictures of Mesopotamian artefacts clear and unambiguous evidence that the Tree of Knowledge was central to much earlier religions than Judaism. These early religions placed the divinity of the female above that of the male and it is not lost on me that the male dominated subsequent religions turn the tables on "Eve" and make her the source of our sin.

How you approach the myth is important. If you take it in isolation from Genesis then it is used as the bedrock on which to thump the idea that we are forever tainted. This is especially reinforced in Genesis 8:21 where God says "The imagination from their hearts is evil from their youth". Sorry but that will never wash with me, not when I can clearly see this myth is borrowed and twisted from a quite different original meaning.

When you build any structure you first clear the ground and make it good then you lay down the foundations. Adam and Eve are the foundations of mankind's story according to the Bible. The structure of control over peoples thoughts requires first reducing them to sinners. It is no different than advertising that works best by first destroying your confidence and then offering a reprieve through purchase of a product. The Bible works in exactly the same way. The Bible also has much common sense for the basis communal, social law but it is all built on this corrupt foundation. Well that is my take on it anyway.

Regards

Tao


Hi Mee,

I think I agree with you if you substitute the word universal for Church.

Tao

You know why the Genesis account is similar to these "myths" you refer to? It's because that is the true history of the world and over time different cultures around the world have passed the story down and over time the specifics changed. Similarly, there are many cultures around the world with their own legends of a gigantic flood, and a boat that saved people and animals. Just like what Genesis says about Noah and the Flood.

The thing is, the written account of Genesis is a direct revelation from God who was there and did see it happen. The fact that they did happen is apparent because the story still exists around the world even though it has changed over time through word-of-mouth.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Pico

You know why the Genesis account is similar to these "myths" you refer to? It's because that is the true history of the world and over time different cultures around the world have passed the story down and over time the specifics changed. Similarly, there are many cultures around the world with their own legends of a gigantic flood, and a boat that saved people and animals. Just like what Genesis says about Noah and the Flood.

The thing is, the written account of Genesis is a direct revelation from God who was there and did see it happen. The fact that they did happen is apparent because the story still exists around the world even though it has changed over time through word-of-mouth.

You miss the fact that this story was around long before Genesis was written. However, if you think the Bible is a literal history then I see little point in any discussion with you on this. This is after all the Christian forum, (how did I end up here again????), and I am bound to show a respect for views other than my own. I find this very difficult when faced with literalism. If you wish to engage me in discussion on neutral territory then I will be happy to oblige.

Regards

Tao

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You miss the fact that this story was around long before Genesis was written. However, if you think the Bible is a literal history then I see little point in any discussion with you on this. This is after all the Christian forum, (how did I end up here again????), and I am bound to show a respect for views other than my own. I find this very difficult when faced with literalism. If you wish to engage me in discussion on neutral territory then I will be happy to oblige.

Regards

Tao

Well yeah, people and storytelling have been around long before Genesis was written. But that's not the point. The point is that Genesis is God's divine revelation of the beginning of the world.

And what's wrong with believing Genesis to be literal history? It's written as literal history. The rest of the Bible refers it as literal history. It seems that only fallible man's ideas think it not to be literal history. In the book of proverbs it says: "it is better to have faith in God than confidence in man."

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Pico

Well yeah, people and storytelling have been around long before Genesis was written. But that's not the point. The point is that Genesis is God's divine revelation of the beginning of the world.

And what's wrong with believing Genesis to be literal history? It's written as literal history. The rest of the Bible refers it as literal history. It seems that only fallible man's ideas think it not to be literal history. In the book of proverbs it says: "it is better to have faith in God than confidence in man."

Show me one copy of Genesis that is written, printed or published by anyone other than man.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Show me one copy of Genesis that is written, printed or published by anyone other than man.

Moses wrote the book of Genesis, but God told him what to write. This article talks about Moses being the writer of Genesis.

[wil]

This exemplifies the breadth of Christianity, the variety of those who follow Jesus.

Yes there are those whose belief system includes a literal translation of the bible...but even they have texts and scripture which they ignore or won't read literally...(dietary rules, various interps of the commandments, punishments for crimes)

And there are those that believe that the book is largely allegory, parables, myth and exaggerated history but even they have parts of the book they read literally.

And there is everything in between.

But I'm pondering because there exists a similar Summerian creation story why does it make this one wrong or a copy. Does the indegenous American creation story negate the aboriginal Australian's. Does the one flood story mean the other is wrong...or either is right? I don't think so...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Pico

Moses wrote the book of Genesis, but God told him what to write. This article talks about Moses being the writer of Genesis.

I know who was supposed to have written Genesis. A guy for whom there is not 1 single shred of evidence, outside the Bible, that he ever lived. Despite him having led this tribe around for 40 years in a region where we have a lot of historical documentation not 1 tiny scrap of reference. So what kind of authority does that story carry really? Outside of "faith" it has none.
There is not even a single fragment of the Old Testament that has been dated prior to 200BC, not 2000... 200BC
To accept any story as a literal history it must have multiple sources. With this we cannot even confirm one.

Tao

[Dondi]

Tao,

I'd be interested in knowing your sources for the idea of Lilith and the Tree of Knowledge. While it's true that the tale of "Gilgamesh and the Huluppu tree" contains a tree and a serpent, it does not mention the tree as the Tree of Knowledge. Are you sure you are not getting that confused with later Jewish and Kabbalist and writings in reference to Adam and Lilith in such tales as "The Alphabet of Ben-Sira" and Talmudic references dating long after the writing of the Torah?

[wil]

Namaste Tao, is there a place you are headed with this line of discussion that supports Christianity and the bible??

If not, don't you think this would be the wrong forum for this discussion?

It would be beneficial to us all now to understand the direction this is going so it is not misinterpreted.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Pico

Moses wrote the book of Genesis, but God told him what to write. This article talks about Moses being the writer of Genesis.

Forgive me but have not many Rabbi's and theologians stated that the book of Genisis was actually written by 4 different people? The way that each writer writes is qte different and quite distinctive. Perhaps Dauer or BB could be more specific about this but I remember watching a program about it.

Sorry Dondi did't see you there, perhaps you could shed some light here?

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Dondi,

What I said was that the story of the Tree of Knowledge found in the Bible is derived from earlier myths. If you google it you will find lots of references to Sumerian and other myths that include the idea of guardian deities, a tree and a serpent. As I maintain, this part of Genesis is clearly not divine revelation but re-worked myth.

Wil,

I have no intention of steering this anywhere, I am tempted to pick apart and rationalise but realise this is not the right thread. Hard to stop when you are asked to qualify tho.

Regards

Tao


Edit: MW, only 4!!

[wil]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Forgive me but have not many Rabbi's and theologians stated that the book of Genisis was actually written by 4 different people? The way that each writer writes is qte different and quite distinctive. Perhaps Dauer or BB could be more specific about this but I remember watching a program about it.

Sorry Dondi did't see you there, perhaps you could shed some light here?

Yes many Rabbi's and Theologians have stated multiple authors...but again this is the breadth of Judaism much as it is for Christianity. Judging by discussions in the past BB would lean more literal and Dauer more liberal.

And the discussion in those circles of those who discuss multiple authors are looking at groups of people, the Priest, Deuteronomists, Yahwists, Elohists etc... and the editing and merging of various texts. This is currently by no means accepted by all, as the specifics are constantly being discussed.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I know who was supposed to have written Genesis. A guy for whom there is not 1 single shred of evidence, outside the Bible, that he ever lived. Despite him having led this tribe around for 40 years in a region where we have a lot of historical documentation not 1 tiny scrap of reference. So what kind of authority does that story carry really? Outside of "faith" it has none.
There is not even a single fragment of the Old Testament that has been dated prior to 200BC, not 2000... 200BC
To accept any story as a literal history it must have multiple sources. With this we cannot even confirm one.

Tao

Well, what about Jesus? The New Testament contains the best documented texts ever written. There are thousands of sources to back up the Gospels. Jesus spoke of Moses. He even talked to him during the Transfiguration which is recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Edit: Just because we haven't found any archaeological evidence for Moses does not prove he didn't exist. For years archaeologists thought David never existed until one day they found something (forget what it was) that said something about King David. Such has been the case for countless other historical points in the Bible.

Edit 2: Hey, I just found an article about Moses.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Pico

Well, what about Jesus? The New Testament contains the best documented texts ever written. There are thousands of sources to back up the Gospels.

Golly day Pico... Just when I was suggesting that Tao back off brash statements...

I'd love to see thousands of concurrent non-biblical references to back up the Gospels.