EUHEMRISM- Mythology as Symbolically Glossed History

RE: "Darwinianism, Anthropology, and modern Geological theory hate a literal Genesis 10."
Let me be a bit more clear: Darwinist hate Genesis because it testifies to a Creation of man in a shorter time frame.

Anthropologists hate Genesis because that haven't dug up anything yet, so they believe; nor does Genesis say anything about apes as ancestors.

Geologist hate it only because most Creationists hold a young earth theory - which I don not. Genesis speaks of a gap between Gen-1 and 2. It also uses a Hebrew word that infers a REestoration and not a formal creation in the Gen account. The so called 7 days of creation are just as well a restoration, especially when the Adam and Eve were told to REplenish the earth and not "plenish." So = pre-Adamite world? yes.
 
Q. "Why would you disallow the psychological aspects?"

I made a general all encompassing statement. Sorry. Let me clarify. What I really mean by "leaving out the psychological" is modern psychological approach that leaves out the possible historicity of mythology. If there is any psychology to be had from myth, we first better take myth as prehistoric data and consider the possibility that all these mythic characters are or once were real people. THEN, what psychology we glean from the stories can be based on the assumption of a real human basis and not the ramblings of prehistoric fiction writers.

If we were to glean any psychology from what the fictionalists believe mythology is, then if the myth is fiction the psychology is also - at least stilted manufactured psychology. Alternately, if myth is real, we can at least trust that the psychological is real as well and based on a reality. In reality the psychology is filtered only through the transmitters of the mythos. If fiction, the psychology gleaned from myth is filtered through a secondary filter, which is the original fabricator of the fiction. It is "artificiality" as opposed to reality.

It seems to me that the psychological aspects of mythology display a more real basis than counting mythology a pure fiction/ invention. When the Mesopotamian speak of Utunapishtum, he is as real as Gilgamesh, whom is as real as his monumental father - a figure accounted now as an historical figure king.

Now, if Utunapishtum was looked upon as some flood survivor, then I take that as a statement of a real figure and event. Am sorry is science cannot prove this yet. Maybe one day, when people are more willing to be honest it might be proven. Until then, I guess we all have TWO sets of partial fictional accounts - genesis with a Noah and Darwin with his monkeys.
 
Science according to fictional Darwinism has accounted for a fictional prehistoric past completely opposed to and contrary to ancient testimony. IT denies the national testimonies of every culture on the face of the planet and can only account for them as "fiction" to stifle any exposure to the contrary.

I SUGGEST reading the full 6 volumes of John D Pilkey before you flush all in favor of modern denial. Science has done much and I appreciate what science has done and has to offer, but not what the interpreters have manufactured. I find all modern historical interpretations and prehistoric speculations as attempts by the simple-minded to explain what they "believe" is true, which is always contrary to Genesis and what Dr. Pilkey has extracted from the available data (not all, but most).

What moderns seem to all do when they go back in time and hit Sargon is manufacture BS about pre-Sargonic history. They cannot even compose a decent chronology because to do so would expose the national myths as having much historical value - so, what do they do? If they find anything NOT supported "yet" by archaeology, they write it off as fiction or mythic blab, poetry, or the likes. Then when found in error they give the silent treatment. The Christian community is equally guilty: They are either too stupid to understand or don't care. Plus, every attempt at pre-Sargonic history usually only fills up a few small chapters compared to John's 3000 pages (six volumes of proto-history).

I would like to see a Darwinist carve out 3000 pages! Of: a decent chronology; a political parallel befitting the chronology; a list of leading figures with a history of more than 3 paragraphs; and some explanation of where and how it all started without adding some "ape" fiction to detract from real human explanations. If you don't like Genesis as historical testimony go to some APE blog about monkey theories and have fun accusing them of being mythologists - and truly, you would be more than right.

So, go read all 3000 pages first, then, if you feel persuaded, come back and express what you have found.

Also, sorry, if you find out you can't understand his works are don't want to understand. If you flush the apes down the sink with the myth-mongers who manufactured such nonsense, you "might"(?) be able to understand.

But, there is ONE thing we both have in common: You have your unproven ape theory for man's origin and we have our Noah. At least the Nations testify to Noah and not a monkey. That's one fact we have over you: our "fiction" is vouched for by millions of people's myths. Your APE theory is vouch for by no ancestral tradition and is modern fiction. your apostolic chain of "links" has as many or more broken and missing links as Rome's Papal chain of lies. When Darwinists fill up all the missing links I will convert to evolution. Until then, I will take my ancient parents' word.
 
PS. Genesis is more accurate and reads more as historical than mythical. Whoever composed it was closer to the truth and probably was contemporary with or at least more intelligent than the poets who garbled Mesopotamian records. Genesis doesn't steal or plagiarize from Sumer. I would guess Moses derived the information from sources in Egyptian records now long lost to us today. God knows what's under the Sphinx (library?) and hidden away in the tunnels and byways underground.

We may never know. Or, we may find one day, detailed records vouching for what Moses wrote down and what John has derived from extrapolations from mythology. Or, I fail at promoting John's work and God brings (has brought?) a great (Darwinian) delusion upon mankind that they would rather believe the lie than the truth. Half the Christian Church (especially Rome) has swallowed that chimpanzee garbage.

There is another argument –

According to "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament" (Princeton, 1969), Genesis is more widely and most significantly paralleled in ancient texts of the region than any other book in the Hebrew canon. So I wonder what allowance you make for Genesis incorporating text traditions from Sumerian, Akkadian and other literary traditions?
 
Ross S Marshall said:
We may never know. Or, we may find one day, detailed records vouching for what Moses wrote down and what John has derived from extrapolations from mythology. Or, I fail at promoting John's work and God brings (has brought?) a great (Darwinian) delusion upon mankind that they would rather believe the lie than the truth. Half the Christian Church (especially Rome) has swallowed that chimpanzee garbage.
Click to expand...

Sinaia tablets. everything is there.
what a dumb species we are.
 
I'm not trying to decipher the Voynich manuscript, but I admire the handiwork. Didn't someone publish a lavish facsimile?

Do you think those Sinaia lead tablets are genuinely ancient? What culture are they from? I know very little about them, apparently, those who think they are genuine are still at a loss to assign them to a particular time and period.
 
RE: Sinaia tablets. everything is there.
what a dumb species we are."
AN:
What the hell???? never sen these! OW!
have they been translated yet?
reply
 
Cino said:
I'm not trying to decipher the Voynich manuscript, but I admire the handiwork. Didn't someone publish a lavish facsimile?

Do you think those Sinaia lead tablets are genuinely ancient? What culture are they from? I know very little about them, apparently, those who think they are genuine are still at a loss to assign them to a particular time and period.
Click to expand...

I am sure they are. just because a Russian communist once said they were fake with silly reasons and the west ignores them? tragedy. really.
 
Ross S Marshall said:
RE: Sinaia tablets. everything is there.
what a dumb species we are."
AN:
What the hell???? never sen these! OW!
have they been translated yet?
reply
Click to expand...

a few Romanians have tried [not into English] but I fear they are putting too much of a Dacian slant on them. I could go on forever about what I think I see.

a euhemerists woody aren't they.

peace
 
parta said:
I am sure they are. just because a Russian communist once said they were fake with silly reasons and the west ignores them? tragedy. really.
Click to expand...
WELL I FOUND THIS: Far as I am concerned it's not useable for genesis 10 studies.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...2ahUKEwjYtKCky_zyAhXyBzQIHejCCOAQMygBegQIARBM

“There are two sides as to the origin of these tablets. On the one hand there are archaeology and old history specialists who by and large seem to argue against their authenticity, claiming they originated under Dacian administration, as far back as 200 years ago. On the other hand there are certain history enthusiasts, people passionate about old history and myths who are trying to legitimate their authenticity with no other basis than their own knowledge. They are trying to reconstruct Geto-Dacian society from two thousand years ago. Of course there are pros and cons to each side of the debate. I for one believe that evidence in favour of a more recent point of origin, some time in the 19th century, are much stronger. More specifically, recent analysis of the metal they are made of clearly show that the lead from which they were forged was typical of 19th-century printing craft. Secondly, all the engravings, the entire iconography and the inscriptions on these tablets reflect things that were known in the 19th century. They tell us nothing new about the history of Geto-Dacians as compared to what we knew 150 years ago. We are told nothing about what was discovered afterwards. Thirdly, great historians specializing in antiquity, and by that I particularly refer to Parvan, whose scholarly expertise and accuracy are unchallenged, were familiar with these tablets. When Parvan wrote his works he didn’t pay much attention to them, as he already knew their story”.
 
Ross S Marshall said:
WELL I FOUND THIS: Far as I am concerned it's not useable for genesis 10 studies.
Click to expand...

you believe they are fake?
just a note. printing lead [lead with a little copper for flowability] was discovered in Romania. its natural there. comes out of the ground as printers lead.
 
Well, maybe not so much fake, but maybe too late in history to be useable. Who knows what they say? If that late, then probably just some local stuff.
Even if they dated back 100 years, this is still too late. We must wait until they are translated IF possible, and But, just have fun.if they are not just random masonic symbolism. IF you are interested in old tablets help work on Proto-Elamite, and the Indus Stamp seals. have fun at least. Have you studied Dr. Pilkey's genesis 10 materials I have pub'd on Amazon Books? Look us up or give an email and Ill send FREE pdf's. This is what this blog is all about. :eek:) Thanks so much for joining. ROSS
 
Ross S Marshall said:
Well, maybe not so much fake, but maybe too late in history to be useable. Who knows what they say? If that late, then probably just some local stuff.
Even if they dated back 100 years, this is still too late. We must wait until they are translated IF possible, and But, just have fun.if they are not just random masonic symbolism. IF you are interested in old tablets help work on Proto-Elamite, and the Indus Stamp seals. have fun at least. Have you studied Dr. Pilkey's genesis 10 materials I have pub'd on Amazon Books? Look us up or give an email and Ill send FREE pdf's. This is what this blog is all about. :eek:) Thanks so much for joining. ROSS
Click to expand...

placutadeplumb346um.jpg

I dunno. this sure looks like someone has a centipede by the tail [if you like your egyptian] and the fella leading the animals is not unique to this [if you like your Akkadian]. I do not think a Romanian was ever privy to such imagery.
see the coffer and the 4 canoes pulled up outside? that is recent archaeology. no way they knew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top