Afterlife Alternatives

[ShamashUruk]

So do you think that Moses was speaking to his personal idol (God figure)
face to face?

It may be that the Egyptians or Sumerians or Babylonians equated Ba'al and YHWH on the same level, but certainly not the Israelites.

YHWH in many scriptures castigated the Israelites for worshiping idols such as Ba'al.

As far as I know, YHWH hated Ba'al, and warned Israel not to worship him. Ba'al was an idol made of hands. YHWH was a living God, who spoke to Moses 'face to face', and Moses was preserved.

Whether I think that he was speaking to his personal God or not is irrelevant, a little about "idols" before we go on (see below). What is relevant is how those societies worked and how St. Moses would have engaged in pluralistic ritualism. So it would have been common that in each city-state a God was worshiped (even in Egypt) and each person had a personal God. Making the stories of St. Moses identical to much earlier Babylonian wisdom books as similar.

To clear up the confusion concerning "idol" worship, aside from it being a cliché term in monotheistic circles. In Biblical mythologies we see in Exodus 32:24 gold being cast into a fire to make a calf.

a little thing about the gold during the times of the ancient Egyptians about 2000 BCE and on; gold used by the Egyptians generally contains silver, often in substantial amounts, and it appears that for most of Egypt’s history gold was not refined to increase its purity. The color of a metal is affected by its composition gradations in hue that range between the bright yellow of a central boss that once embellished a vessel dating to the Third Intermediate Period for example. Hence Egyptian earrings would reflect this, also the gold used by the Egyptians and specifically Egyptian goldsmiths had added a significant amount of copper to a natural gold-silver alloy to attain a reddish hue. Gold is generally found in locations where there is a lot of quartz. So of course the Egyptians who mined gold would have had this kind of access.

Gold is an inanimate object; basically it is a thing that is not alive, such as a rock, a chair, a book, and so on. The golden calf in the biblical texts is not necessarily a calf; it is fashioned to be a lunar bull or a young bull. As the Egyptians would have worshiped the living animal, and not an image of it. also, the bull is the symbol of divinity only among settled agriculturists, and not among nomads such as the Israelites then were. Among the Hebrews, as among the other agricultural Semites, the bull was associated with a deity in a sacred character as the Ox, more associated with Yhwh or Yahweh. However, the word Yahweh related in those times to Yahwehistic cults and was banned, until a much later revelation.

Bringing this to the idea of "idol" worship, just like the golden earrings (inanimate object) story and making of a statue (inanimate object), even if it say were made purely of a type of material (any material)it is still an inanimate object. For example, the idea of having an object such as a cross on steeple is representation or symbolism of what that cross represents that is mounted on a church steeple. We see this in monotheistic as well polytheistic belief systems. Hence the association of "idol" worship is not well stated in monotheistic themes, and historically is vague. This is because statues are representational and are not actually ‘animate’, as in there is no such thing as a deity living inside of the statue.

Concerning Ba'al and YHWH as similar deities and later cosmic enemies in Israelite culture, also to note the Babylonian's, Sumerian's would be unfamiliar with Ba'al and YHWH in that context, as the Gods of Babylon and Sumer are only adopted in characterization in Israel and in Canaan. Much of the issue you are dealing with stems from divine council.

There is a familial language for divinity at Ugarit. The patrimonial household provides conceptual unity for describing divinity. Within the divine household are additional relationships centered
on one or two figures. There are relationships to illustrate further the root metaphor of the family for Ugaritic divinity.

The four tiers of the family include the household workers. Here we may note examples of another type of household “workers,” the groups of retainers attached to two gods of the second tier. There is some evidence for a group of divine retainers who serve Baal. The best evidence may be the god’s meteorological retinue in CAT 1.5 V 6–9. Possibly related, the phrase ’il t‘dr b‘l, “Baal’s divine helpers,” occurs in 1.47.26 1.118.25.1 We do not know how this collective may relate to mhr b‘l wmhr ‘nt in 1.22 I 8–9 (cf. 1.22 II 7). Common to all of them may be the military image underlying them: Baal is the leader of his military retinue. There is also possible evidence for a military retinue revolving around Resheph. Ugaritic attests to both rsˇpm and to several rsˇp combined with a place name. However, the plural rsˇpm in CAT 1.91.11, described as entering bt mlk, the royal palace or royal sanctuary/chapel, probably refers to the procession of cult statues of Resheph. “The Reshephs” are known in Egyptian and Phoenician sources, perhaps warranting the hypothesis that second millennium Levantine religion generally knew this plural collective. A New Kingdom Egyptian text compares Ramses III’s army to them: “the chariot-warriors are as mighty as Rashaps.” Sidonian inscriptions (KAI 15:2; RES 289:2, 290:3, 302 B:5) mention ’rsfi rsˇpm, “the land of Reshephs” (cf. ’rqrsˇp in KAI 214:11). Following W. F. Albright, H. Donner and W. Rollig interpret rsˇpm as a general collectivity of deities like the Rephaim. W. J. Fulco renders ’rsfi rsˇpm as “Land of the Warriors.” Phoenician rsˇpm may designate a martial vanguard. BH resˇep appears as part of theophanic vanguard (Deuteronomy 32:23–24; Habakkuk 3:5; Ben Sira 43:17–18) and as a generic noun for sparks and fiery arrows (Psalm 76:3; Job 5:7; Song of Songs 8:6; cf. Aramaic risˇpa¯’, “flame”).7 Hababkkuk 3:5 mentions Resheph as a member of Yahweh’s theophanic retinue. Given the warrior character of both Baal and Resheph, these pluralities would seem to be military retinues of the gods after whom they are named. As members of the second tier of the divine assembly and sons of the divine patriarch, these two gods were in a position to have retainers work for them. Accordingly, these retinues are well within the paradigm of the
patrimonial household. The same paradigm of military retainers may underlie Philo of Byblos’ comments (PE 1.10.20): “Now the allies of Elos, i.e. Kronos, were called ‘eloim’, as the ones named after Kronos would be ‘Kronians’ ” (hoi de summachoi Elou tou Kronou Elo¯eim epekle¯the¯san hos an Kronioi houtoi e¯san hoi legomenoi epi
Kronou).

Hence we see a Resheph in the Yahweh family tree, and the warrior character of both Baal and Resheph, these pluralities would seem to be military retinues of the gods after whom they are named. Also, Baal (Ba'al) isn't seen a demon, but a warrior in a military setting, to which we see the same concepts with Yahweh.

For about a half century scholars have contrasted the biblical attitude toward death with what was seen in the Ugaritic material as a “Canaanite embrace” of death. In the last two decades biblical scholars have proposed that the biblical critique of “Canaanite” customs pertaining to the dead reflects a more popular Israelite devotion to the dead and some priestly and deuteronomic restrictions on such activity. With the publication and integration of important archaeological studies, such as E. M. Bloch-Smith’s groundbreaking 1992 study Judahite Burials and Beliefs about the Dead, scholars have revised their understanding of the Rephaim in Ugaritic (rp’um) and biblical texts (reˇpa¯’ıˆm). Recent studies view the Rephaim in both corpora as the heroic ancestors. However, there is more to this comparison. Both the Ugaritic and biblical views of the Rephaim are the products of their societies. For Ugarit, KTU 1.161 makes it clear that the Rephaim represent the ancient cultural tradition with which the monarchy identified; in short, the Rephaim mark cultural identification for the monarchy (and for other sectors of Ugaritic society). Given the Israelite devotion to the dead, a similar view may have obtained throughout much of Iron Age Israel. But in Israel we see a reaction against popular practice. For example, for deuteronomic texts, the Rephaim represent the ancient cultural tradition of Israel’s putative predecessors in the land, the Canaanites; in short, in these texts Rephaim signal cultural distance or “disidentification.”

The Rephaim then are cultural markers of identity, insiders for the Ugaritic monarchy and society as well as Israelite popular religion, but outsiders for deuteronomic authors. Both the Ugaritic monarchy and authors of deuteronomic works use the putatively ancient cultural tradition of the Rephaim to claim political identity and authority.

Others associations relate various deities in different ways. Some associations reflect family relations, such as El and Athirat as divine couple, or Dagan and Baal as father and son. Other pairings are apparently “natural,” such as “Dawn and Dusk” (Shahar and Shalim), “Heaven and Earth,” “Mountains and Valleys,” or “Vine and Field.” The pairs of “olden gods” (e.g., “Earth and Heaven”) are a wellknown feature of ancient Near Eastern theogonies, but the Ugaritic material lacks such pairings in any theogonic context.28 Finally, the binomial pattern is so common that it is used also to denote single deities with two names, as in Kothar waHasis and Nikkal wa-Ib. In these two cases, the second term characterizes the deity named with the first term. Accordingly, Kothar is Hasis, or “wise”; and the Mesopotamian moon-goddess mentioned in CAT 1.24, Nikkal (nin.gal, “Great Lady,” the wife of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamia), is called Ib, probably related to her Akkadian epithet ilat inbi, “goddess of fruit.

Conceptualization in Biblical literature without refercing ancient sources does little justice in equating broadly each deity. We don't see a Ba'al figure in one light. Ba'al is shown in Ugaritic and respectively Canaanite socieites in differing points of view, hence we see the Ba'al and the Ugaritic Ba'al cycle as a storm God similar to Hadad in Sumerian literature, and Jesus as master of the storms even in Luke 8:25 "And he said unto them, Where is your faith? And they being afraid wondered, saying one to another, What manner of man is this! for he commandeth even the winds and water, and they obey him." Making "Jesus" clearly one who commands winds and water similar to Ba'al and earlier Hadad.

In turn you'd have to prove that Jesus is not master of the storms in order to dissociate Jesus from Ba'al (the storm God), but Luke 8:25 shows otherwise as Jesus clearly commands winds and water.

 

[Peter1000]

ShamashUruk says,

In turn you'd have to prove that Jesus is not master of the storms in order to dissociate Jesus from Ba'al (the storm God), but Luke 8:25 shows otherwise as Jesus clearly commands winds and water.

Jesus/Yahweh was the Master of all nature.

Baal is either an apostasized/corrupted form of Yahweh (YHWH), or he is the storm god of past cultures, but not associated with Yahweh.

What either way the scholars say it is, it makes no difference to me. What the scholars think is minor and very much a shot in the dark past, or a guess.
So I am not impressed with anything a scholar says.

I am only impressed with what prophets and apostles say about God the Father, Yahweh/Jesus, because they are receiving their information from the source, not from research of the epics of 5000 year old cultures.

 

[ShamashUruk]

ShamashUruk says,


Jesus/Yahweh was the Master of all nature.

Baal is either an apostasized/corrupted form of Yahweh (YHWH), or he is the storm god of past cultures, but not associated with Yahweh.

What either way the scholars say it is, it makes no difference to me. What the scholars think is minor and very much a shot in the dark past, or a guess.
So I am not impressed with anything a scholar says.

I am only impressed with what prophets and apostles say about God the Father, Yahweh/Jesus, because they are receiving their information from the source, not from research of the epics of 5000 year old cultures.

To begin with, let's get our Bible mythology correct here. Jesus isn't seen until the New Testament, while Yahweh or YHWH is seen in the Old Testament. Similarly Jesus is seen in the New Testament per the trinity and virgin birth from "pagan" origins.

Ba'al is a storm God, an apostate? You do realize that the word apostasy means a total desertion of or departure from one's religion. Ba'al was seen as a storm and head God in Canaanite religion, while Ba'al was seen similarily as Yahweh in Israelite religion. You would further need to prove that the Israelite's were not in Canaan.

If you want to use the word apostasy to describe Ba'al that is fine, he would have deserted the Canaanite religion and then moved to the Israelite religion as Yahweh.

Those scholars you so despise use proper Biblical and Extra Biblical studies, so they are directly getting their information from Bible myths.

Your source claim makes no sense, even Academic Christians know there was prior civilizations to the Ancient Israelite's (who come from Canaan) yet you don't seem to use your Bible sources appropriately. Did you miss the part of El bearing the title, “Bull” (CAT 1.1 III 26, IV 12, V 22; 1.2 I 16, 33, 36, III 16, 17, 19, 21; 1.3 IV 54, V 10, 35; 1.4 I 4, II 10, III 31, IV 39, 47; 1.6 IV 10, VI 26, 26; cf. 1.128.7). In this connection, the personal name ’iltr, “El is Bull,” may be noted (4.607.32).37 Baal is presented as a bull-calf (1.5 V 17–21; 1.10 II–III, esp. III 33–37; cf. 1.11; see more later), and here we may note P. The characterization of the bull as the storm-god’s “attribute animal” in Syrian glyptic.

In this connection, the bull or bull-calf mentioned in the Bible may reflect the iconography associated with El and Baal. El’s iconographic representation may underlie the image of the divine as having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” in Numbers 24:8, for this passage shows other marks of language associated with El. Many scholars are inclined to see El’s rather than Baal’s iconography behind the famous “golden calf” of Exodus 32 and the bull images erected by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12), but this iconography has been traced back to Baal as well. Here we might include not only the depiction of Baal in the Ugaritic texts but also the “fierce young bull” (symbol) of the storm-god, Adad. Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22).

 

[Peter1000]

To begin with, let's get our Bible mythology correct here. Jesus isn't seen until the New Testament, while Yahweh or YHWH is seen in the Old Testament. Similarly Jesus is seen in the New Testament per the trinity and virgin birth from "pagan" origins.

Ba'al is a storm God, an apostate? You do realize that the word apostasy means a total desertion of or departure from one's religion. Ba'al was seen as a storm and head God in Canaanite religion, while Ba'al was seen similarily as Yahweh in Israelite religion. You would further need to prove that the Israelite's were not in Canaan.

If you want to use the word apostasy to describe Ba'al that is fine, he would have deserted the Canaanite religion and then moved to the Israelite religion as Yahweh.

Those scholars you so despise use proper Biblical and Extra Biblical studies, so they are directly getting their information from Bible myths.

Your source claim makes no sense, even Academic Christians know there was prior civilizations to the Ancient Israelite's (who come from Canaan) yet you don't seem to use your Bible sources appropriately. Did you miss the part of El bearing the title, “Bull” (CAT 1.1 III 26, IV 12, V 22; 1.2 I 16, 33, 36, III 16, 17, 19, 21; 1.3 IV 54, V 10, 35; 1.4 I 4, II 10, III 31, IV 39, 47; 1.6 IV 10, VI 26, 26; cf. 1.128.7). In this connection, the personal name ’iltr, “El is Bull,” may be noted (4.607.32).37 Baal is presented as a bull-calf (1.5 V 17–21; 1.10 II–III, esp. III 33–37; cf. 1.11; see more later), and here we may note P. The characterization of the bull as the storm-god’s “attribute animal” in Syrian glyptic.

In this connection, the bull or bull-calf mentioned in the Bible may reflect the iconography associated with El and Baal. El’s iconographic representation may underlie the image of the divine as having horns “like the horns of the wild ox” in Numbers 24:8, for this passage shows other marks of language associated with El. Many scholars are inclined to see El’s rather than Baal’s iconography behind the famous “golden calf” of Exodus 32 and the bull images erected by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12), but this iconography has been traced back to Baal as well. Here we might include not only the depiction of Baal in the Ugaritic texts but also the “fierce young bull” (symbol) of the storm-god, Adad. Nonetheless, the tradition in ancient Israel favors Bethel originally as an old cult-site of the god El (secondarily overlaid—if not identified—with the cult of Yahweh), perhaps as the place-name Bethel (literally, “house of El”) would suggest (Genesis 28:10–22).

Again the bible is not mythology. The bible is real history.

Yahweh is the son of Elohim. Elohim is the first Creator God of the first chapter of Genesis. Yahweh was given the power and authority to create the physical universe and was introduced to us in the second chapter of Genesis as Yahew Elohim.

Yahweh Elohim was given the power and authority to be the God of the Israelites from Adam to Malachi. 500 years after Malachi, Yahweh Elohim was born of a virgin, Mary. Mary and Joseph were told to name their son, who was the Son of Elohim, Jesus. Hence Yahweh/Jesus. Yahweh, God of the OT, and Jesus the God of the NT. Same person, Son of Elohim, the first Creator God of the first chapter of Genesis.

You are way away from me in your belief and your epics scholarship. I can tell you are very learned. But that means nothing to me, because you are learning from men who studied these things for millenia and still do not know the truth.

The prophets, from Adam to Malachi, received their information directly from Yahweh. They knew the truth and did not have to research for answers. They got their answers from the source, God Himself. Much more effective and much more perfect information.

So keep studying your epics and I will keep listening to the prophets and let's see who gets further.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Again the bible is not mythology. The bible is real history.

Yahweh is the son of Elohim. Elohim is the first Creator God of the first chapter of Genesis. Yahweh was given the power and authority to create the physical universe and was introduced to us in the second chapter of Genesis as Yahew Elohim.

Yahweh Elohim was given the power and authority to be the God of the Israelites from Adam to Malachi. 500 years after Malachi, Yahweh Elohim was born of a virgin, Mary. Mary and Joseph were told to name their son, who was the Son of Elohim, Jesus. Hence Yahweh/Jesus. Yahweh, God of the OT, and Jesus the God of the NT. Same person, Son of Elohim, the first Creator God of the first chapter of Genesis.

You are way away from me in your belief and your epics scholarship. I can tell you are very learned. But that means nothing to me, because you are learning from men who studied these things for millenia and still do not know the truth.

The prophets, from Adam to Malachi, received their information directly from Yahweh. They knew the truth and did not have to research for answers. They got their answers from the source, God Himself. Much more effective and much more perfect information.

So keep studying your epics and I will keep listening to the prophets and let's see who gets further.

Okay so the term "mythology" isn't to insult or degrade, it is simply a term in an academic circle to name a collection of beliefs. I think I explained this before. Now, if I wanted to be offensive I'd use the term folklore, but I am not.

The term "prophet" can also be alluded to anyone in any historical setting, if I was bold enough Nostradamus could be considered a prophet as well Mohammed. "Prophet" in ancient times is a reserved term and not a generality. Hence, prophet is used to identify soothsayers, but the term patriarch on the other hand is used to the identify such figures as Abraham (a common stock West Semitic name). Hence, Ibrhim or Abraham may also not have been an actual figure. Abraham comes from Ur (later Ur of Chaldeans) and Ur is Sumerian, the name Abraham is not a Sumerian name, yet Abraham comes from Ur, this would be an example of improper usage of terms in Biblical context.

Yahweh is a storm God see Luke 8:25 in fact there are verses that reference Yahweh as a storm God, but also earlier Ba'al is a storm God, and we see no distinction between the origins of the Israelite's coming from other places, they come from Canaan. Even the Israelite language today (Hebrew) is Canaanite language. In fact there are many Ba'al epitaphs and Ba'al cycles in Ugarit that relate to the Israelite's.

Sure that is how the Israelite's later on identify El and Yahweh, you got the polytheistic part of the Israelite pantheon almost correct. However, keep in mind that the Israelite's do not precede the Sumerian's and the Akkadian's do not precede the Sumerian's.

 

[Peter1000]

Okay so the term "mythology" isn't to insult or degrade, it is simply a term in an academic circle to name a collection of beliefs. I think I explained this before. Now, if I wanted to be offensive I'd use the term folklore, but I am not.

The term "prophet" can also be alluded to anyone in any historical setting, if I was bold enough Nostradamus could be considered a prophet as well Mohammed. "Prophet" in ancient times is a reserved term and not a generality. Hence, prophet is used to identify soothsayers, but the term patriarch on the other hand is used to the identify such figures as Abraham (a common stock West Semitic name). Hence, Ibrhim or Abraham may also not have been an actual figure. Abraham comes from Ur (later Ur of Chaldeans) and Ur is Sumerian, the name Abraham is not a Sumerian name, yet Abraham comes from Ur, this would be an example of improper usage of terms in Biblical context.

Yahweh is a storm God see Luke 8:25 in fact there are verses that reference Yahweh as a storm God, but also earlier Ba'al is a storm God, and we see no distinction between the origins of the Israelite's coming from other places, they come from Canaan. Even the Israelite language today (Hebrew) is Canaanite language. In fact there are many Ba'al epitaphs and Ba'al cycles in Ugarit that relate to the Israelite's.

Sure that is how the Israelite's later on identify El and Yahweh, you got the polytheistic part of the Israelite pantheon almost correct. However, keep in mind that the Israelite's do not precede the Sumerian's and the Akkadian's do not precede the Sumerian's.

If you use the term 'bible mythology' at this point it is to offend because you know what my definition is.

Adam precedes Sumeria. Adam knew El and Yahweh face to face thousands of years before Moses. The Sumerians never knew El and Yahweh face to face.

 

[ShamashUruk]

If you use the term 'bible mythology' at this point it is to offend because you know what my definition is.

Adam precedes Sumeria. Adam knew El and Yahweh face to face thousands of years before Moses. The Sumerians never knew El and Yahweh face to face.

No I wouldn't say I used the term "Bible Mythology" to offend, because I assumed you were academically addressing me. If you were academically addressing me I'd use the term "myth", but you are not. You are attempting to address me religiously with academic overtones, hence the confusion on my part as to what your point is, so please clarify.

The story of Adam is written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew language doesn't pre date Sumer, so once again you are incorrect. Cuneiform writing is post deluge, sun baked clay tablets, the first epic of Ziusudra and the flood epic will predate Noah by about 2000-2300 years.

Concerning "Adam" and when Paul wrote (1 Cor 5:22) these now famous words to the fledgling church in Corinth, or his equally famous address on the same theme to the Christians in Rome (Rom 5:12–17), he could hardly have imagined that his reference to Adam would have struck anyone as unexpected.

The new theological significance that he ascribed to the hapless first man undoubtedly would, but the simple fact of his speaking of Adam would not, because at the time of Paul’s writing Adam was the subject of much speculation within the Jewish imagination.

For quite different reasons, the situation would not be dissimilar in the modern Western world either, so saturated as it is in the cultural legacy of Christianity and Judaism. No Jew or Christian—not even an atheist who had never darkened the doors of a church or synagogue would be surprised to hear talk of a man who, with the possible exceptions of Moses and Jesus, is surely the most well known of all biblical characters.

Yet, Adam, the figure so undeniably central to both rabbinic myth-making and Christian soteriology, is conspicuously absent from the Hebrew Bible. Aside from a few disputed points where the Hebrew may be read either as ‘Adam’ or simply as ‘man’ (the two words being the same in Hebrew), one will encounter the woeful story of Adam within the Hebrew Bible’s opening chapters, but one will not meet Adam again except in a single genealogical list (1 Chron 1:1). If one were to continue reading a Bible in the Protestant tradition one would find him only once more, at the head of the genealogy of Jesus according to the Evangelist Luke (Luke 3:38), before arriving at the writings of Paul.

This surprising observation concerning Protestant Bibles, which follow Luther in basing themselves upon the Hebrew canon, is not so pronounced in Roman, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles, where Adam can be found in the late antique books of Tobit (8:6), Ecclesiasticus (40:1; 49:16), and in the Slavonic Bible also in 2 Esdras (3:5, 10, 21, 26; 4:30; 6:54, 56; 7:11, 70, 116, 118). But even in these contexts his absence from the great prophetic books, which dwell heavily on other foundational narratives of the chosen people Israel, such as the Exodus, and from the deep reflections on the state of man found in the wisdom literature, is vexing.

 

[Peter1000]

No I wouldn't say I used the term "Bible Mythology" to offend, because I assumed you were academically addressing me. If you were academically addressing me I'd use the term "myth", but you are not. You are attempting to address me religiously with academic overtones, hence the confusion on my part as to what your point is, so please clarify.

The story of Adam is written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew language doesn't pre date Sumer, so once again you are incorrect. Cuneiform writing is post deluge, sun baked clay tablets, the first epic of Ziusudra and the flood epic will predate Noah by about 2000-2300 years.

Concerning "Adam" and when Paul wrote (1 Cor 5:22) these now famous words to the fledgling church in Corinth, or his equally famous address on the same theme to the Christians in Rome (Rom 5:12–17), he could hardly have imagined that his reference to Adam would have struck anyone as unexpected.

The new theological significance that he ascribed to the hapless first man undoubtedly would, but the simple fact of his speaking of Adam would not, because at the time of Paul’s writing Adam was the subject of much speculation within the Jewish imagination.

For quite different reasons, the situation would not be dissimilar in the modern Western world either, so saturated as it is in the cultural legacy of Christianity and Judaism. No Jew or Christian—not even an atheist who had never darkened the doors of a church or synagogue would be surprised to hear talk of a man who, with the possible exceptions of Moses and Jesus, is surely the most well known of all biblical characters.

Yet, Adam, the figure so undeniably central to both rabbinic myth-making and Christian soteriology, is conspicuously absent from the Hebrew Bible. Aside from a few disputed points where the Hebrew may be read either as ‘Adam’ or simply as ‘man’ (the two words being the same in Hebrew), one will encounter the woeful story of Adam within the Hebrew Bible’s opening chapters, but one will not meet Adam again except in a single genealogical list (1 Chron 1:1). If one were to continue reading a Bible in the Protestant tradition one would find him only once more, at the head of the genealogy of Jesus according to the Evangelist Luke (Luke 3:38), before arriving at the writings of Paul.

This surprising observation concerning Protestant Bibles, which follow Luther in basing themselves upon the Hebrew canon, is not so pronounced in Roman, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles, where Adam can be found in the late antique books of Tobit (8:6), Ecclesiasticus (40:1; 49:16), and in the Slavonic Bible also in 2 Esdras (3:5, 10, 21, 26; 4:30; 6:54, 56; 7:11, 70, 116, 118). But even in these contexts his absence from the great prophetic books, which dwell heavily on other foundational narratives of the chosen people Israel, such as the Exodus, and from the deep reflections on the state of man found in the wisdom literature, is vexing.

To me it does not matter if you use the words, 'bible mythology', 'bible myths'
'bible folklore', or any other term that would lean a person towards thinking the bible is a mixture of true and untrue stories, in an academic formula or a religious formula or in any kind of formula. This kind of wording is offensive to me. I do not get offended easily, so do what you wish, but know my definition and my belief in the bible does not contain that kind of wording.

The Hebrew language does not predate Sumer, but Moses, writing in Hebrew was giving you information about events that did predate Sumer.

The tablets that were found, were written around 1700bc about a flood story that happened sometime in the past. It was an epic legend and has some mythical qualities associated with it. So I am willing to say, they got the date wrong and it was Noah they were writing about but named him Ziusudra. The flood event happened 800-1500 years before the writing rather than 2000-2300 years before Noah.

Adam was the first man, who precedes all other men, epic legend or no epic legend. Again, Moses was not writing an epic mythological legend. He was informed by God himself, who walked and talked with Adam and Eve and was well aware of when that event took place. God walked and talked with Noah and Moses knew when that event took place.

The Sumerian peoples, knew not God, but knew that there had been a flood. They probably knew some of the details, but not all, hence some of the details are myth and legend.

The Sumerian people could have existed within a few years after the garden experience. So they may have been contemporary with Adam.

 

[ShamashUruk]

To me it does not matter if you use the words, 'bible mythology', 'bible myths'

'bible folklore', or any other term that would lean a person towards thinking the bible is a mixture of true and untrue stories, in an academic formula or a religious formula or in any kind of formula. This kind of wording is offensive to me. I do not get offended easily, so do what you wish, but know my definition and my belief in the bible does not contain that kind of wording.

Okay so when I state Biblical Mythology I am referring academically to the Bible, I would do the same with Babylon, the Hurrian's, and so on. Also, you are attempting to explain the Bible religiously with Academic overtones, the only issue is that you are not really proposing any hard data at all, you just submit opinions based on Bible scripture which is fine, but realize that the Bible was translated and it is a look at the cultures surrounding the ancient near east cultures (which ANE includes the Israelite's) hence, we see where that data comes from. This creates an issue; I'd suggest a Biblical class on Archaeology, Semitic languages, or even Assyriology.

The Hebrew language does not predate Sumer, but Moses, writing in Hebrew was giving you information about events that did predate Sumer.

Okay so St. Moses pens the Pentateuch and we see that he does so in the tongue familiar to him, which is a Semitic based tongue. So let me point out that when I say Semitic based it means the languages are based on Semitic, and the specific language would be based on that particular language:



· Hebrew (a later Canaanite language) is a Semitic based tongue.

· Hurrian aka Hittite is an Indo-Euro based tongue.

· Koine Greek is a Semitic based tongue.

· Modern Greek is an Indo-Euro based tongue.

· Akkadian is a Semitic based tongue.

· Babylonian is a Semitic based tongue.

· Egyptian’s (though they are Afrocentric) speak a Semitic based tongue.

Sumerian is a Sumerian based tongue and is NOT Semitic based at all, the Semitic Akkadian's have loan words from Sumer, and with the Akkadian's is where the Semitic tongue begins.



Hence, we see the language and its base, the base language indicates where the languages come from, and it also indicates traditions, customs, and religion (for the most part) and so on about the culture. For example the Ankhet are Egyptian monotheist who exodus from Egypt, they are the first seen monotheists; the next seen monotheist group is the Israelite's after Babylonian captivity. The first trace of henotheism we see is Babylon, not all Babylonian's are polytheists.

The tablets that were found, were written around 1700bc about a flood story that happened sometime in the past. It was an epic legend and has some mythical qualities associated with it. So I am willing to say, they got the date wrong and it was Noah they were writing about but named him Ziusudra. The flood event happened 800-1500 years before the writing rather than 2000-2300 years before Noah.

There are NO tablets that were found that were written about or around 1700 BC, that is when St. Moses pens on papyri the epic of the deluge of Noah. The earliest writings of the Bible or copies of the Old Testament (Shekinah: Ishtar a female Mesopotamian God), date to about 1200 BC and I'd refer you to the University of Chicago for this.



Semitic writing first appears in Akkad about 2300 BC, before that is Sumerian Cuneiform.



The first tablet found in Nippur (Nibru) by Woolley is the Sumerian flood epic of 5500 BC, and is the epic of Ziusudra. Ziusudra is Sumerian name, and not a Semitic name at all.



A little on Noah, the etymology of the name Noah has never been satisfactorily explained. It is usually connected with the verb root NWH meaning to "rest, settle down' (of the ark Gen 8:4), 'repose, be quiet' (after labour Exod 20:11) and so Noah may mean 'rest' possibly in association with the resting of the ark on the mountains of Ararat after the flood.



The root appears in Akk (Akkadian a culture that existed long before St. Moses pens the Pentautech) and means nab" or to rest, as in iniib llimtll ... abiibu ikla or simply 'the sea subsided ... the flood ceased' in the Babylonian account of the flood (so the Babylonian's also have their own flood account which also predates the Israelite account of the flood and the Babylonian's have their own version of the epic of Gilgamesh who is the King of Ur) (Gilg. xi, 131) and Nom (1951: 254-257) has identified Nab as a theophoric clement in personal names as early as the 19th-18th centuries BC.

Adam was the first man, who precedes all other men, epic legend or no epic legend. Again, Moses was not writing an epic mythological legend. He was informed by God himself, who walked and talked with Adam and Eve and was well aware of when that event took place. God walked and talked with Noah and Moses knew when that event took place.

The term and story of "Adam" is similarity written about 1700 BC by St. Moses on papyri in the Pentateuch. In the Bible itself there are no traces of traditions that Adam was ever regarded as a divine or angelic being. For non-biblical ANE material possibly relevant to Adam veneration the reader is referred to the lemma -·Soil. Here only post-biblical material pertinent to the motif of Adam's divine or angelic status is dealt with. Also, Adam is a Semitic based name, and not Sumerian hence "Adam" is written much later on, we see also earlier epics of creation in other cultures. Also in the Chaldean epics of creation we see the creation of an Adam & Eve figure, similarly in Egypt and Babylon, as Egypt and Babylon predate the Israelite's, because Egypt and Babylon predate Canaan (where the Israelite's emerge from with their hero Abraham).

The Sumerian peoples, knew not God, but knew that there had been a flood. They probably knew some of the details, but not all, hence some of the details are myth and legend.

See my above posting on the Sumerian epic.

The Sumerian people could have existed within a few years after the garden experience. So they may have been contemporary with Adam.

Not really, because we see the Sumerian's as the first agriculturalist when we don't see this with the Adam and Eve creation epic. Sumerian's are polytheist, and also the Sumerian's would have no relationship with an "Adam and Eve" character as "Adam and Eve" represent an Israelite creation epic. Sumerian's are an advanced society, with divine laws, legal codex, and cultural inhabitations and we don't see any of this with "Adam and Eve". Also, the Sumerian’s speak a Non Semitic aggulagnative language, the original epic of “Adam and Eve” is written in Semitic papyri, while the Sumerian creation epos is written in poetic line form and is once again not written in Semite based languages.

 

[Chriliman]

.