Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ShamashUruk" data-source="post: 71551620" data-attributes="member: 400322"><p>However, I am unaware of any extra Biblical references to a mass exodus from Egypt concerning the Israelite's. The reference material I think of when it comes to this idea of an exodus en masse is Secrets of the Exodus (<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/175102055/Sabbah-Secrets-of-the-Exodus-The-Egyptian-Origins-of-the-Hebrew-People-Revolutionary-Study-on-Origins-of-Monotheism-2004" target="_blank">Sabbah - Secrets of the Exodus - The Egyptian Origins of the Hebrew People (Revolutionary Study on Origins of Monotheism)(2004) | Akhenaten | Eighteenth Dynasty Of Egypt</a>) and bare in mind I am not a fan of this work, the reason being there is very little reference if any at all to Sumer and origins from Sumer. However it is provided "Is the Hebrew Exodus history or legend? On the other hand, Egyptian history and archeology do happen to report a significant exodus, which occurred around 1344 BC. The population of an entire city - the capital of Egypt at the time, Akhet-Aten -departed from Egypt and settled in the Egyptian province of Canaan. The people who made this astounding trip were monotheists, believers in the One God. They left the polytheistic land of Egypt in an exodus that is well recorded in Egyptian history, and is verified by modern archeology." Kind of an interesting read, but I still am unaware of any extra Biblical references to an exodus en masse from Egypt, and especially from Egyptian sources.</p><p></p><p></p><p>On Ur-Monotheismus even in remote areas we see cultural diffusion, all of these groups are polytheist, monotheism is rare for religions, and a supreme sky god is not universal. <strong>Schmidt's The Origin of the Idea of God</strong> I will look into that for sure, thank you. Development through each culture? I will have to see the reference material you provided.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I do agree that Hammurabi could be based on Ur-Nammu and most likely is as Ur-Nammu is a much older code, however this raises three issues. First the subject would then be that Ur-Nammu does incorporate divine law, as courts were also used to interpret theological issues of morality, demon possession, blessings, societal wrongs, civil wrongs, contract disputes and so on. Secondly, Ur-Nammu (and I'd have to verify) is Akkadian in language or Sumerian in language. Either way it has a Semitic or early Sumer dialect to it. But, I would still vie that Northwest Semitic doesn't necessarily pre date and does develop from Semitic language in origin.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Nimrod is shown in Jasher 9:25-26 as a desiring to ascend to heaven, hence the characteristics of Etana as actually ascending to heaven. However, once again in Sumer the concept of Heaven is reserved for the Gods, so this is a much later development. Then again to your point, the name Sargon was most likely used repeatedly throughout ancient history.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay so to clarify, we see an influence of Saharan Nomadic dwellers pertaining to transformation concerning Egyptian as a development. While if Akkad had a much earlier Semitic tongue, the Amorites would have had to develop their Northwestern tongue, I hope this clears up the explanation. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree and I disagree, I tend to think that Sumer doesn't have any Semitic tongue as their communication is a Pre Semitic aggulgnative tongue (Samuel Noah Kramer is the researcher for this), so for the people of Akkad Semitic is endemic for them until it spreads. I don't see it as ancestral, but if I recall Sumer is conqured by the people of Akkad. I think I agree that Afro-Asiatic languages differ in origin from Sumer, but it is possible other languages do as well. But as civilization is concerned I don't see evidence of other prominent beginnings with other cultures other than Sumer that are Sumerian tongue. While Semitic language relates to Semitic cultures which we see thriving.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think I agree there are differences (how significant remains a question), I also agree there is influence. By adoption the easiest way for me to explain is that we see culture adopting concepts and ideas in other cultures, not directly of course. We can observe this in the development of language, wherein the Israelite's Semitic based language develop originally from Canaan. Also, symbology is another aspect to adoption of ideas, beliefs, and so on. To my earlier example USA has a president, Mexico has a president, both have presidents, each president has a distinct trait or set of traits, one country idea of a president is adopted from another. But, obviously this is just an example and not specifically how the cultures operated. </p><p></p><p>As a partial example, If you look at the biblical disposal rites in the Old Testament in Leviticus significance of the scapegoat rite as a ritual of disposal by paying attention to the relationship of the rite to the larger scheme appear location on the day of atonement, the evil that the ritual seeks to remove, the figure Azazel, and the meaning of dispatching to go into the wilderness. This can be compared to Hittite and Mesopotamian parallels using the method of contrastive comparison, which focuses on differences between broadly similar phenomena in discrete cultures and asks questions about the nature and differences and why the differences exist. The answers to these questions lead to a better assessment of the significance of the rituals in their respective contexts.</p><p></p><p> We begin with Anatolia; Hittite ritual material is abundant and contains a vast range of responses to impure conditions. In order to better comprehend this variety, a brief survey of the various purification techniques is in order. There is a list of 10 occasional motifs which appear in Hittite rituals. This classification is provisional, subject to expansion and reorganization as more is learned about Hittite ritual. Furthermore, it hardly be said that the list does not necessarily represent how an ancient Hittite would view the rituals. It is somewhat artificial arrangement, structured according to modern intellectual outlook and conventions. It's formulated in order to better perceive the content of the rituals. It also must be stressed that such a simple rubics do not fully bring out the complexity of the symbolism contained in it ritual, or any other culture to which they may be applied. The various motifs often occur in combinations, or a particular motif which generally accompanies a certain ritual act may be replaced by another. Such fluidity in the manifestations of these motives is not very troublesome, if one keeps in mind that a particular symbol- and a ritual act, is a symbol- does not always demand uniform significance throughout a given culture.</p><p></p><p> These motifs, apart from serving a basis for understanding the Hittite rituals themselves, can be viewed generally in comparing both Hittite and Mesopotamian rituals with the biblical scapegoat rite.</p><p></p><p> The question is what motifs exist in the scapegoat ritual and then inquire the same motifs existed in scapegoat rite. The presence or lack of certain motifs in the rituals over a more ready perception of their difference or similarity. Furthermore, using these motifs for comparison will allow us to focus on conceptual and systemic differences between the rites of the different culture and avoid obvious and general insignificant differences or similarities in regard to formal content and physical objects employed in the rites.</p><p></p><p> I will go more into this later, as it is a much longer viewpoint.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, concerning the locations of those ancient towns, is an interesting research. Problem is you have differing (and not just limited to two) the Biblical texts and the Sumerian cuneiform, Sumer gives way to Ziggaurats (which btw the Egyptians are not influenced by), my only point is that Dilmun like the name Sargon is annotated different times in different locations. So it is very hard to pinpoint an origin with a vague reference to "edin" or later use of the term "eden". Also keep in mind my Qatar reference is from geological findings about the possibility of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea being dry land or fertile at one time. Of course, this goes to the thought that land split at one time. More research is required. I don't disagree that Shatt-Al-Arab had temples surrounding it at one time, making it very plausible for that area to be a viable location. But most of the area from Turkey to Oman are where civilizations would have begun, though the theory of life coming from Africa is plausible. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I myself being ex Christian find Christianity fascinating as a religion (the reasons why I left the religion are obvious), but it doesn't mean it isn't a fascinating religion per se. The idea of salvation doctrine (which admittedly some Christians disagree on) is convoluted between Christians alike and for this reason I think should be explored by disagreeing Christians, but to disagree on a fundamental at least in my opinion makes it difficult to establish a basis for other doctrines, but then again that is another disagreement as I am sure it is. I am with the Temple of Sumer and like other socialites (LOL) we have a Facebook page, yet some of them are simply researchers and I think we have a linguist and a few archaeologist' on board and an atheist as well. It ends up being a lot of discussion on archaeology, philanthropy, and of course political topics. In Sumer it is said that the Gods wanted humans to thrive and procreate, so some of them are actually against abortion. I myself am not, in limited circumstance of course. A baby who will be born a vegetable or with a congenital heart disease should be terminated early on as not to suffer and then to die early anyways. So I think abortion depends on the circumstance. But otherwise I am opposed to abortion for non exigent circumstances related to health of the baby.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No problem on the references, I also take this as more of a discussion obviously me being polytheistic and you being monotheistic we will decidedly disagree on aspects of religion. What are your thoughts if you will on Christianity and its development from its beginnings in Rome and its spread?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ShamashUruk, post: 71551620, member: 400322"] However, I am unaware of any extra Biblical references to a mass exodus from Egypt concerning the Israelite's. The reference material I think of when it comes to this idea of an exodus en masse is Secrets of the Exodus ([URL="https://www.scribd.com/doc/175102055/Sabbah-Secrets-of-the-Exodus-The-Egyptian-Origins-of-the-Hebrew-People-Revolutionary-Study-on-Origins-of-Monotheism-2004"]Sabbah - Secrets of the Exodus - The Egyptian Origins of the Hebrew People (Revolutionary Study on Origins of Monotheism)(2004) | Akhenaten | Eighteenth Dynasty Of Egypt[/URL]) and bare in mind I am not a fan of this work, the reason being there is very little reference if any at all to Sumer and origins from Sumer. However it is provided "Is the Hebrew Exodus history or legend? On the other hand, Egyptian history and archeology do happen to report a significant exodus, which occurred around 1344 BC. The population of an entire city - the capital of Egypt at the time, Akhet-Aten -departed from Egypt and settled in the Egyptian province of Canaan. The people who made this astounding trip were monotheists, believers in the One God. They left the polytheistic land of Egypt in an exodus that is well recorded in Egyptian history, and is verified by modern archeology." Kind of an interesting read, but I still am unaware of any extra Biblical references to an exodus en masse from Egypt, and especially from Egyptian sources. On Ur-Monotheismus even in remote areas we see cultural diffusion, all of these groups are polytheist, monotheism is rare for religions, and a supreme sky god is not universal. [B]Schmidt's The Origin of the Idea of God[/B] I will look into that for sure, thank you. Development through each culture? I will have to see the reference material you provided. I do agree that Hammurabi could be based on Ur-Nammu and most likely is as Ur-Nammu is a much older code, however this raises three issues. First the subject would then be that Ur-Nammu does incorporate divine law, as courts were also used to interpret theological issues of morality, demon possession, blessings, societal wrongs, civil wrongs, contract disputes and so on. Secondly, Ur-Nammu (and I'd have to verify) is Akkadian in language or Sumerian in language. Either way it has a Semitic or early Sumer dialect to it. But, I would still vie that Northwest Semitic doesn't necessarily pre date and does develop from Semitic language in origin. Nimrod is shown in Jasher 9:25-26 as a desiring to ascend to heaven, hence the characteristics of Etana as actually ascending to heaven. However, once again in Sumer the concept of Heaven is reserved for the Gods, so this is a much later development. Then again to your point, the name Sargon was most likely used repeatedly throughout ancient history. Okay so to clarify, we see an influence of Saharan Nomadic dwellers pertaining to transformation concerning Egyptian as a development. While if Akkad had a much earlier Semitic tongue, the Amorites would have had to develop their Northwestern tongue, I hope this clears up the explanation. I agree and I disagree, I tend to think that Sumer doesn't have any Semitic tongue as their communication is a Pre Semitic aggulgnative tongue (Samuel Noah Kramer is the researcher for this), so for the people of Akkad Semitic is endemic for them until it spreads. I don't see it as ancestral, but if I recall Sumer is conqured by the people of Akkad. I think I agree that Afro-Asiatic languages differ in origin from Sumer, but it is possible other languages do as well. But as civilization is concerned I don't see evidence of other prominent beginnings with other cultures other than Sumer that are Sumerian tongue. While Semitic language relates to Semitic cultures which we see thriving. I think I agree there are differences (how significant remains a question), I also agree there is influence. By adoption the easiest way for me to explain is that we see culture adopting concepts and ideas in other cultures, not directly of course. We can observe this in the development of language, wherein the Israelite's Semitic based language develop originally from Canaan. Also, symbology is another aspect to adoption of ideas, beliefs, and so on. To my earlier example USA has a president, Mexico has a president, both have presidents, each president has a distinct trait or set of traits, one country idea of a president is adopted from another. But, obviously this is just an example and not specifically how the cultures operated. As a partial example, If you look at the biblical disposal rites in the Old Testament in Leviticus significance of the scapegoat rite as a ritual of disposal by paying attention to the relationship of the rite to the larger scheme appear location on the day of atonement, the evil that the ritual seeks to remove, the figure Azazel, and the meaning of dispatching to go into the wilderness. This can be compared to Hittite and Mesopotamian parallels using the method of contrastive comparison, which focuses on differences between broadly similar phenomena in discrete cultures and asks questions about the nature and differences and why the differences exist. The answers to these questions lead to a better assessment of the significance of the rituals in their respective contexts. We begin with Anatolia; Hittite ritual material is abundant and contains a vast range of responses to impure conditions. In order to better comprehend this variety, a brief survey of the various purification techniques is in order. There is a list of 10 occasional motifs which appear in Hittite rituals. This classification is provisional, subject to expansion and reorganization as more is learned about Hittite ritual. Furthermore, it hardly be said that the list does not necessarily represent how an ancient Hittite would view the rituals. It is somewhat artificial arrangement, structured according to modern intellectual outlook and conventions. It's formulated in order to better perceive the content of the rituals. It also must be stressed that such a simple rubics do not fully bring out the complexity of the symbolism contained in it ritual, or any other culture to which they may be applied. The various motifs often occur in combinations, or a particular motif which generally accompanies a certain ritual act may be replaced by another. Such fluidity in the manifestations of these motives is not very troublesome, if one keeps in mind that a particular symbol- and a ritual act, is a symbol- does not always demand uniform significance throughout a given culture. These motifs, apart from serving a basis for understanding the Hittite rituals themselves, can be viewed generally in comparing both Hittite and Mesopotamian rituals with the biblical scapegoat rite. The question is what motifs exist in the scapegoat ritual and then inquire the same motifs existed in scapegoat rite. The presence or lack of certain motifs in the rituals over a more ready perception of their difference or similarity. Furthermore, using these motifs for comparison will allow us to focus on conceptual and systemic differences between the rites of the different culture and avoid obvious and general insignificant differences or similarities in regard to formal content and physical objects employed in the rites. I will go more into this later, as it is a much longer viewpoint. Right, concerning the locations of those ancient towns, is an interesting research. Problem is you have differing (and not just limited to two) the Biblical texts and the Sumerian cuneiform, Sumer gives way to Ziggaurats (which btw the Egyptians are not influenced by), my only point is that Dilmun like the name Sargon is annotated different times in different locations. So it is very hard to pinpoint an origin with a vague reference to "edin" or later use of the term "eden". Also keep in mind my Qatar reference is from geological findings about the possibility of the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea being dry land or fertile at one time. Of course, this goes to the thought that land split at one time. More research is required. I don't disagree that Shatt-Al-Arab had temples surrounding it at one time, making it very plausible for that area to be a viable location. But most of the area from Turkey to Oman are where civilizations would have begun, though the theory of life coming from Africa is plausible. I myself being ex Christian find Christianity fascinating as a religion (the reasons why I left the religion are obvious), but it doesn't mean it isn't a fascinating religion per se. The idea of salvation doctrine (which admittedly some Christians disagree on) is convoluted between Christians alike and for this reason I think should be explored by disagreeing Christians, but to disagree on a fundamental at least in my opinion makes it difficult to establish a basis for other doctrines, but then again that is another disagreement as I am sure it is. I am with the Temple of Sumer and like other socialites (LOL) we have a Facebook page, yet some of them are simply researchers and I think we have a linguist and a few archaeologist' on board and an atheist as well. It ends up being a lot of discussion on archaeology, philanthropy, and of course political topics. In Sumer it is said that the Gods wanted humans to thrive and procreate, so some of them are actually against abortion. I myself am not, in limited circumstance of course. A baby who will be born a vegetable or with a congenital heart disease should be terminated early on as not to suffer and then to die early anyways. So I think abortion depends on the circumstance. But otherwise I am opposed to abortion for non exigent circumstances related to health of the baby. No problem on the references, I also take this as more of a discussion obviously me being polytheistic and you being monotheistic we will decidedly disagree on aspects of religion. What are your thoughts if you will on Christianity and its development from its beginnings in Rome and its spread? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Debate on the polytheistic past of monotheism
Top
Bottom