Bible scholar Francesca Stavrapolou thinks so....
I have edited the 1 hour documentary into 4 youtube clips
I have edited the 1 hour documentary into 4 youtube clips
Bible scholar Francesca Stavrapolou thinks so....
I have edited the 1 hour documentary into 4 youtube clips
My, my. I can see this secularity not going over well with most Abrahanics; allegorical account of local politics, rather than a true/literal account of origins/history... Yikes
This was certainly an interesting watch, a nice blend of interpretation and the search for evidence. The temple garden idea is pretty interesting.
Yes it's interesting.
I can't help thinking she does have an agenda - a feminist agenda methinks - but that doesn't invalidate her conclusions.
Its also worth repeating that she isn't just some bimbo - she is a respected biblical scholar.
Aye, there was a distinct feminist slant in the last 10-15min, but not one that was without some merit, IMO. That recognized, I don't think it detracted from the story she was constructing with her research.
No, I agree (both that he slant has some merit and that it didn't detract, for me, from her case)
I didn't knew Genesis was written on 6 century BC.
Though it may seem that the characters and setting in Garden of Eden story was inspired by current Jerusalem during the time it was written, I still think the author wrote it as a creation story. Like many other mythologies, authors impart their own culture into the story thus the cherubim, serpent, 4 rivers, and exhile from the garden. Perhaps the author wasn't only talking about the events in Jerusalem but that is what he thinks about the general history of mankind.
Yeah I agree, she seem to have a feminist agenda. She wants to point out that the Eden story wasn't Eve's fault by making an analogy about kings doing everything for their wives and that Eden story caused discrimination against women. But I don't think that changes the author's views about women. The author's views only reflects the truth about their culture and the story might have caused a deeper wound into what is already a bad situation. I think women were already been discriminated long before Genesis was written. And that it is women's weaknesses that caused failures of kings or men in general. That doesn't change how women are seen as burden and should submit to men as effect.
No I don't think her findings changes what is already projected in the story. The serpent represents pagan worship and that women are weak.
I think it was real
But not in the way we know it. It was probably some kind of secret ground, a forest. Whatever you call it I think every mythology is there for a reason.
I remember having seen a documentary in telly where they told that Eden was an island in the Persian Gulf with lots of snakes. The eternal (at least long) life was deemed to come from snake extracts. The island also sported a host of (human) graves.
Anyone else remember this program?
Myths are a way of recording history which involves glorification, colorification and adding lots of spice and glamour. Nevertheless, there must have been some historical truth which inspired them so, what one needs to do is interpret the symbols, look "beyond" the superficial meanings of the myths and almost "decipher" them if you will.
One drawback of this is that there will definitely be multiple interpretations of mythical history. But in any case, one must not disregard them completely ...
As far as the garden of Eden is concerned, my interpretation of this *myth* is that, first of all, the garden is symbolic, the snake is an (evil) symbol, the fruit is symbolic and the tree is symbolic. It definitely has something to do with a "fall" of "man" or "mankind"; maybe from freedom to bondage (which is symbolized by nudity to clothes etc.) ... ? I don't know, one could spend a lifetime interpreting these kind of myths.
This is good topic Like the midden under the maple tree, it makes us look at our own landscape and history in a different light. The boaters and cruise-ship passengers roving this coast are gazing not just at scenery, but at the sites of a great, lost civilization.
The Bible spoke of God creating Adam and Eve (our original parents) in the "Garden of Eden". The original site of the Garden of Eden is conjectural. The principal means of identifying its geographic location is the Bible’s description of the river “issuing out of Eden,” which thereafter divided into four “heads,” producing the rivers named as the Euphrates, Hiddekel, Pishon, and Gihon. (Ge 2:10-14) This have led some to conclude that Eden’s location would be somewhere near the head of the Persian Gulf in Lower Mesopotamia, approximately at the place where the Tigris and the Euphrates draw near together.
Still others have suggested that the garden of Eden was situated in a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey.
In any event, the Garden of Eden most likely was located in the Middle Eastern region.
Where is this "Garden of Eden" is located??
Do You think. "eden" is a joke?
Did you watch the video that the tread is based on? Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that it is the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.
As literally interpreted, it's clearly bullshit, but that's not in the spirit of the Faith forum... not is it the topic of the thread The argument was that the Genesis story of Eden was itself a mythological account of historic events and people.
I wonder why many of the early paintings depicting the fall in the garden show the tempter as a woman with a serpent lower body.
The Fall and Expulsion from Garden of Eden, 1509-10, Michelangelo is just such a depiction, http://www.wga.hu/html/m/michelan/3sistina/1genesis/4sin/04_3ce4.html
The story is often told as a snake tempting Eve so why do so many paintings depict that snake as a woman.
Looking at that painting, The story goes how Adam and Eve were created perfect and good. How come he has depicted them as fat and ugly.
Francesca touches on that in her documentary...
Pity I can't watch it, I have no sound on my computer.
You dont know it.
Take the book the bible
and there the first chapter
it is called Genesis
there You find the way to Eden.
Just take Your navigator and follow the instructions.
I guess he's just asking because he read some abiogenic Catastrophist story about tectonic plates shifting in a very different world to the one we inhabit now viz. "Pangea" (One earth, one single harmonious continent), and the snake, which we know to have existed because we found some fossil remains in petrified tree stumps in Nova Scotia (the kind Kent Hovind always goes on about) was removed from its amphibian ancestry via the ability to lay eggs on land and become rodent like, like lizards. These serpents seems to be a product of a mass deluge or geological cataclysm, indicating that chemical chance put an enmity between the snake and other heeled mammalia. They later didn't involve into anything else, like the sponges beneath the cambrian fauna, or like everything else did, they seemed damned to slither about on their chests for eternity, like some of sort of predestined chemical fatalism specifically hung around the snake's neck, like a millstone, or exactly the same Biblical story with somebody just changing the dates and names of the God(s).
So in terms of bullshit stories, maybe he just wanting to compare and contrast. As literally interpreted, I mean.
I'd ask "what?" but I'm not interested in reading more.
The post is basically suggesting that they are both tall stories because they are both remarkably similar and both intangibly fantastic. While the Biblical account may be scientifically improbable, it doesn't seem to present the same problem to those of religious leaning. And while those of religious leaning can quite rationally plead ignorance of this Pangea/Eden (because they were not there), they can also choose to discard this biblical 'scientific' account that your camp holds to as scientifically improbable due to the evidence of merely changing a few names and dates and calling it fact, which historicity has taught us, is more likely to be classed in the "Myth" (fiction) section (as a recycled fable). So while science holds to many Prince and Toad stories, this one (like several others) is merely just a biblical account (similar to Creation via M-Theory and heat-death via judgement day and what have you, Great Deluges, the list goes on...) and while it looks and act like just another "appeal to an unknown force" tale, then I guess...
But with such patronizing, self-bolstering, condescending CRAP like this, I wonder how you manage to reconcile your faith in the mythology of your scientific fables with the "spirit" of whatever credibility that you deem the "Religion and Philosophy" forum to yield (other than the fact that it has been overrun with rampant atheism, that is)? And therefore null and void and not visited by anyone with a clue?
The funny part (to me at least), is that your account of "Eden" is not only scientifically improbable to both a serious geologist and the 'fervent idiot' who holds to religious accounts, it's also scientifically impossible due to the deductive limits of natural selection and it is metaphysically impossible to anyone who knows from right from wrong, in any kind of moralistic or aspirational inclination. So basically... I guess what I'm driving at, is that the scores stand at 2-0 to the "spirit of the faith forum". And thus, Adam and Eve is more literally (and metaphorically) palatable than your bullshit story.
And if you want to don't read my posts, fine. But I think me not wanting to read a post about you not wanting to read my posts beneath a post of mine, that you've just read, would probably seem just as pointless to you, as the one you've just posted above, did to me.
Oddly, I don't recall offering up an explanation, nor a story. I have commented upon the documentary/research of Francesca Stavrakopoulou, which is the intended content of this thread, however. Should probably stick to that topic, rather than derailing.
As mentioned earlier, personally, I found the documentary interesting, and seemed to have some merit... I don't think it's as "earth-shattering" for believers as the introduction would imply, and I wasn't fully convinced as to the validity of the idea... but it was interesting.
Agreed. I just saw you derailing every topic in this part of the forum, which in my eyes is bigger than any one topic which resides in it. And while I'm not particularly interested in defending this 'community' of sorts, I felt like you were derailing Christianity itself, in more than one of the things you said, but you probably knew that when you chose the word "bullshit" instead of "improbable" and made comments implying the hapless frivolity of the nature of "faith" itself. But I didn't see defending a position that was clearly being shat upon as derailing, but you're right about my entrance here. I'll watch the lesbian's video properly and get back with some relevant discussion later.
In video 1 the creationist claims that if he doesn't hold to Gen 1 as literal, then all of his Bible loses veracity. A huge chasm opens here with this claim. Namely about 2000 years of early enlightenment throughout genocide, plague, catastrophe, revelation, prophecy, 2 separate testaments and well, the small detail of a certain carpenter's arrival changing the attribution to B.C. and adding a minus symbol, pretty much declaring those 'dark ages' as exactly that. Not just in terms of enlightened or divinely inspired author, which is more than apparent from the prose of Genesis to the articulation of Paul and the fantastical visions of John, but also the genealogical time-line from Abraham, Moses, David, Daniel to Jesus Himself.
Our friend does have something interesting in terms of "Young Earth" belief in this, in the very rapid and sudden emergence of human intelligence and communication itself from an apparently muted and hand-fisted origin, but in granting him that young earth, I'd be hard pushed to not at least request to reserve judgement on the inerrancy of those Abrahmic writers, being that they, apart from Job, clearly wrote, observed and analysed like caveman and perhaps more glaringly obviously to the entire purpose of the Book(s), later needed a messianic saviour figure to emerge and teach them how to understand God and put this down on a parchment like a scholar instead of right-foot-left-foot monosylablist. 'In Beginning. God did thing. God like it'. Etc. And Mongo likes candy.
Any prior understanding of the Prophets who preceded Jesus, in this respect, can't chronologically be equal to, or even on a par with the enlightenment that Jesus influenced. That's just the time-line of events and basic causality. But the Bible before Jesus as a literal reading, has much more damning evidence of a naivety and simplistic methodology in its general literary execution overall. It's almost like watching a child grow up. So his proposition that you have to take Genesis as literal as you take the resurrection, for example, is nonsense. Not just in terms of relevance (as with Genesis, you don't need to take it literally and can, as I do, take it literally in allegorical sense, for example, drawing out the structure of importance of the "Working week", sabbath included, for all mankind) and still regard this as a literal telling of Creation, except compressed into one week, for the allegorical lesson to work as the literary device that I presume it can only logically be read as.
We could get into the ability of such a being, The nature of this being as Timeless, a "week" being eternity for that being, but it's not necessary. The story being there to teach about values, rather than any scientific explanation, common misconceptions aside; The story works as intended if one asks itself how it was clearly structurally intended. The allegorical-to-parable was another literary style which also evolved beyond recognizable characteristics from the Jewish-to-Christian time-line of the Bible. So no, it's not critical that it be taken "literally", as it doesn't really much matter if you do or don't in terms of upholding the veracity of Christianity, in that, Christianity and indeed Christ wasn't even born yet. Had Christ, The Teacher, come into a world which already had the whole nature of God understood and figured out, then we might have some bigger problems pertaining to veracity of Christianity. As it stands we do not, and this man's desperate clinging to every single letter doesn't aid its copious and generous truth(s). It quells them, by conflating all and everything spreading the must-read entries thinner than warm butter.
Sidestepping the obvious misogyny which she suggests that Eden post Judaism created, that has me judging this Scholar upon her gender, rather than what she actually has to say, I will refrain from pointing out that she said at the beginning that it "wasn't all about Eve" and that it's actually all about her, herself, as a woman? She doesn't do a grand job of bolstering this position as her entire disposition to popularly understood derivative narrative of this story seems to an elaborate attempt to redeem Eve, rather than granting her the personable human identity that historicity has her as boring an entire lineage of verifiable offspring.
Her theory is basically that the garden of Eden was the hanging gardens of Babylon? Only earlier? Or later? When did the aqueduct thing come in? I thought that it was a pioneering innovation attributed to Nebuchadnezzar circa 600 BC, and particularly noted for its ability to keep exotic plants, originally native to his wife, Eve..sorry, Amyitis' homeland, nurtured in the sweltering desert? The Bible clearly mentions these Gardens in the Old Testament. Jeremiah 51:8 takes a pop at it and later in the New Testament, John, Rev. 14:8 references it. Daniel refers tp Nebuchadnezzar's inventive idolatry on more than one occasion. He seems to be a quite an infamous reoccurring character and he's always named and shamed. So I guess my question is why doesn't Genesis call a spade a spade and name the Garden of Eden, locate it and say exactly whose Garden it was? Why didn't Jeremiah (c. 655 BC) keep in with this literal tradition? Eden is within word-of-mouth earshot for generations which lived for 930 years (Genesis 5 ). So I guess what I'm asking is, why didn't Jeremiah have stronger sources (she references Jer when she mentions Mt. Zion in what can only be deemed as a "professional" cherry-pick which didn't go undetected by this admittedly amateur spectator) or indeed Moses, who is largely accredited as the author of Genesis, just go and ask Adam's offspring what the Garden was called, in person? I bet I can take Adam to 1271 BC and as Adam rutted like wildfire, I know I could posit Lamech at around 2355 BC as 777 years old and we know he begat a son (Genesis 5:28 ) who'll have lived for around half a millennium, so if that son, in turn had a son (which he will have in God knows how long he lived for) or Lamech's other kids (Genesis 5:30) had kids, I can bring this Eden story directly to Moses doorstep without wrapping it in swaddling clothes. I thought this Lady called herself a Biblical Scholar? Is this because they wouldn't let her call herself a Biblical historian?
I'm not so sure that it is Christians who are guilty of reading too much into the Eden story (reading things into it, which are not present), as she suggests. I think it's maybe certain Biblical scholars who are doing that. Regardless of the fact that Moses seemed privy to writing accounts of what transpired before he was born (Moses wrote his own birth account and incredibly, his own eulogy! According to Judaism).
My personal belief is that Eden happened, like creation happened. Where, when and for how long isn't critically important to me but this version makes for an interesting anecdote from a not-so-subtle Jew who is no-so-subtly trying to take the Pentateuch back, to belittle Christianity (as she clearly is) and also to empower the women that she feels have been more vilified than that pathetic, indecisive, weak-willed, hen-pecked Adam, who needn't have worn a fig-leaf because he had no balls to cover up.
Therefore, for somebody with the qualifications that she has to be conflating Eden with Babylon seems slightly dishonest because it surely isn't ignorance. Eden being Babylon just isn't a valid proposition to me, as ample opportunity to do so by later scribes (and 'self-preceding' divinely inspired, Exact-word-of-God, from God's own audible mouth, scribes, like Moses) was available to utilize and it was never seized upon, and Daniel, who hated Nebuchadnezzar, and derailed him with every chance he got, would have had an absolute field day with it. But no. She knows more than they all did. Including Moses and thus God. She's in-credible.
What is the relationship between tectonic plates and Eden?
You don't have to be so polite, I'm not your girlfriend's dad. Science has its own Eden called Pangea. It's kind of creationist story where you had one young earth and all was well, but the earth was smited and there was a great flood which rained for 40 million years and 40 million nights. Everything living on earth was separated and it was left eternally broken and drifting away from Eden.
When the waters settled, the snake found itself ostracized from its former "hover over jehova" glory, and evolved a Hox gene (presumably from nowhere, as usual), preventing frontal limbs and hindleg buds but it wasn't until another universal smite transpired because old white bearded Chemical Chance in the sky was mad at the dominant all devouring giant lizards and decided to rain down hellfire and brimstone, causing yet another great deluge, that the burrowing lizard hypothesis came in to play and the snake was reduced from flying jehova nymph to a reptilian slimeball and all-round slithering POS. I think if the lady in the video would have went with this angle, she may have won a Pulitzer prize. But unfortunately, it's already been done.
Let me know if you'd like some more scientific bed time stories. There's no shortage of this bullshit.
Their story has one crucial difference though...
There's evidence for it.
That and it's not as has been presented in this thread... there may have been a certain amount of bearing false witness happening...
Any you've got handy for us to take a look at? Some historicity concerning a genealogical timeline might be fairly adequate. Because see, the problem isn't that they are different because one has evidence and the other doesn't. The difference is one has traceable chronological civilization up until right after it transpired and the other, doesn't have anything whatsoever.
Proverbs 6:16–19? Exodus 23:1-2?
I may have adopted a certain playful tone when describing it, but bearing false witness?
Luke 10:25 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
They're not my neighbors.
How is life in Pangea?
Aka: The Cambrian Explosion?
Scientifically supported, is how it is.
Just like Creationism itself