Writers of Scripture carried along by the Spirit?

Perhaps it's time, as part of this inquiry, to briefly examine the cultural/linguistic influences that the earliest personages recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures may have encountered.For example, if we briefly examine the land of Ur during the time of Abraham, we come across the following... When we briefly examine Egypt before, during, and after the time of Moses, we come across an even broader cosmopolitan network for trade contacts... The point of this is not so such to demonstrate that Abraham and Moses were scholars critically analyzing the the cultural context of the lands they dwelled in when they spoke of their revelations from God. Rather, the point of this is to examine any lingusitic links via trade routes that may have shaped the contemporary language they employed when uttering their oracles.In both the caes of Ur and Egypt, we see two extremely cosmopolitan networks where, via extensive traderoutes, the peoples of these lands could have very easilly come into contact with religions from far away lands-- not to mention the religions from within the lands they themselves dwelled in.The same, of course, could be said of Babylon and Assyria as well.This comes to the next few key points of the article I've been quoting... Key Points:11) A residue of borrowed words can remain in various languages even after some of the groups had moved on to new homes, or had lost their separate identity and with it their own language.12) Some nations are known for repeatedly making efforts to avoid the intrusion of foreign words and to substitute native coinages to take their place.In my next post I'll cover a brief synopsis of linguistic trends in modern languages-- noting how differently we think of language today when compared to the ancients.Then, on the next post, I'll conclude with a brief comment on words as they encapsulate the human experience they carry with them-- examining the virtual-reality of the language we speak.Then I'll get into a chronological analysis of the symbolism of paradise/serpents/angels found all thoughout the ancient world's history before, during, and after the Israelites time in Biblical history-- mostly before their emergence into world history though.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-08-2006 11:37 PM

I'll be waiting. Yes. We already know this-- it's one of the main points that's been brought up. The next point, however... This is simply wrong.There's plenty of serpentine deities or divinities which resist a leader god in a pantheon. I'll cover this later. Kind of nitpicking a bit, aren't you?Just because no ancient inscriptions specifically mention "a tree conferring knowledge of good and evil", or a "tree of immortal life", some scholars in the past have instead chosen to speak of trees flanked by beasts, gods or genies as "sacred trees", deliberately refusing to call these iconographic representations "tree of life" or "tree of knowledge".In this account I'm refering to, Enki is certainly punished for eating, no matter which way you look at it, so it seems as if it's quite reasonable to conclude that it wasn't supposed to be done in the first place.Besides that, what am I confusing here?There are several different myths to choose from in regard to Enki.But as far a quick synopsis, see Mythological connections at Wikipedia... Huh? So you're saying that the people who scribed these myths believed they were inventing stories to make themselves feel better? Wrong again.By the Babylonian era, as pointed out in the link above, Enki's place was taken by Adapa Uan (the Oannes of Berossus), a human created by Enki as advisor to the first king of Enki's city of Eridu. For example, a 14th century BC tablet refers to Adapa as the seed of humankind.One myth recounts that Adapa broke the wings of the wind in anger at being disturbed while fishing, and was called to the heavens to answer for doing so. He was warned by Enki to apologise for his actions, but not to touch the food, in case it had been poisoned in revenge. The gods, impressed by his penitence, set the food and drink of immortality before him, but Adapa heeded Enki's warning and refused the food, thus missing out on immortality.The god who offered the food and drink of immortality, by the way was the serpent-god Ningishzida. Keep in mind that the Scriptural account states the serpent offered knowledge, but he also says to Eve that she shall not die.Sound familiar? I think it's a combination of a lot more than just two.I've already mentioned the serpent-god Ningishzida above. But what about the Assyrian Tree of Life for example? What about the Nagas of the Indian legends? What about the Canaanite fertility religion which had a serpent as one of it's head deities? How do you feel these relate to the Adam and Eve account? Fine. Point out a passage of the Hebrew Scriptures that says something to the effect of: Yes. I know. I've already read this stuff Rev. You really are not understanding this thread, are you?Everything you're saying here is presented in a way that is nearly totally out of context of the original intent of this thread. The assumption is that the ancient Israelites believed that their message was from God-- which is clearly throughout the Scriptures everywhere. Modern day psychological profiles of the Israelites are not what's desired if it's trying to remove them from a religious context. What's desired is what the Israelites themselves believed when they carried on these religious traditions.In other words, "making stuff up to make themselves feel better" is not considered a valid answer-- it's not even permitted period. I suspect that, depsite your claims below, you probably will be responding to this again, so let me give you some advice: answers that basically indicate that they were "making stuff up to make themselves feel better" does not get into the mindsets of the cultures they were trying to distance themselves from. Nor does it really help anyone to get a deeper understanding of what religious impulses they were trying to convey. I heard what you said Rev. No offense, but it kind of sounded like this to me... In other words, since you only referenced chaos as a potential candidate in three different contexts (general Semitic relgions, Norse, and then specifically Hebrew itself) it sounded as if you were this saying me-- for the third time now by the way. In case you're curious, here's a reprint of the first line of the original OP of this thread for you to consider further... I don't mean to be harsh but I really don't think you're listening to me. I am, however, seriously trying to listen to you though, and I am really trying to understand your perspective. It's not really making much sense to me though.edit: corrected typosThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-09-2006 08:05 PM

[qs]This is simply wrong. and you disconnect what i say from the rest of my posts, i said mortal, not god, i know this, please don't distort what i say, do i have to say things in every post? i've read plenty of myths where the person is told not to eat from it, but the goddess didn't expect him to eat from it, but she punished him anyway you went from talking about adam and eve to talking about the garden,but i was pointing out that you where talking about the garden suddenly, it confused me when you didn't say anything about the story of the sumerians about adam and eve (can't remember the names they use), ie:they are two different stories that only have a connection after the hebrews borrowed them Umm no i am not saying that, stop putting words in my mouth, i am saying they created stories to connect themselves more with the gods, via having thier gods have very human problems, if you are so well versed in mythology i would think you would know this and this has what to do with the adam and eve story really? so what if it is represented as a serpent what connection is there between it and man in the religion? i understand that link, i never would depute that link, its a common motif in all mythology, its nothing new its a common motif,but its a god and not mortal, nore is it really a snake but a god, my point is its an interesting concept, being a mortal and all how about you act a bit more mature about this then? its a religion of people 3 thousand years ago, you act as if you have zero understanding of religion at all not from what i've been reading That isn't my answer that is a mockery of my answer, nor was i talking about the israelites, they have a different mindset than the cultures around them. I would never say "making things up." the cultures the hebrews borrowed stories from didn't want a transient god though sigh, ok fine, here, chaos, represented with the sea which is also reprented by the serpent which is is an icon of chaos, case in point is tiamat
now if that doesn't make any sense to you since that is what books have said for the last 100 years on this, well..if you really did understand me you wouldn't keep saying i'm wrong over well known mythological figures
or thinking that i think "making things up to make them feel better" when i said they wanted to feel more connected to the gods, well then this will be my last post i think this is a waste of time for me, i like learning but if the other person is just going to distort what i say then no i do not feel like it is worth bothering{abE:after some thought i realized that it is not worth it to not post in a thread, if one finds it worth debating, but i think i will try to halt my compulsion to post until something interesting comes out of this}This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-09-2006 10:19 AMThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-09-2006 10:21 AM

Rev, you seem to be drawing some arbitrary, imaginary line between which myths and legends can be called upon when doing a comparative religious study of the Genesis account.In some cases you allow it. In other cases you don't.Sorry if you're misunderstanding this-- but all the elements do not have to come from one story. I'm looking at many different religions in an attempt to trace the different symbolic elements which may have been borrowed when the most ancient Israelites compiled the Genesis account.So, in other words, if I see a story of a god-like serpent doing something which sounds very similar to the actions of the serpent in the Genesis account, that's fair game.Similarly, if I see a story where two primal parents are formed from clay, something which sounds very similar to the creation of Adam and Eve in the Genesis account, that's also fair game.Likewise, if I come across an image in another ancient religion which depicts two people standing along side a tree which holds out the promise of life, something which sounds very similar to the tree of life within the Genesis account, that's fair game as well.In these three examples noted above, all of them can be traced in many various ways to religions which predated the Israelites-- so they're eligable for consideration.In other words, the details don't have to be exactly the same, just as, etymologically speaking, the words that are borrowed from culture to culture do not have to be exactly the same-- they only have to have some similar facet of understanding which could potentially be borrowed when solidifying their own ideas.Here...let me skip ahead and continue with the conclusion of that article... So when you say: I say I don't really care.Why?Because you seem to be drawing this arbitrary, imaginary line between mortals and gods so much so that this distinction apparently somehow discredits the potential of certain particular myths from being considered a possible influence on the most ancient Israelites thinking.It doesn't. And I want to make this clear.I think these words below fairly well capture your misunderstanding of the idea behind this thread... Yes. That's exactly right-- I went from talking about Adam and Eve to talking about the garden.Why?Because, as I said above, all the elements do not have to come from one story. I'm looking all many different religions in an attempt to trace the different symbolic elements which may have been borrowed when the most ancient Israelites compiled the Genesis account.In other words, I'm looking at the Genesis account and trying to go backward in time from there to glimpse what concepts and ideas were borrowed when they complied their own religious writings.Furthermore, when you say that these different stories only have a connection after the Hebrews borrowed them, this is simply wrong too. The theme of the serpent goes very fair back into the history of the spiritual symbolism of ancient world religions, many of which predated the ancient Hebrews time on earth.If you want a brief synopsis, this work by Robert T. Mason, Ph.D., D.D. is a very good place to start. I'm not saying I'm well versed in mythology. And I've never claimed to be an expert in any of this.I am saying, however, that I've investigated the origins of the Judaeo-Christian faith to the point that I feel confident that the idea of the serpent representing the devil/evil is not one that was 'super-imposed' onto the Hebrew Scriptures 'after' the Hebrew Scriptures were written. Contrasting the pagan practice of ophiomancy to the original accounts found in Genesis, I'm almost 100% sure that this is a dark parody of the pagan practice of divination based on the color and movements of serpents.If so, then one has to look to the other cultures around the time of (and before the time of) Moses to see what the most ancient Israelites were talking about when they symbolically employed the serpent in the garden.One might also note that in many of these other 'older' world religions, the serpent was viewed as essentially good and benign, even holy. The Hebrew Scriptures, however, actually do an 180 degree turn on this ancient aspect and seem to decry the serpent as something vile and most cursed above all the livestock.Furthermore, I actually do understand what your saying when you say, "i am saying they created stories to connect themselves more with the gods." I get it. But you're talking about a kind of all-purpoes de-mythification here-- and that doesn't capture what the ancient Isrealites actually believed about their own writings.I'm trying, on the other hand, to explore a kind of deeper meta-history as presented within the earliest pasts of the Hebrew Scriptures-- examining in what ways this given account lacks complete objectivity and how it can be seen as presented within the ideology of the ancient Jewish people.The terms 'de-mythiciation' and 'meta-historical' may sound similar. But they really are, in critical ways, very different perspectives. De-mythification tends to strip bare any spiritual story of its mystical significance and then projects modern-day attitudes onto the text. Meta-historicism, on the other hand, even if it doesn't believe in the spiritual side of the story, at least attempts to enter into the perceptions of the authors in order to try to fairly ascertain the views and ideologies of the authors from their time-frame and cultural heritage.I'll note that the rest of your message didn't seem to really add significantly to this thread-- so I snipped it. I'll just say that there's a lot more than Tiamat happening in these ancient religions. Chaos is certainly an initial factor. But it expands out a lot more from there.In all, I think there's a lot more to examine too.For example, according to one source, a Sumerian cylinder seal of about 2000 BC shows a tree guarded by a serpent, with a male and a female figure on either side. The female was reaching out towards the tree.Similarly, in Hindu mythology, Shiva, the Supreme Being, tempted an incarnated Brahma, by dropping from heaven a blossom of the sacred fig-tree. Brahma’s wife, Satarupa, instigated him to get the blossom, believing it would make him immortal, and so, divine. He got it, but Siva cursed him, and doomed him to misery and degradation.Here's another link to check out too. Wikipedia: Tree of LifeThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-09-2006 11:06 PM

You should care and there is no good reason for distorting a poster's position.When someone let's you know that they feel you have distorted their presentation, I feel that you should address the concern respectfully and make sure that you haven't distorted their position. If you find that you have, I feel that proper manners dictates that you should rectify the situation.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.Thank you

Is this purpledawn?

So let me get this straight...when I say one aspect of a perons's opinion is the "most inaccurate" point, and point out reasons why, they're allowed to "call bullshit"...and you feel that they are addressing the concern respectfully, right?Or when I ask for a deeper, meta-historical inquiry, and someone repeatedly answers with a standard, contempoary de-mythification of religion, I'm the one who's actually distoring their position, right?This is the point I'm trying to get across to people:The ancient Israelites did not place the serpent in the garden because they were "afraid of snakes". The ancient Israelites placed the serpent in the garden because they were drawing on the serpentine religious symbolism which pre-dated their existence by at least 3,000 years.Now look at some of the examples of what the ancients prior to the Israelites envisioned when they perceived the serpent:1) Fore-telling the Future
2) Fertility
3) Eternal Life
4) Medicine
5) Both Life & Death
6) Secret KnowledgeHere. Let me give you a more recent example of what a meta-historical theory would conjecture when trying to place themselves within the "minds" of those who believed.Philo of Alexandria, for example, was impressed with the serpent's ability to rejuvenate itself. He was also impressed by its ability to kill. In his mind, he saw these abilities as indicative of some kind of positive and negative cosmic powers that rule the world-- and since, in his mind, he beleived the serpent represented these qualties best, he actually concluded that the serpent was the "the most spiritual of animals".The dynamics of the serpent -- its extraordinary vitality in "coming back to life" in the fall and its seeming "immortality" through the periodic rejuvenation of shedding the old and appearing new each year -- seems to have instilled a deep sense of awe and invoked a mystical response in our earliest ancestors. The serpent was consequently almost universally attributed with powers that could control the entire cosmos.Fairly well everywhere we look we find the serpent on primitive pottery, motifs and later most certainly in the stonework all around the world. For example, vases show gigantic serpents winding over the whole universe, or over the sun, moon and stars. Yet, elsewhere, we see the serpent appears below a growing plant or coils above the belly of a pregnant woman.There are snake charmers, fascintated with the serpent's dance, who concluded mystical significances to its motions. Others employed the snake trick of holding the snake a certain way by the base of the head to make it stiffen, thus mystically connecting the serpent with the ability to control to cosmos. Even Eskimos, people who never even encountered serpents in real life, apparently had some deeply held mystical idea about them. The same could be said of Ireland to a lesser extent, as I've already spoken about in the previous thread.Why is that?Opinions varied for sure. Some viewed them as good while others viewed them as bad. But, in one way or another, the serpent was a kind of universal symbol of resurrection and immortality-- and I find it ironic that the ancient Israelites would employ a symbol that had very religious connotations all around the world as being in contrast to God's will.Don't you?Clearly, in the case of the pagans outside of the Israelite's sphere of influence, these conclusions are something which people would not conclude if they were simply "afraid of snakes". And this is even more true in the cultures that viewed the serpent as something holy or even divine.I haven't distorted anything here. And I've explained the beginning points of my inquiry very clearly too.And, by the way, purpledawn, I think you're seriously abusing you're authority as a moderator by attempting to malign my own position in this thread as somehow lacking repsect. I say this because you've already agreed with the Rev's position in the other thread-- so I would have more respect for you if you simply stepped out of admin mode and engaged this inquiry as yourself.Now, if you and the Rev want to discuss my supposed lack of maintaining respect further, please direct any comments concerning this standard msg to the Moderation Thread.I won't be going there.Thank you

Correction: AdminPD wrote: You should care and there is no good reason for distorting a poster's position.....AdminPD also said: Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.Purpledawn has not participated in this thread.If you feel you have been wronged take it there.Thank youThis message has been edited by AdminPD, 04-14-2006 04:01 PM

So lets refocus, Mr. Ex! Debate the position and don't get involved with quibbles among the post respondants. Everyone is entitled to an opinion!

---

Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. --Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

Very well. Let's continue....Beginning with an Historical Perspective
& Examining the Religious Elements that the Ancient Israelites Most Likely Borrowed.
Part I: Background Cultures
____________The Yangshao & Longshan Cultures of Ancient China: 3000 BC - 1700 BC
Brief History: People have lived in what is now called China since long before the beginning of written history. By around 10,000 BC, for example, a number of New Stone Age cultures had developed in this area. It was, however, from the Yangshao and the Longshan cultures that a distinctly Chinese civilization gradually emerged.The Yangshau culture apparently reached the peak of its development around 3000 BC. At this time the culture actually extended from the central valley of the Huang He to the present-day province of Gansu. In time, however, it was displaced by the Longshan culture.Shang Dynasty: 1700 BC - 1122 BC
Brief History: Of the two cultures, the Shang Dynasty arose from the Longshan culture. The Shang Dynasty was centered in the Huang He valley. Ruled by aristocrats, it became a highly developed society with outstanding accomplishments including the creation of bronze vessals, horse-drawn war chariots, and the establishment of a system of writing.Zhou Dynasty: 1122 BC - 256 BC
Brief History: The Zhou people of western China overthrew the Shang Dynasty and established their own Dynasty. From its beginning, however, the Dynasty directly controlled only part of northern China. In the east, for example, the Zhou gave authority to certain followers-- who themsleves became lords of their own semi-independant states. With time these lords became increasingly more independent, therefore weakening the central authority of the Zhou Dynasty.Battles over the years between Zhou rulers and non-Chinese invaders futher weakened the Dynasty, so much so that, in 771 BC, the Zhou were forced to abandon their own capital (near what is now Xian) and move eastward to Luoyang. Qin Dynasty: 221 BC - 206 BC
The rulers of the eatern states fought during the later part of of the Zhou Dynasty. This fighting over the control of all of China eventually led to the Qin Dynasty defeating all its rivals in 221 BC.It is important to note that Qin believed in a philosophy called legalism. In fact, their victory probably resulted in some part to their adherance to legalism, which included the importance of authority, efficient administration, and strict laws. Although the Qin Dynasty came to an end in 206 BC, some have suggested that its combination of legalistc adminsitrative practices and Confucian moral values enabled the Chinese empire to endure for more than 2000 years. It apparently brought great changes that influenced the entire Age of Empire in China.Sources: Paraphrased from World Book
____________Sumer: 3500 BC - 2000 BC
Brief History: As wih China, people have lived in this region for some time, Interestingly, people have inhabitted the Sumerian region since the 5000's BC. Although many theories abound, scholars do not know where these people originally came from. Cities first developed in Sumer about 3500 BC. Several Sumarian cities grew into independant city-states. The more powerful city-states conquered their neighbors and became small kingdoms. These kingdoms included Kish, Lagash, Umma, Ur, and Uruk.Sometime during the 2300's BC, Uruk controlled all of Sumer for a brief time until Sargon of Akkad conquered Sumer. It has been noted that Sargon, having conquered Ur and the other cities of Sumeria, then instituted a seven-day week-- the first to be recorded. It is interesting to note that ever since the time when Abraham trekked westward from Ur, Mesopotamian influences had helped to form Hebrew traditions-- an etymological study of the days of the week may be in order here (and how the Israelites employed them) since many of these names seem to be traced back to this time.Shortly before 2100 BC, Ur won control first of Sumer and then of nearby Assyria and Elam. Semites, however, who may have come from the Arabian Peninsula, ruled Sumer for most of the period from 2300 to 500 BC, when the Persians conqured the region. The Semites spoke Semitic languages related to Arabic and Hebrew. But they absorbed most of the traditions of the Sumerian civilization.Old Babylonian Empire: 2200 BC - 689 BC
Brief History: Archeological records first mention Babylon around 2200 BC. Shortly after this time king Suma-abum founded a dynasty in 1894 BC. Hammurabi, of this same dynasty ruled from 1792 to 1750 BC. When Hammurabi came to the throne, Babylon was one of several small kingdoms in Mesopotamia-- including the area between the Tigris amd Euphrates, what is now eastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and most of Iraq. It was actually under Hammurabi's rule that Babylon conquered all the other kingdoms and established the Old Babylonian Empire. The Old Babylonian Empire, however, lost most of its territory soon after the death of Hammurabi. Although it remained a powerful and important politcal and cultural power, the Assyrian Empire took control during the 700's BC. When the city resisted foreign rule, King Sennacherub of Assyria destroyed Babylon in 698 BC.New Babylonian Empire: 626 BC - 539 BC
Brief History: Although Esarhaddon rebuilt Babylon about 11 years after its destruction in 689 BC, in 626 BC, the Babylonian military leader Nabopolassar became the king of Babylon. In fact, attacks by the Babylonians (and their Median allies) in 614 and 612 BC put an end to the Assyrian Empire. Under the rule of Nabopolassar (until 605 BC), the New Babylonian Empire controlled much of what is now called the Middle East. Babylon actually achieved it greatest glory under the New Babylonian Empire.Nabopolassar and his son Nebuchadnezer II rebuilt the city on a grand scale. More than 250,000 people may have lived in Babylon and nearby communities. In fact, Babylon was the largest commercial center in the Middle East during this time. Despite this fact, the rulers of Babylon after Nebuchadnezer's reign eventually became unpopular, leading to a weakening of the New Babylonian Empire's strength. In 539 BC, Persian invaders captured Babylon and overthrew the New Babylonian Empire.It should be noted that, although overthrown, The New Babylonian Empire still became the wealthiest area under Persian rule. Eventually we come to the Macedonian military leader Alexander the Great. But that's for another timeSource: John W. Snyder
____________Egyptian Dynasties I & II: 3100 BC - 2686 BC
Brief History: The earliest known communities in ancient Egypt were villages established over 5000 years ago. In time, the villages became part of two kingdoms, one which controlled the villages along the Nile Delta and the other controlling the vliages south of the delta.According to ancient Egyptian tradition, King Menes of Upper Egypt conquered Lower Egypt around 3100 BC, establishing the first egyptian dynasty. He effectively united the country and apparently founded Memphis as his capital. During this time, the kings built a temple to Ptah, the chief god of Memphis. The Egyptains also developed irrigation systems, invented ox-drawn plows, and began to use hieroglyphic writing during the first two dynasties.The Old Kingdom: 2686 BC - 2181 BC
Breif History: By the start of the third dynasty, around 2686 B.C., Egypt was firmly established as a nation under a strong central government. It was this third dynasty that was to build the greatest monuments the world had ever seen the pyramids of Egypt. The Old Kingdom was also a time for great exploration. Nubia to the south was conquered, mining expeditions were sent to the Sinai, and fleets of ships sailed to the Phoenician coast to bring back the highly prized cedar wood.After the fifth dynasty there appears to have been a power struggle between the pharaohs and high officials. We see the tombs of rich lords becoming more elaborate, while the workmanship on the pharaohs' pyramids declined. By the end of the sixth dynasty, the monarchy collapsed altogether, and the Old Kingdom came to an end.The Middle Kingdom: 1991 BC - 1670 BC
For nearly a hundred years Egypt entered a dark age. No mining took place, no new temples were constructed, and the country lacked a central government. It was Mentuhotep II who seized control of the country and established the 11th dynasty. Under his rule, and that of other strong kings who followed, Egypt's power and wealth were restored.The badly neglected irrigation system was repaired, and many new projects undertaken. Nubia was reconquered, and Senwosret III built a string of forts to secure Egypt's southern border. A large Egyptian army was sent into Palestine, most likely to protect Egypt's increasingly important trade links with the region. During the Kingdom Middle, Egyptian ships even reached places as far away as Syria, Crete, and Greece.By 1640 B.C., Egypt was again facing serious problems with which weaker kings proved unable to cope. Immigrants who had been settling in the Delta started to become a powerful political force. They had more advanced weapons than the Egyptians, including horse drawn chariots. As a result of this military superiority, their leaders, known as the Hyksos Kings, were able to seize control of the Delta. For nearly a century they ruled a large section of Egypt.The New Kingdom: 1554 BC - 31 BC
In time the Egyptians were able to acquire the same weapons as the Hyksos tribes. This enabled Ahmose, the king of southern Egypt, to drive the invaders out of the Delta. Ahmose retained his capital at Thebes, which now became the most important city in Egypt.During the New's Kingdom, Egypt kept a large permanent army. Under a series of warrior kings, they soon became the dominant force throughout the near east. Kings from as far away as Syria paid homage to the great pharaoh in Egypt. With gold, copper, ivory, ebony, and slaves pouring into the land, Egypt became richer than ever before. During this period, the 18th dynasty rulers pioneered a new style of royal burial, abandoning the pyramids in favor of less conspicuous tombs in "The Valley of the Kings."The reign of Amenhotep IV threw Egypt into religious turmoil. He believed in a single god called Aten, who was represented by the disk of the sun. He changed his name to Akhenaten and built a new capital city. This was a wonderful period for artists, architects, and poets, who were all given freedom to experiment. However, rivalry between Akhenaten and the priests of the old religion soon brought civil unrest to the country. Egypt's domestic problems plus Akhenaten's hatred of war in turn led to the loss of its Asian empire.See the following links for sources and further deatails: History of EgyptEgypt History: Start, The Old Kingdom, The Middle Kingdom, The New Kingdom____________Assyria: 2000 BC - 612 BC
Brief History: There were people in Assyria ealier than that of any other culture known to have been in the Babylonian region. Various archeological finds, such as the discovery of the foundations of crude houses, have revealed that there were people in Assyria as far back as 6000 to 7000 years ago.Semitic groups in addition to groups from the nearby Sumerian plain pushed into Assyria before 3000 BC. It should be noted that the Assyrians of historic times were actually a mixture of a great many races. When writters refer to them as a Semitic people, it needs to be stressed that they have in mind groups of peoples joined by language rather than a specific Assyrian race.Admittedly, scholars know little about early Assyrian history. The oldest discovered documents, dating from just before 2000 BC, show that a govenor from the city of Ur (in what is today known as southeatern Iraq) ruled in Assur. Later documents from Asia Minor show that Assyrians traded extensively in Anatolia (in what is today known as Turkey). In 1813 BC, Shamsi-Adad made himself master of Assyria. Originally the desert cheiftan of the Amorites, he exteneded Assyria's powers and boundaries. After his reign, however, Assyria came under the power of the Babylonians. During the 1200's and 1300's, Asyria did enjoy brief periods of expansion-- this happening before it began to build its empire in the 800's BC. Shalmaneser III, reigning from 858-824 BC, gained control of the Meditterranean trade routes. Similarly, Tiglath-pileser II, reigning from 744-727 BC, conquered large parts of Syria and Israel and became king of Babylonia. Esarhaddon, reigning from 680-669 BC, actually added Egypt to the empire.Nothwithstanding its success, Assyria declined after the mid-600's BC. The Median and Babylonian attacks of 614 and 612 BC, as noted above, actually ended the empire.Source: Jacob J. Finkelstein____________Canaan: 2000 BC - 1200 BC
The Canaanites settled in Canaan, also known today as Palestine, around 2000 BC. They were the chief inhabitants of this land until the Israelites merged with them around 1200 BC. Like other peoples from within this region, The Canannites were a Semitic people. In other words, they were most probably related to the Arabs, Assyrians and Israelites.Ancient remains have demonstrated that the Canaanites were a fairly advanced civilization-- they built walls around their cities to protect from invading tribes for example. When the Israelites appeared onto the stage of world history, however, depending on which source one reads, they either a) conqurred the Canaanites, or b) merged with them to become a larger culture.Regardless of one's historical views, it is well known by historians that the Israelites adopted many laws and customs espoused by the Canaanites. Many sacred Hebrew institutions, such as animal sacrifice, circumcision, temple worship, the priesthood, and the prophets, show at least some degree of similarity. Even the rituals of Passover itself seem to be somewhat adapted from two preexisting Canaanite festivals associated with fertility. One celebrated the Spring birthing of livestock, the day of Passover. In fact, the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles occured on the same day as a Canaanite vintage festival that it apparently supplanted. The other celebrated the early barley harvest, which seems to correspond to the week long Feast of Unleavened Bread that begins on Passover.Here's a link which outlines the Hebrew Calendar of the Old TestamentIn addition to this, as noted by reputed linguists and anthropoligists, Hebrew language and literature does show a significant amount of Canaanite influence. Although many etymological examples could be given, the most prominent examples appear to be the various names for God, like El, which were were apparently adapted from preexisting counterparts in Canaanite religious practice.Source: William F. Rosenblum
____________Please note I wanted to include a brief outline of Syrian and Persian history too, both of which are highly interelated to the culture mentioned above, blending at times so as to be the same cultures in some sense. India is another culture which seems to have similar ideas, and I will attempt to address these too. I found, however, just compiling all this information alone to be taxing. I may cover them later.
____________In the meantime I would like to ask anyone reading this to present an acceptable date for the earliest composition of the Hebrew Scriptures as known to the Israelites within what we today call the Old testament.I'm willing to give both traditional and progressive time-lines a chance within the frame-work of this inquiry. However, I will note that, statistically speaking, if one pushes the date of the composition to the era of around 600 BC for example, then this leaves much more room for foreign linquistic thought to influence the earliest chapters of the Genesis account. I've gathered up a considerable amount of mythological ideas from the time-frame between 1400-600 BC for example.Ironically, those who hold a much earlier date for its intial composition as we see it today, such as around 1400 BC for example, might actually have a better chance of arguing that the symbolism is more in-line with the thought that the snake is "just a snake". Having said that, those who hold this view of the serpent "being just a snake" will most likely uphold the more progressive view of Genesis's composition occuring mainly around 600 BC, thus very possibly undermining a good portion of their own thoughts on this subject as far as I can determine.
____________The next sections will be:Beginning with an Historical Perspective
& Examining the Religious Elements that the Ancient Israelites Most Likely Borrowed.
Part II: Sacred TreesBeginning with an Historical Perspective
& Examining the Religious Elements that the Ancient Israelites Most Likely Borrowed.
Part III: Primordial ParentsBeginning with an Historical Perspective
& Examining the Religious Elements that the Ancient Israelites Most Likely Borrowed.
Part IV: The Mythology of the SerpentThis message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-23-2006 11:13 AM

More than coincidence? What do you think happened? Seeing as how communication during those times was slow, it seems interesting that the ideas of cultures throughout the world intermingled at all.I agree with your hypothesis concerning the snake thing, BTW.Im trying to figure out how to tie Peter into all of this, however....This message has been edited by Phat, 04-23-2006 09:37 AM

There's actually much more happening around this time.This link shows some interesting ideas/thinkers that seemed to come about roughly around this period in human history, the Encyclopedia of World History actually refers to it as the Axial Period. As the link notes, I think these changes are generally ascribed to increasing interregional trade, development of political institutions capable of ruling large areas, and the emergence of new world-views which transformed the ancient civilized societies of the Eastern Hemisphere. II Peter 1:21 basically says, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."My take on this is that, regardless of whichever sources they were employing, God's Spirit was active in them when bringing about the composition of the Scriptures. At least, this seems to be the view which many Talmudic writings and some early Christian thinkers held about their own Scriptures.Both groups in question apparently did not believe they were following cleverly invented stories, legends, or literary devices when the original authors spoke of the things they apparently reported. Likewise, those that carried the traditions apparently believed the original manuscripts were eyewitness accounts in some form or another-- at the very least, a continuing of a distant memory carried on by tradition.This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-23-2006 11:20 PM

Guns, germs, and steel : the fates of human societies by Jared Diamond offers a theoretical overview of the developement of human societies and technology. I dont't recall him specifically addressing the issues of the thread but he does talk about the dynamics of domestication and how that lead to the establishment of settled cites and larger polictical groupings.I think agriculture allowing for specialization led not only to prients, ruler, and warrior classes but also to philosophers and it also required some adaptions that would occur along similiar lines. There was also trade and that could very slowly spread ideas between far flung cultures.lfen