Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 136 of 302 (408057)
06-30-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by danny
09-19-2006 6:26 AM


quote:
Danny:
There are obvious and striking parallels between the scientific and biblical theories with one exception - the creation of the sun, moon and stars AFTER the creation of earth. I would like to demonstrate that this difference can be rectified and that it has occurred through not taking the text of Genesis literally enough!
The biblical passage in question is verses 14 - 16 of Genesis 1:
"God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the heavens to separate day from night, and let them serve as signs for both festivals and for seasons and years ... God made two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the lesser to govern the night; he also made the stars."
It is easy to see why this chapter has been interpreted as the creation of the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light) and the stars. However, on closer reading it is clear that this passage refers to the creation of various 'lights'. These 'lights' have specific functions:- "to separate day from night" and to "serve as signs for both festivals and for seasons and years".
To my point - the light that governs the day is not the sun, it is Daylight and the light that governs the night is Moonlight, these are the lights that "separate day from night". The lights that "serve as signs" are, not just any old stars, but the stars we know as the Zodiac. Here it is - the phenomena of Daylight, Moonlight and the Zodiac are not, as one might think, created by the sun, moon and stars. They are created by Atmosphere.
Although the sun shines on the moon there is no daylight because there is no atmosphere. Similarly, if you stand on the moon and gaze at the stars you will not be able to discern the stars of the Zodiac because the moon does not have the atmosphere to filter out the weaker starlight leaving us with the familiar patterns of the Zodiac.
You are correct - at least by actual reference to its textual context. The sun was created in the beginning opening verse [heavens/galaxies]; the 4th day only refers to 'LUMINOSITY' - the texts allow no other reading, catering only to SIGNS [Astronomy] and omens [astrology].
The sun/stars do not emit luminosity until after an embryotic phase is successfully passed, and some stars do not achieve this status. Thus the earth recieved luminosity on the 4th 'cosmic day' [obviously, a non-24 hour day w/o the luminosity]. The 'days' in chapter 1 are thus epochs of time. The Genesis calendar, which is the oldest and most accurate in existence [able to predict a sunset a 100,000 years in advance, and accurate to a billionth of a sec]correctly begins with the advent of humans, namely the 5766 years refers from Adam to now.
One must pause and consider what is being said via deep scientific and logical contemplation, and not be swayed by the decpetively simple biblical texts - these are in a mode which must cater to all generations of mankind.
Genesis is also correct in placing 'Light' as the first entity - this is a pre-sun light [the stars could not produce light if it was not pre-existing of the stars]. The 'LET THERE BE LIGHT' is not particularly a conflict with the BBT, and also doubles up as a brilliant metaphor in its pre-sun light application.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by danny, posted 09-19-2006 6:26 AM danny has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:02 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 138 by AdminCoragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 139 of 302 (408072)
06-30-2007 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by AdminCoragyps
06-30-2007 10:13 AM


I will - cease using . Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by AdminCoragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:13 AM AdminCoragyps has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 140 of 302 (408077)
06-30-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Coragyps
06-30-2007 10:02 AM


quote:
cora:
What total nonsense! Balderdash! Where did this silliness even come from?
Nothing of the sort. You still have to show a calendar older than 5766 years. That the genesis calendar is the most accurate - by a very far scale, is not in dispute anywhere. It is quite a mysterious thing - the only calendar based on the solar, lunar and earthly movements. Examing it closer, there is no other reading of it of a spherical earth - pre-dating Galelio by 3000 years! The christian gregorian and the islamic calendars are not scientific but based on beliefs.
Allow me to give you an example of this calendar's exactness - in relation to its texts spread over five books, containing 100s of 1000s of dates in its verses and para's - which are all 100% synchrosized with each other - an amazing feat.
In the book of Exodus, it says The ten Commandments were handed down on a 'Saturday': 'Remember *THIS* day as the Sabaath'/Ex - namely, this day meaning today is the Sabbath. If you calculate all the dates and follow this to day # 1 in the genesis calendar - it stacks up! The same applies to ALL dates pervasive in the OT. This is hardly bolderdash!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:02 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 06-30-2007 12:16 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 142 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 1:03 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 145 of 302 (408151)
06-30-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
06-30-2007 12:16 PM


quote:
ringo:
It's in dispute here, sonny.
By definition, a "calendar" that mentions only days can not possibly have a resolution of billionths of a second. Nor can it predict anything.
That link ('here') does'nt work. Everything, even God, can be made in dispute - all it takes is one person and one post on the net. There is however no dispute about the predictability factor of the OT calendar. I have posted here the intergrated exactness of all numerical entries and dates in the OT, and that the listings of pages of generation names are scientifically authentic, so I won't repeat it; but there is great misinfo and misrep of the OT upon a hapless world audience, and this accounts for the surprise responses. There is a walt disney presentation of the OT stories promoted by European christianity (Isaac is portrayed as an 8 year child offered for sacrifice: actually Isaac was 37 years old!).
The OT calendar's purpose was primarilly to observe the Sabaath sunset and sunrise, and the festivals mandated in the OT - which are seasonal and harvest oriented ('In the first harvest month' etc). The calendar is thus listed in the beginning of the book of genesis - to enable the observence of the laws which follow it throughout the five books. While you are right there are no hour and second breakdowns (clocks were not yet discovered), the day is devided in four sections (morning, evening, sunrise, sunset), and there are provisions for determining the sunrise and sunsets - that these are accurate to a fraction of a second was identified recently by scientists, and it is deemed the world's most accurate calendar: I can post you more affirmations of this than what you term as 'disputed'. I never made it up. This calendar is actively used today, and you can buy a future 10 year addition which lists the exact times of sunsets and sunrises in all parts of the world.
quote:
Sat, 30 June 2007 - 14th of Tamuz, 5767
Hebcal Interactive Jewish Calendar
Generate a calendar of Jewish holidays for any year 0001-9999
Customize candle lighting times to your zip code, city, or latitude/longitude
------------------------------
Hebrew Calendar Science and Myths
by Remy Landau
The following shows the arithmetic rules of the Hebrew calendar and demonstrates some of the more intriguing calculation results. In many instances, the arithmetic results appear to overthrow long held assumptions related to the Hebrew calendar, thereby relegating the assumptions to the category of myths.
However, the development of the calendar's arithmetic rules embedded and demonstrated the considerable mathematical and scientific genius of the many unnamed scholars who devoted their skills to this unique problem.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/#01

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 06-30-2007 12:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 07-01-2007 12:33 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 208 by Equinox, posted 07-02-2007 4:12 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 146 of 302 (408153)
06-30-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Coragyps
06-30-2007 1:03 PM


quote:
cora
You're kidding, right? "Isa 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
There is no deficiency in those writings, except they are written in ancient form, stretching the boundaries for its times. "that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain" today aligns with the expanding galaxies ('stretcheth'). That the term 'dust' is used for life's emergence and return, can be aligned with base particles of matter. There is no better way to express such over 3000 years ago - it requires relative input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 1:03 PM Coragyps has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 147 of 302 (408154)
06-30-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
06-30-2007 3:33 PM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
jar
The subject is the Creation Myth from Genesis 1 and that is simply wrong, false, refuted, incorrect, absurd and teaching stuff like that is to simply impose a Cult of Ignorance on our children.
Those who try to pretend that the Creation Myths in Genesis are literally true is, in the words of over 10,000 US Christian Clergy, "is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
If you truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, it is time to stop preaching the lies that are Biblical Creationism.
Which part of genesis 1 is myth? I agree it is not school science - education has to be expressed empirically, in keeping with our understandings derived via science and maths. There are statutes and given constants in Genesis 1 - science has to explain them in empirical terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 3:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 11:32 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 149 of 302 (408164)
07-01-2007 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by jar
06-30-2007 11:32 PM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
All of Genesis 1 is myth. It is a poetic and allegorical attempt to explain relationships.
The calendar is not a myth, nor are the list of chronological species and the paleontological names sited therein. That light is the first entiity, and the seed pivotal in repro and adaptation, are not myths but bona fide alternatives to any other premise. Same with the premise of dual-gendered life origins.
These premises are the only ones being debated in science forums today - which means they are debatable scientific premises, and not myth. Genesis does not make blatantly unvindicated postulations - it does not say that life exists or does not exist on the moon, while its bold dating of speech endowed humans have not been over-turned. Creationism and Monotheism are also not myth - both stand tody as challenging, and the swing of science is inclined with genesis - namely newly emerging controversial theories such as MV and ID:
'A COMPLEXITY CANNOT RESULT FROM A RANDOM' - Roger Primrose, confirmed atheist, cosmologist and author of MultiVerse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 06-30-2007 11:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 12:29 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 152 of 302 (408167)
07-01-2007 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by jar
07-01-2007 12:29 AM


Re: keeping things on track
quote:
There is no calendar in Genesis 1. The order and nature of creation in Genesis 1 is incorrect, both physically and biologically.
The calendar is in Genesis, following after ch 1. The order of creation and/or the universe is correct and a most comprehensive listing. It starts with Light, and each step of creation involves an immediate 'SEPARATION' factor (creation & separation of light/darkness, water/earth, day/night/male/female, etc). This says all bears a factor of connectivity (intergration), while all also incurs a separation treshold which cannot be surpassed. It is arguably the only explanation why we have never encountered any knowledge of the unseen or the origins of anything whatsoever. There is no such thing as a 'SINGULARITY'.
Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 12:29 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 12:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 154 of 302 (408170)
07-01-2007 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
07-01-2007 12:33 AM


quote:
ringo
You haven't posted anything resembling an "affirmation" yet. All you've posted is assertions.
You could start by showing us the verses in Genesis 1 that describe a calendar accurate to a billionth of a second.
The accuracy is determined not in genesis, but by scientists. The calendar is in genesis but not in v 1, which is limited to an over-view of creation. A calendar is applicable to 'mankind's emergence and time-dependent laws', thus it is listed appropriately.
quote:
Then you could continue by showing us predictions it made 100,000 years in advance. Then, for an encore, you could explain to us how predictions 100,000 years in the future - made 6000 years in the past - can be termed "accurate".
No, I never said predictions were made 100k years in advance, but that a sunset can be predicted 100k years in advance. I posted some links on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 07-01-2007 12:33 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 07-01-2007 1:04 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 155 of 302 (408171)
07-01-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by jar
07-01-2007 12:52 AM


Re: The topic is Genesis 1.
quote:
jar
You cannot have an Earth before a sun. The moon does not provide light. The earth was never covered with water. Vegetation did not first appear on land. The first plants were neither seed bearing nor fruit. It is impossible for there have to have been vegetation before the sun.
I could keep on, but even just one of the items is enough to falsify the Creation story found in Genesis 1.
Genesis says the universe was created in Verse one, and the sun and moon luminocity appeared later. The aspect of vegetation is a good point, but you are incorrect here. Genesis does not say vegetation grew, but that the earth was 'static' before luminosity ('Now nothing grew....then a mist appeared and the rains fell'/Gen). So we have the ingredients in place, but these were static (not 'dynamic') - until a specific ignition phase. There is no alternative to this process as listed: the sun sustains, but does not produce, life - the reason we do not see life on the moon or anyplace else.
The aspect of the moon reflecting the sun's light does not negate the moon being a light unto earth for the night time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 12:52 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 07-01-2007 10:38 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 157 of 302 (408175)
07-01-2007 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by ringo
07-01-2007 1:04 AM


quote:
ringo
That doesn't answer the question. How can you claim "accuracy" for 100,000 year predictions - of a sunset or anything else - if the calendar itself is only 6000 years old?
What's the relevance anyway? Any idiot can predict that there will be a sunset 100,000 years from now. How does that relate to the "unacknowledged accuracy of Genesis 1"?
It does answer the Q, and w/o the contradiction you impose on it. A 6000 year document can give a formular or premise which can be used to measure time - back or front. The genesis calendar is thus very accurate, incorporating the fluctuating movements and inclinations of the bodies which effect time on the earth and the seasonal change patterns and sea levels pursuent to full moon events - noted in Genesis. We do the same with measuring radiation residue to estimate the universe emergence datings. This calendar does incorporate some mysterious factors, when it's introduced spacetime is considered: it lists periods 2500 years prior to Moses, with authentic and contemporanous data with almost unacceptable/unaccountable veracity. Try naming your twice removed past generation's family tree, with names, places, dob's and dod's - and it becomes a point of astonishment: it is not possible even with today's computerised archiving facilities.
quote:
And I'm still waiting for the chapter and verse where it talks about billionths of a second.
I can get you the calendar in Genesis, which is common knowledge, but not the billion second demand: seconds were not discovered yet, remember?
Edited by IamJoseph, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 07-01-2007 1:04 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by DrJones*, posted 07-01-2007 2:13 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 07-01-2007 9:36 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 159 of 302 (408179)
07-01-2007 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by DrJones*
07-01-2007 2:13 AM


quote:
dr jones
The Lord of the Rings has appendices with quite extensive geneaologies, are they the truth?
You verify my point. Names are scientifically provable of its historical authenticity of time and place, and I doubt if Rings can pass such a test. The name Abram applies to a pre-canaan spacetime, while the name Abraham/Avraham/Ibrahim is post-Abraham. This makes the significance of listing pages of generation names, after Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau and a host of other key figures - at first appearing as superflous - but in fact one of the strongest proofs of ancient writings' veracity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by DrJones*, posted 07-01-2007 2:13 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by DrJones*, posted 07-01-2007 4:07 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 162 by Jaderis, posted 07-01-2007 5:25 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 161 of 302 (408185)
07-01-2007 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by DrJones*
07-01-2007 4:07 AM


quote:
dr jones
How so? The names may be correct for the time and area but how does that prove that the writing is true? If I write a story about england in the 1500s and all the character names are correct for that time period and area does that mean that these people actually existed? Does my story become fact just because I used the right names?
Ancient names, correct of its spacetime, is the single most commonly used factor in archeological determinations; next up is writing styles. However, these are not the only factors applying with genesis - though those would be sufficient. The diets of the ancient egyptians, 3,500 years ago - are authentic, as are all secofically mentioned names, dates, places and historical data. Excepting for unexplainable miracles - all its historical content is historically valid. The content of the writings are thus true - the writings being true to its spacetime are also tru - this is an early, square design hebrew without vowels - in keeping of its datings.
You may know - a bona fide diary is accepted evidence in a court hearing - even a murder trial!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by DrJones*, posted 07-01-2007 4:07 AM DrJones* has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 163 of 302 (408189)
07-01-2007 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Jaderis
07-01-2007 5:25 AM


quote:
The Grecian epic poems Iliad and Odyssey and the comprehensive mythologies in the Bibliotheca describe real places and use names and language consistent with the time it was written down (and are dated to well before the first known texts of the Old Testament) and may very well have some basis in actual history (this is as highly debated as events in the OT among certain archaeologists and historians), but they also tell tales of supernatural creation, divine (and/or divinely supported) heroes and villains, god(desse)s intervening in human affairs,etc, and are at best considered legends exaggerated and embellished by generations of oral transmission.
What makes the OT any different?
The Illiad is a poem, dealing with mythical hellenist dieties, and is not older than the OT - its dating is without any substantiation, with no hard-copy. It does not site verifiable items.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Jaderis, posted 07-01-2007 5:25 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by anglagard, posted 07-01-2007 5:56 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 165 by Jaderis, posted 07-01-2007 6:48 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 168 of 302 (408206)
07-01-2007 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jaderis
07-01-2007 6:48 AM


It would have been more credible to nominate Hamurabi than the Illiad - which is an oral transmission recalled and put together centuries later. Its authenticity and datings are unverifiable with scholars. I have two of the most popular references below, however feel free to exhibit your preferred aligning with this document and the OT (sic!). Remember that one is a dead document with no historical content, eg. no historical figures, no dates, no background - its characters are based on Apollo and Venus, but its your choice to not see how the OT replaced hellenist paganism: the greeks themselves gave up this mythology when they translated the OT in 300 BCE, and went on to form christianity with the OT as its bedrock. Lets agree to disagree of what is historical and myth.
Perseus Encyclopedia, Hades, Homer
Perseus Encyclopedia
H
Homer
The Greeks traditionally assumed that a single poet named Homer composed both the Iliad and the Odyssey, but we have no certain information about who composed these poems or how. Both the Homeric poems were composed in an oral poetic tradition that preceded the advent of writing. The Homeric poems were by far the most revered and influential works of literature in the ancient Greek (and Roman) world. They affected not only literature, both prose and poetry, but established a vision of the Heroic age that helped shape Greek society itself.
Ancient sources do not agree on when Homer lived or where he came from. Ancient tradition generally connected him with Ionia, in particular with Chios and Smyrna, and the linguistic evidence of the Iliad and the Odyssey would support this, but nothing is certain. Different poets could have composed the Iliad and the Odyssey. And in the case of these epics, we cannot even define precisely what we mean by composition: the Homeric epics were composed in an oral poetic tradition that developed without the use of writing, but writing (which ultimately put an end to the oral composition of Greek poetry) has preserved for us these two poems. Did a “Homer” write these poems with his own hands? Did he dictate them to one or more scribes? Did he teach them, word for word, to disciples who then memorized and in turn passed them on to other generations of poets until they could be written down at some later date? Many have expressed opinions on these matters, but we have no hard evidence as to how these poems were composed, and we can only base our own conjectures on the rumors preserved from antiquity and from what we know of other oral traditions that have been observed in the modern world.
The nature of Homeric epic itself is responsible for our ignorance of who composed these poems. The Iliad and the Odyssey are products of an oral poetic tradition, which developed without the use of writing. These poems are composed of metrical formulas: if the poet wishes to describe the sunrise in a single line, he has a ready made set of words at his disposal which he can apply. It does not matter if the same formulaic expression is repeated dozens of times in the course of a poem: the same line, for example, describes one person speaking to another (“he addressed him speaking winged words”, kai min phnsas epea pteroenta prosuda) at Hom. Il. 1.201, Hom. Il. 2.7, Hom. Il.4.312, Hom. Il.4.369 and at twenty-six other places in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The aesthetics of Homeric epic, at least on the level of the individual phrase or line, thus differ markedly from the conventions of modern poetry, which assiduously avoids repetition and places a very high value on novel turns of phrase. No one ever taught Greek epic poets not to repeat the same word in a single paragraph.
----------------------------------------------
Iliad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Iliad (Greek , Iliás) is, together with the Odyssey, one of two ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer, supposedly a blind Ionian poet.
Date
For most of the twentieth century, scholars dated the Iliad and the Odyssey to the 8th century BC. Some still argue for an early dating, notably Barry B. Powell, who has proposed a link between the writing of the Iliad and the invention of the Greek alphabet. Many others (including Martin West and Richard Seaford) now prefer a date in the 7th or even the 6th century BC. Martin Bernal proposes a date several centuries earlier.
[edit] The story of the Iliad
The Iliad begins with these lines:
Sing, goddess, the rage of Achilles the son of Peleus,
the destructive rage that sent countless pains on the Achaeans...
The first word of the Iliad is (mnin), "rage" or "wrath". This word announces the major theme of the Iliad: the wrath of Achilles. When Agamemnon, the commander of the Greek forces at Troy, dishonors Achilles by taking Briseis, a slave woman given to Achilles as a prize of war, Achilles becomes enraged and withdraws from the fighting.
The Iliad's huge cast of characters connects the Trojan War to many Greek myths, such as Jason and the Argonauts, the Seven Against Thebes, and the Labors of Hercules. Many Greek myths exist in multiple versions, so Homer had some freedom to choose among them to suit his story. See Greek mythology for more detail.
The action of the Iliad covers only a few weeks of the tenth and final year of the Trojan War. It does not cover the background and early years of the war (Paris' abduction of Helen from King Menelaus) nor its end (the death of Achilles and the fall of Troy).
Synopsis
As the poem begins, the Greeks have captured Chryseis, the daughter of Apollo's priest Chryses, and given her as a prize to Agamemnon. In response, Apollo has sent a plague against the Greeks, who compel Agamemnon to restore Chryseis to her father to stop the sickness. In her place, Agamemnon takes Briseis, whom the Achaeans had given to Achilles as a spoil of war. Achilles, the greatest warrior of the age, follows the advice of his goddess mother, Thetis, and withdraws from battle in revenge.
In counterpoint to Achilles' pride and arrogance stands the Trojan prince Hector, son of King Priam, a husband and father who fights to defend his city and his family. With Achilles on the sidelines, Hector leads successful counterattacks against the Greeks, who have built a fortified camp around their ships pulled up on the Trojan beach. The best remaining Greek fighters, including Odysseus, Diomedes, and Ajax, are wounded, and the gods favor the Trojans. Patroclus, impersonating Achilles by wearing his armor, finally leads the Myrmidons back into battle to save the ships from being burned. The death of Patroclus at the hands of Hector brings Achilles back to the war for revenge, and he slays Hector in single combat. Hector's father, King Priam, later comes to Achilles alone (but aided by Hermes) to ransom his son's body, and Achilles is moved to pity; the funeral of Hector ends the poem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jaderis, posted 07-01-2007 6:48 AM Jaderis has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024