Adam And Eve

The basis I use is to follow who or what benefits from each version. Follow the money. That the two versions were from different periods and combined is a matter of historical record.
The example I use points that it is the basis for nineteenth century capitalist ideology and also the basis for patriarchy.

 

I can't take anyone seriously who thinks two people populated the entire planet with a tribe of violent inbred humans.

 

3 peoples..
Adam-Eve-Satan

 

Which part?
How many representatives does it take to establish a species? No one believes that two people populated the entire planet. Adam and eve were said to have children which in turn had children.
If you consider seriously maybe taking things with sincerity will come easier.

 

Are you saying that we're all the result of inbreeding? Actually, that would explain a lot.

 

Let's try this again. i come in on the side of us being the result of creative processes. What are trying to explain?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed

 

Catholic theologians point to the fact that the Bible states that the original sin is that of Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit.

Guess that explains the prohibition on fruits.

 

theres an inherant fault with allegorical storytelling which is no one knows when a tree is supposed to be a tree.
also were ancient writers so adept at literary theory that they really did use metaphor they were 1500 years ahead of the first accepted academic use of that technique. were audiences so sophisticated then? i doubt it, modern academics, church theoreticians etc have been compelled to add value because people were ultimately using a fairytale as a document of divine intervention.

 

But we know when it says the fruit of the tree is knowledge that it can't be talking about just any tree. You could say that a tree bearing knowledge contains branches of knowledge. There is another tree described as the tree of life. There is no reason to assume that ancient mans facility with abstraction is any less than it is now. You question a fault in their inheritance but it is the same as ours.. We ever give the world all the meaning it has for us. it takes time for accepted academic use to become acceptable. There have always been vanguards of association.

 

The desire for convenience?

 

We have the convenience of time. Perhaps the conception there might be something better?

 

Maybe the problem is in "the first accepted academic use". Who did that, and when? What academy accepted it? Myths have been around since before the Sumerians, and according to Joseph Campbell, myth is metaphor. A metaphor is an image that suggests something else. Symbolic expression is as old as humanity. It's rooted in our unconscious and in our dreams, and found expression in the stories our Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestors told around the campfires. it took thousands of years before "sopisticated' audiences and literary critics went to work on them, dissected and labelled them, and honed them to the desiccated form we encounter in literature classes. The Bible could teach our professors a thing or two about metaphor.

 

Well, he tries to debunk him. The thing is, he doesn't really provide anything to back up what he says is wrong with Sitchin, he mostly makes comments like, "That isn't what that Hebrew term means at all, it means this...." Just his opinion, with little in the way of references to others who agree with him. I have been over his site a bit, and I think the guy is guilty of just bashing SItchins views. A person has to read Sitchins books themselves to understand what he says, and do some research to verify them. In Sitchins case, modern science is verifying a lot of things that Sitchin claims the Sumerians wrote about, how the solar system was formed, the existence of another planet or other large body that is causing issues with the outlying planets, the fact that our solar system has anomlies in it that don't fit with what they know about how solar systems formed, and many others. I think Sitchins books are very informative, and he provdies lots of data to back up what he says. He could of course be wrong on some things, but given the obvious research he has put into his books, I think he is more right than any other theories on the subject around. One of the things he says is that the Hebrew bible, the one the christian bible is based on, is a very abbreviated version of events and lore from ancient civilizations, and while some of it may have basis in fact ,they cannot be taken at face value as they are not the whole story, and full of inconsistancies. The whole Adam and Eve story, according to him, is a very abbreviated version of what he claims was genetic tinkering to produce slaves. And that the whole process took quite some time. Is he right? Is the bible right? It mostly just depends on what a person chooses to believe. Closed minded people will only accept one view, and belittle alternative views, much as Heiser does. Open minded people will at least give some consideration to things not being always as they may have been presented by others, and do some research to verify what they are told.

 

What is dessicated about the use of symbolism in literature?

 

It's not the use of symbolism per se, but the way some academics (as opposed to good writers) use it. I was replying to a post that questioned the metaphorical use of language before there was "an accepted academci use" of that technique. This smacks of pedantry to me--reminding me of all those boring English classes relating the Albatross in the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner or the white whale in Moby Dick to phallic symbols, the Oedipus complex, the Jungian Shadow or something else trendy. Some linguistic theorists think that language is inherently metaphorical, making it likely that people were using metaphors long before they became academically acceptable.

 

Heiser has impressive credentials as a Near Eastern linguist--Ph.D from the University of Wisconsin, etc. It's not just the Hebrew. Heiser is saying that Sitchim's translations of the Sumerian are fanciful. The Mesopotamians compiled dictionaries. We have those. What they say the words mean and what Sitchim says they mean are different. It may be just Heiser's opinion" but I tend to take the opionion of a recognized linguist over that of a journalist self-taught in Sumerian. Hitorian Ronald Fritze agrees with Heiser, commenting: "When critics have checked Sitchin's references, they have found that he frequently quotes out of context or truncates his quotes in a way that distorts evidence in order to prove his contentions". For furhter de-bunking, see ex-NASA aerospace engineer Rob Hafernik, http://www.hotspotsz.com/Zecharia_Sitchins_The_12th_Planet_Debunked_%28Article-390%29.html ; Jason Colavito, http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id14.html ; and Robert T. Carroll, (1994–2009). Zecharia Sitchin and The Earth Chronicles. . For a video that walks you through the translation from the Sumerian/Akkadian , using a standard Akkadian/Sumerian dictionary, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O79Vkz8a5Y8 .

 

i think he very successfully debunks him. i visited the page and and he thouroughly goes through whatever text is in question, not only that, he even has videos that show you how you can look up both his own explenaiton and hitchens.

as far as refrencing goes, this guy heiser has sitchens beat. i dont think he "tries" to debunk him. i think he successfully humiliates him and smears monkey doo on his face while plowing stichin's daughters, ahem, academically speaking of course. (daaaaaaammmm i went tooo far!!lol but yea thats what he does with stichin's work)

 

No problem, you guys have your opinion, and I have mine. We do after all believe what we choose to believe. Of course, if you don't bother to read what the other guy has to say, it really leaves a pretty narrow opinion, neither of you states whether or not you have read any of Sitchins material so I don't really know if you have bothered or not. Just because Heiser says he is wrong doesn't necessarily mean he is. I think Sitchin approaches the issue from a more impartial perspective, whereas Heiser appears to be pretty deep in the christian mindset, which is pretty narrow minded, really, and is probably not open at all to any opinion that does not "follow the party line", so to speak.
Most university educated people tend to have a very narrow viewpoint on the subjects they get into, as they are taught that the only way things are is how they are taught in school. I don't believe that just because one guy went to a school somewhere (Wisconsin, to learn Hebrew?) makes that person the sole authority on anything. Most schools provide programming, not education, in my opinion.
Also, we should take into account that new discoveries are made all the time, which forces us to take another look at the things we are taught. If you have an open enough mind, that is. In all things, any new view that goes against the "accepted" version is usually ridiculed until there is no alternative but to accept it, if over time the evidence keeps stacking up in favor of a new viewpoint/opinion, whatever. People get so hide-bound, and refuse to accept new things or ideas.
Take christianity, or any of the other god religions, for instance. People continue to believe in them even though not one of the people who do can provide conclusive proof that their god exists. They forget that meanings of words change over time, records become damaged, intentionally changed for some reason, etc, etc. Yet they persist in their beliefs regardless of the absence of proof. Take for example the fact that new dating techniques prove over and over again that the Earth and the Universe are older than what their bibles say, yet they persist in accepting what was written long ago, translated, retranslated ad nauseum, and given new spins by those who seem to value wealth or power more than truth.