Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Evolution-Creationism middle ground

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 12:05:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In 2:7, when it says "Dust from the - ground" the hebrew text reads "haadamah-min awfawr"; which is read "awfawr min-haadamah".

"aw-fawr" means "ash", "mortar", or "powdered clay"

"min" means "from", "of", "than", "since", "manna", or "because"

"ha-a-da-mah" means "the ground"

"adamah" means ground and the prefix "ha" means "the"

"ha-a-da-mah" can also be broken down into "dama" meaning "resembles" and "haa" which is one of the names of god.

Thus the text could read "the lord god formed man of the powdered clay from the ground", or it could read "the lord god formed man of the powdered clay because [it] resembles god"

Awfawr could be DNA, which is the mortar or clay of life. In this case the text would read "the lord god formed man of the DNA because [it] resembles god".

In which case, after the human species evolved to a certain point, God intervened causing a jump in evolution from point B to point E. Because the previous evolutionary stage resembled god, it was suitable for God to alter it's DNA to make it more like god.

Hence god created man in our image, yet we evolved through various stages.

The Canaanite, Babylonian, and Sumerian religions believed in a similar story. They believed Enki, Ea, or El created man from clay, and placed the clay in the womb of the Ninmah. Ninmah gave birth to mankind, and by placing the clay in her womb man was made in the image of the gods.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 9:46:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, you could try to twist words and add double meanings where none probably exist. Ooooor you could just learn science from a science textbook and realize when the Bible says "God made man out of dirt" it probably just means "God made man out of dirt".

We use language to make communication easy, not to make it a pain-in-the-as s maze of poorly constructed metaphors. You'd think God would know that.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 9:59:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you want to go by literal word translation of the Bible in the relevant cultural context (i.e. how it was understood at the time), then you are forced to accept their views on the earth being a flat disc with a layer of firmament above the sky which itself is covered by water.

An overwhelming amount of textual evidence can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 4:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 9:46:00 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Yeah, you could try to twist words and add double meanings where none probably exist. Ooooor you could just learn science from a science textbook and realize when the Bible says "God made man out of dirt" it probably just means "God made man out of dirt".

At 11/17/2012 9:46:00 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Yeah, you could try to twist words and add double meanings where none probably exist. Ooooor you could just learn science from a science textbook and realize when the Bible says "God made man out of dirt" it probably just means "God made man out of dirt".

It does not say god made man out of "dirt". The Hebrew word for dirt is "likhlukh"; the word used is "awfawr.
"likhlukh" means "dirt"
"awfawr" means "clay", "mud", or "morter".

In Islam they believe man was created from "Clay". The Hebrew religion is derived from the Sumerian religion.

The Abrahamic god Yahu (meaning "I am He") was a Canaanite war god, considered to be the theonym of El, head of the Canaanite pantheon. El was first used in Elba to refer to the Akkidian God Ea. The oldest recorded Semitic language, known as Eblaite, was discovered in Elba. Ea is the Akkidian version of the Sumerian god Enki. Enki means Lord of Earth (En means lord, and Ki means earth).
According to Sumerian myth, Enki aka El aka Yahu created mankind out o clay, and placed the clay in the womb of Ki (the earth) aka Ninmah (the Great Queen) aka Nintu (Lady of Birth). According to Sumerian text, by placing the clay in Ninmah's womb, man was imprinted with the image of god.
The Greek culture also believes man was created from clay.
The Turtle clan of the Iroquois believed they were created from clay on the shell of a turtle. One of Enki's symbols was a turtle; his more prominent symbols was the fish, the ram, and the goat; also the fish-goat (Capricorn).
Atum was the Egyptian version of Enki. Atum was the Egyptian creator god born from the Nu (the primordial waters), and Enki was born from Nammu (the primordial waters). Atum created man by mixing his tears with the dirt (thus creating mud with holey water).

We use language to make communication easy, not to make it a pain-in-the-as s maze of poorly constructed metaphors. You'd think God would know that.

Who said anything about metaphors? People didn't know about genetics back than. The modern Hebrew word for "genes" is "genim" which is spelled exactly the same as "ganim", which means "gardens".

The Babylonian version of the Sumerian creation myth, says Enki and Ninmah used the "Blood and intelligence" from the God Geshtu-e in order to create man from clay.

So it's not that big of a stretch.

We use language to make communication easy, not to make it a pain-in-the-as s maze of poorly constructed metaphors. You'd think God would know that.

It's not a metaphor. Languages of Ancient Mesopotamia had words with duel meanings. The Sumerian word "Ti" means both "rib" and "life". Mistranslations o ancient texts can be easy due to these duel meanings. It is often hard to tell if the Sumerians were referring to the God Anu, the sky, or heaven because each was spelled the same way; "An".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 4:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 9:59:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you want to go by literal word translation of the Bible in the relevant cultural context (i.e. how it was understood at the time), then you are forced to accept their views on the earth being a flat disc with a layer of firmament above the sky which itself is covered by water.

An overwhelming amount of textual evidence can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com...

Are you referring to the actual texts or the interpretation of the texts?

There were two types of primordial waters in the ancient Mesopotamian myths; there was the primordial waters beneath the earth and the primordial waters above the firmament.
We know in ancient Sumeria Ab meant both "fresh water" as well as "Semen". What is to say that water could not also mean outer space? Astronauts often do 0 gravity training and drills in water.

The ancient texts were written down and recorded by man. Prior to writing, the traditions were passed down orally.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Dogknox
Posts: 5,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 5:28:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
DanTYes scriptures say.. "God created man in his image"!
The scriptures are NOT a book of science; I would think if you wanted a book on science you would grab, a science book not the bible!

SCriptures..
1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4:16
And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

DanTYes God is Love! Man was created in God' image... God is love! Thus man can love!!

Animals are NOT made in the image of God.. Animals cannot love!
Pigs, dogs, cats, snails, goats, frogs can't love! BUT..
DanTYes but animals also can't sin!!
All sins are against LOVE!

Looking at scriptures and finding "DNA" tells me you are reading into the scriptures, simply what is not there!

DanTYes Love is a free CHOICE of the heart. No one force anyone to love, if forced to love then the love would not be, real love!
Animals cannot make choices of the heart, out of love!
The mother moose will protect her young moose out of instinct, not love!
Animals reproduce out of instinct.. NOT LOVE!

Birth control and sex outside of marriage lowers people to that of an animal! Sex within marriage is a true act of love.. "Giving of self from the heart"!

Satan has twisted sex into self pleasure, an act of SELF gratification, from love into something dirty an attack on God himself!
Satan has caused many souls to go to his Lake of Fire by "SINNING against Love"!

Dogknox
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:44:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 4:33:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/17/2012 9:59:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you want to go by literal word translation of the Bible in the relevant cultural context (i.e. how it was understood at the time), then you are forced to accept their views on the earth being a flat disc with a layer of firmament above the sky which itself is covered by water.

An overwhelming amount of textual evidence can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com...

Are you referring to the actual texts or the interpretation of the texts?

There were two types of primordial waters in the ancient Mesopotamian myths; there was the primordial waters beneath the earth and the primordial waters above the firmament.
We know in ancient Sumeria Ab meant both "fresh water" as well as "Semen". What is to say that water could not also mean outer space? Astronauts often do 0 gravity training and drills in water.

The ancient texts were written down and recorded by man. Prior to writing, the traditions were passed down orally.

Freshwater is equated with Semen in a religious sense, it fertilizes the ground. That's why in India rainwater is referred to as Indra's semen and in Egypt the nile came from Osiris' semen.

Genesis is quite explicit that there is a firmament above and a layer of water above that. Try to pull DNA out of a scripture grounded in that kind of ontology is misguided, to put it lightly.

Might as wall claim that when Hindu scripture refers to gods flying around in "airplanes" that they were actualling jetting around in 747s. (FYI, a common translation for the vehicle used to transport gods in hindu mythology, a vimara, IS translated as "airplane" in english).
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:49:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And now, a word from Dawkins, (From this television "documentary" http://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn"t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!"
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 7:50:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:49:00 PM, Muted wrote:
And now, a word from Dawkins, (From this television "documentary" http://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn"t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!"

Personally, I think Campbell has the right idea when he talks about how western religion lost its way the moment it decided previously revealed scripture had to be more than just symbolic or mythologic but also had to be historically/factually accurate.
VainApocalypse
Posts: 74
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 8:16:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 12:05:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Awfawr could be DNA, which is the mortar or clay of life. In this case the text would read "the lord god formed man of the DNA because [it] resembles god".

In which case, after the human species evolved to a certain point, God intervened causing a jump in evolution from point B to point E. Because the previous evolutionary stage resembled god, it was suitable for God to alter it's DNA to make it more like god.

This is all well and good, but why should we believe this? Creatively interpreted words in a 2,500 old text is evidence of exactly nothing.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 8:54:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:50:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:49:00 PM, Muted wrote:
And now, a word from Dawkins, (From this television "documentary" http://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn"t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!"

Personally, I think Campbell has the right idea when he talks about how western religion lost its way the moment it decided previously revealed scripture had to be more than just symbolic or mythologic but also had to be historically/factually accurate.

I know this may sound stupid, but who is Campbell? I think religion is going to lose out in the end to atheism the way things are going.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 9:01:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 8:54:05 PM, Muted wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:50:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:49:00 PM, Muted wrote:
And now, a word from Dawkins, (From this television "documentary" http://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn"t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!"

Personally, I think Campbell has the right idea when he talks about how western religion lost its way the moment it decided previously revealed scripture had to be more than just symbolic or mythologic but also had to be historically/factually accurate.

I know this may sound stupid, but who is Campbell? I think religion is going to lose out in the end to atheism the way things are going.

I would expect a more liberal approach to religion, rather than a complete lack of it.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 10:46:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 7:44:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/18/2012 4:33:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/17/2012 9:59:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you want to go by literal word translation of the Bible in the relevant cultural context (i.e. how it was understood at the time), then you are forced to accept their views on the earth being a flat disc with a layer of firmament above the sky which itself is covered by water.

An overwhelming amount of textual evidence can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com...

Are you referring to the actual texts or the interpretation of the texts?

There were two types of primordial waters in the ancient Mesopotamian myths; there was the primordial waters beneath the earth and the primordial waters above the firmament.
We know in ancient Sumeria Ab meant both "fresh water" as well as "Semen". What is to say that water could not also mean outer space? Astronauts often do 0 gravity training and drills in water.

The ancient texts were written down and recorded by man. Prior to writing, the traditions were passed down orally.

Freshwater is equated with Semen in a religious sense, it fertilizes the ground. That's why in India rainwater is referred to as Indra's semen and in Egypt the nile came from Osiris' semen.

How does not disprove what I said? If water was equated with semen because water fertilized the ground, than that proves that they could refer to 0 gravity space as water, due to it's similar properties.
Genesis is quite explicit that there is a firmament above and a layer of water above that. Try to pull DNA out of a scripture grounded in that kind of ontology is misguided, to put it lightly.

"firmament" was actually a mistranslation of "rakia", which meant "expanse". It's root was "raka" which means "to spread out" or "to flatten", and alternative reading of "raka" was "reka" meaning "a background" or "an ambient environment".

When translated to Greek, the Greeks translated "rakia" ("expanse") as "stereoma" ("foundation"). "stereoma" was than translated to Latin as "firmamentum".

The original Hebrew says nothing of a firmament. It says "God said, 'Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters'", not "God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters'".

Might as wall claim that when Hindu scripture refers to gods flying around in "airplanes" that they were actualling jetting around in 747s. (FYI, a common translation for the vehicle used to transport gods in hindu mythology, a vimara, IS translated as "airplane" in english).

Actually the literal translation is "traversing" but the modern word for "aircraft" is spelled the same as the "Vimana". Any vehicle that flies is an aircraft, including balloons and helicopters.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2012 10:57:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 8:16:30 PM, VainApocalypse wrote:
At 11/17/2012 12:05:32 PM, DanT wrote:
Awfawr could be DNA, which is the mortar or clay of life. In this case the text would read "the lord god formed man of the DNA because [it] resembles god".

In which case, after the human species evolved to a certain point, God intervened causing a jump in evolution from point B to point E. Because the previous evolutionary stage resembled god, it was suitable for God to alter it's DNA to make it more like god.


This is all well and good, but why should we believe this? Creatively interpreted words in a 2,500 old text is evidence of exactly nothing.

When I read the text that is the only thing that I can take away from the text; I can't picture anything else happening. They paint a perfect picture. The only leap I made is saying clay was DNA; Clay being the term used for clay is not outside the realm of possibility, due to oral traditions predating the text.
They took clay, infused it with the "blood and intelligence" of a god, placed it in a Goddess's womb, and created man from the clay in the image of god. Switch the words clay with the words DNA and it sounds like the Gods imprinted their DNA on us.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 1:05:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/18/2012 10:46:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:44:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/18/2012 4:33:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/17/2012 9:59:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you want to go by literal word translation of the Bible in the relevant cultural context (i.e. how it was understood at the time), then you are forced to accept their views on the earth being a flat disc with a layer of firmament above the sky which itself is covered by water.

An overwhelming amount of textual evidence can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com...

Are you referring to the actual texts or the interpretation of the texts?

There were two types of primordial waters in the ancient Mesopotamian myths; there was the primordial waters beneath the earth and the primordial waters above the firmament.
We know in ancient Sumeria Ab meant both "fresh water" as well as "Semen". What is to say that water could not also mean outer space? Astronauts often do 0 gravity training and drills in water.

The ancient texts were written down and recorded by man. Prior to writing, the traditions were passed down orally.

Freshwater is equated with Semen in a religious sense, it fertilizes the ground. That's why in India rainwater is referred to as Indra's semen and in Egypt the nile came from Osiris' semen.

How does not disprove what I said? If water was equated with semen because water fertilized the ground, than that proves that they could refer to 0 gravity space as water, due to it's similar properties.
Genesis is quite explicit that there is a firmament above and a layer of water above that. Try to pull DNA out of a scripture grounded in that kind of ontology is misguided, to put it lightly.

"firmament" was actually a mistranslation of "rakia", which meant "expanse". It's root was "raka" which means "to spread out" or "to flatten", and alternative reading of "raka" was "reka" meaning "a background" or "an ambient environment".

When translated to Greek, the Greeks translated "rakia" ("expanse") as "stereoma" ("foundation"). "stereoma" was than translated to Latin as "firmamentum".

The original Hebrew says nothing of a firmament. It says "God said, 'Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters'", not "God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters'".

Might as wall claim that when Hindu scripture refers to gods flying around in "airplanes" that they were actualling jetting around in 747s. (FYI, a common translation for the vehicle used to transport gods in hindu mythology, a vimara, IS translated as "airplane" in english).

Actually the literal translation is "traversing" but the modern word for "aircraft" is spelled the same as the "Vimana". Any vehicle that flies is an aircraft, including balloons and helicopters.

The point is that the kind of methodology you're suggesting could lead to basically any interpretation of terms as long as relation can be found between them that involves a shared property.

You're saying the word "water" was used instead of "space" because of the property that both seem weightless.

If water can be zero gravity and dirt can be DNA, why not say that when got created light, the Bible is actually referring to the quantum wave function because light can only be visible through quantum functions.

You take any Biblical term, find the modern concept you want to inject, and then find some, any, relation between properties of the original Biblical term and your modern concept.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 4:47:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 1:05:24 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/18/2012 10:46:50 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/18/2012 7:44:20 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/18/2012 4:33:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/17/2012 9:59:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you want to go by literal word translation of the Bible in the relevant cultural context (i.e. how it was understood at the time), then you are forced to accept their views on the earth being a flat disc with a layer of firmament above the sky which itself is covered by water.

An overwhelming amount of textual evidence can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com...

Are you referring to the actual texts or the interpretation of the texts?

There were two types of primordial waters in the ancient Mesopotamian myths; there was the primordial waters beneath the earth and the primordial waters above the firmament.
We know in ancient Sumeria Ab meant both "fresh water" as well as "Semen". What is to say that water could not also mean outer space? Astronauts often do 0 gravity training and drills in water.

The ancient texts were written down and recorded by man. Prior to writing, the traditions were passed down orally.

Freshwater is equated with Semen in a religious sense, it fertilizes the ground. That's why in India rainwater is referred to as Indra's semen and in Egypt the nile came from Osiris' semen.

How does not disprove what I said? If water was equated with semen because water fertilized the ground, than that proves that they could refer to 0 gravity space as water, due to it's similar properties.
Genesis is quite explicit that there is a firmament above and a layer of water above that. Try to pull DNA out of a scripture grounded in that kind of ontology is misguided, to put it lightly.

"firmament" was actually a mistranslation of "rakia", which meant "expanse". It's root was "raka" which means "to spread out" or "to flatten", and alternative reading of "raka" was "reka" meaning "a background" or "an ambient environment".

When translated to Greek, the Greeks translated "rakia" ("expanse") as "stereoma" ("foundation"). "stereoma" was than translated to Latin as "firmamentum".

The original Hebrew says nothing of a firmament. It says "God said, 'Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters'", not "God said, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters'".

Might as wall claim that when Hindu scripture refers to gods flying around in "airplanes" that they were actualling jetting around in 747s. (FYI, a common translation for the vehicle used to transport gods in hindu mythology, a vimara, IS translated as "airplane" in english).

Actually the literal translation is "traversing" but the modern word for "aircraft" is spelled the same as the "Vimana". Any vehicle that flies is an aircraft, including balloons and helicopters.

The point is that the kind of methodology you're suggesting could lead to basically any interpretation of terms as long as relation can be found between them that involves a shared property.

No. What you are describing is what the ancient alien theorist do. They twist everything out of context to fit their desired story.

What I do is read the story while putting myself in the shoes of someone living in ancient Mesopotamia.

The text says the god enki assembled a team of lesser gods to make man out of clay. They infused the clay with the "blood and intelligence" of one of the lesser gods, and placed the clay in the womb of Enki's consort, Ninmah. Enki's consort than gave birth to humanity in the god's image.

You're saying the word "water" was used instead of "space" because of the property that both seem weightless.

According to the text there was 2 queens Nammu (meaning cosmic waters) who was queen of Dilmun (the land of the gods) and Ninmah (meaning great queen) who was queen of earth. Anu (meaning heavenly one) was king of the heavens. Enki (meaning lord of earth) was king of the earth. Enlil (meaning lord of storms) was Anu's heir.
Enki's father was Anu and mother was Nammu.
Enlil's father was Anu and mother was Ninmah
Ninmah was Anu's sister and Enki's consort
Nammu was Anu's consort (in later Akkadian legends she was Anu and Ninmah's mother)

According to sumerian legend when Enlil raped Ninlil he was banished to earth and the ties between heaven/sky (An aka Anu) and earth (Ki aka Ninmah) was severed. Later after Enlil and Ninlil have kids the banishment was lifted.

Nammu was the embodiment of the cosmos, while Ninmah was the embodiment of earth. Nammu's name means the cosmic waters.

The Sumerians believed that above our atmosphere was water. That does not mean it was a literal water. The sun god utu and the moon god inanna would ride a boat in the sky, just as Ra did. The egyptian religion was influenced by Sumerian culture via lower Egypt.

If water can be zero gravity and dirt can be DNA, why not say that when got created light, the Bible is actually referring to the quantum wave function because light can only be visible through quantum functions.

For the millionth time the word does not mean dirt, it means clay.
If semen can be water why can't water be 0 gravity?
You take any Biblical term, find the modern concept you want to inject, and then find some, any, relation between properties of the original Biblical term and your modern concept.

Not true. If the word was dirt I would not believe it to be DNA. The word is not dirt, it is clay/mortar. That changes things completely.

How would you describe DNA if you lived in ancient Mesopotamia?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 4:53:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let me also point out that I don't subscribe to the Mesopotamian religions. I am just pointing out a possible middle ground.

I believe these myths to be just that... Myths...

My interpretation of these ancient texts are not biased, like you are trying to imply.

I despise the ancient astronaut theorists because they twists these myths to fit their preconceived bias. My interpretations differ from their's because I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply putting myself in the shoes of an ancient Mesopotamian.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 4:14:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 4:53:36 AM, DanT wrote:
Let me also point out that I don't subscribe to the Mesopotamian religions. I am just pointing out a possible middle ground.

I believe these myths to be just that... Myths...

My interpretation of these ancient texts are not biased, like you are trying to imply.

I despise the ancient astronaut theorists because they twists these myths to fit their preconceived bias. My interpretations differ from their's because I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply putting myself in the shoes of an ancient Mesopotamian.

If you were putting yourself in the shoes of Mesopotamian, you wouldn't be asking "How would they interpret DNA." You'd be asking what the word meant with reference to that cultural frame.

Right now you are doing exactly what the alien history theorists you despise do, but under the impression that your helter-skelter methodology vindicates your speculation.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 5:51:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 4:14:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/19/2012 4:53:36 AM, DanT wrote:
Let me also point out that I don't subscribe to the Mesopotamian religions. I am just pointing out a possible middle ground.

I believe these myths to be just that... Myths...

My interpretation of these ancient texts are not biased, like you are trying to imply.

I despise the ancient astronaut theorists because they twists these myths to fit their preconceived bias. My interpretations differ from their's because I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply putting myself in the shoes of an ancient Mesopotamian.

If you were putting yourself in the shoes of Mesopotamian, you wouldn't be asking "How would they interpret DNA." You'd be asking what the word meant with reference to that cultural frame.

I'm not asking that. I'm asking how you would describe it if you were an ancient Mesopotamian.

Here is what the text says;

"In the first days when everything needed was brought into being,
In the first days when everything needed was properly nourished,
When bread was baked in the shrines of the land,
And bread was tasted in the homes of the land,
When heaven had moved away from the earth,
And earth had separated from heaven,
And the name of man was fixed;
When the Sky God, An, had carried off the heavens,
And the Air God, Enlil, had carried off the earth . " ~ The Huluppu-Tree myth

This poem describes Enlil being banished to Earth by Anu for raping Ninlil.

"The land Dilmun is a pure place, the land Dilmun is a clean place,
The land Dilmun is a clean place, the land Dilmun is a bright place;
He who is all alone laid himself down in Dilmun,
The place, after Enki had laid himself by his wife,
That place is clean, that place is bright;
He who is all alone laid himself down in Dilmun,
The place, after Enki had laid himself by Ninsikil,
That place is clean, that place is bright."

This poem describes Dilmun, the land of the Gods. It goes on to say that Dilmun lacked fresh water, and so Ninsikil asked Enki to send water from Earth to the Dilmun. Enki heeded Ninsikil's pleas and orders the sun-god Utu to bring forth fresh water from the earth for Dilmun.

"The gods were dredging the rivers,
were piling up their silt
on projecting bends--
and the gods lugging the clay
began complaining"

After the gods started complaining Nammu went to Enki and requested that he "fashion servants of the gods"

In response Enki tells Nammu;

"Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
Ninmah will bind upon it the image of the gods,
It is man . . . ."

The moment of birth is described by the Sumerians in the following way;
"Without the sperm of a male
she gave birth to offspring,
to the embryo of mankind. "

The result of the efforts to bring water to Dilmun is described as the following;

"Her city drinks the water of abundance,
Dilmun drinks the water of abundance,
Her wells of bitter water, behold they are become wells of good water,
Her fields and farms produced crops and grain,
Her city, behold it is become the house of the banks and quays of the land,
Dilmun, behold it is become the house of the banks and quays of the land."

Their own text describes artificial insemination using clay in place of sperm. It does not take much imagination to assume "clay" means "DNA" just as "gardens" means "genes" in the modern Hebrew language. One could reach that conclusion with absolutely no cognitive effort.

Right now you are doing exactly what the alien history theorists you despise do, but under the impression that your helter-skelter methodology vindicates your speculation.

No, I have no agenda; they do. I read it in context, and I don't make huge leaps, like they do. I don't think the gods were reptilian, and I am not ignoring texts that does not suit my hypothesis. Unlike the ancient alien theorists, I don't replace the original text with newer literary translations.
but you did that when you claimed they believed in a firmament, which was not the the original text, but rather a mistranslation.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 5:52:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 5:51:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/19/2012 4:14:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 11/19/2012 4:53:36 AM, DanT wrote:
Let me also point out that I don't subscribe to the Mesopotamian religions. I am just pointing out a possible middle ground.

I believe these myths to be just that... Myths...

My interpretation of these ancient texts are not biased, like you are trying to imply.

I despise the ancient astronaut theorists because they twists these myths to fit their preconceived bias. My interpretations differ from their's because I am not trying to prove anything. I am simply putting myself in the shoes of an ancient Mesopotamian.

If you were putting yourself in the shoes of Mesopotamian, you wouldn't be asking "How would they interpret DNA." You'd be asking what the word meant with reference to that cultural frame.

I'm not asking that. I'm asking how you would describe it if you were an ancient Mesopotamian.

Here is what the text says;

"In the first days when everything needed was brought into being,
In the first days when everything needed was properly nourished,
When bread was baked in the shrines of the land,
And bread was tasted in the homes of the land,
When heaven had moved away from the earth,
And earth had separated from heaven,
And the name of man was fixed;
When the Sky God, An, had carried off the heavens,
And the Air God, Enlil, had carried off the earth . " ~ The Huluppu-Tree myth

This poem describes Enlil being banished to Earth by Anu for raping Ninlil.

"The land Dilmun is a pure place, the land Dilmun is a clean place,
The land Dilmun is a clean place, the land Dilmun is a bright place;
He who is all alone laid himself down in Dilmun,
The place, after Enki had laid himself by his wife,
That place is clean, that place is bright;
He who is all alone laid himself down in Dilmun,
The place, after Enki had laid himself by Ninsikil,
That place is clean, that place is bright."

This poem describes Dilmun, the land of the Gods. It goes on to say that Dilmun lacked fresh water, and so Ninsikil asked Enki to send water from Earth to the Dilmun. Enki heeded Ninsikil's pleas and orders the sun-god Utu to bring forth fresh water from the earth for Dilmun.

"The gods were dredging the rivers,
were piling up their silt
on projecting bends--
and the gods lugging the clay
began complaining"

After the gods started complaining Nammu went to Enki and requested that he "fashion servants of the gods"

In response Enki tells Nammu;

"Mix the heart of the clay that is over the abyss,
The good and princely fashioners will thicken the clay,
You, [Nammu] do you bring the limbs into existence;
Ninmah [earth-mother or birth goddess] will work above you,
The goddesses [of birth] . . . will stand by you at your fashioning;
O my mother, decree its [the newborn's] fate,
Ninmah will bind upon it the image of the gods,
It is man . . . ."

The moment of birth is described by the Sumerians in the following way;
"Without the sperm of a male
she gave birth to offspring,
to the embryo of mankind. "


The result of the efforts to bring water to Dilmun is described as the following;

"Her city drinks the water of abundance,
Dilmun drinks the water of abundance,
Her wells of bitter water, behold they are become wells of good water,
Her fields and farms produced crops and grain,
Her city, behold it is become the house of the banks and quays of the land,
Dilmun, behold it is become the house of the banks and quays of the land."






Their own text describes artificial insemination using clay in place of sperm. It does not take much imagination to assume "clay" means "DNA" just as "gardens" means "genes" in the modern Hebrew language. One could reach that conclusion with absolutely no cognitive effort.


Right now you are doing exactly what the alien history theorists you despise do, but under the impression that your helter-skelter methodology vindicates your speculation.

No, I have no agenda; they do. I read it in context, and I don't make huge leaps, like they do. I don't think the gods were reptilian, and I am not ignoring texts that does not suit my hypothesis. Unlike the ancient alien theorists, I don't replace the original text with newer literary translations.
but you did that when you claimed they believed in a firmament, which was not the the original text, but rather a mistranslation.

source:
http://faculty.gvsu.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 5:56:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/19/2012 4:14:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
If you were putting yourself in the shoes of Mesopotamian, you wouldn't be asking "How would they interpret DNA."

I'm not asking that. What I asked you is "How would you describe DNA if you lived in ancient Mesopotamia?"

You have yet to answer the question.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle