The Book of Genesis

[abaris]

Before there was soil, or sky, or any green thing, there was only the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap. This chaos of perfect silence and darkness lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland of elemental ice, Niflheim.

Any less logical than Genesis? That's all I have to say on that book.

[Parashu]

Thank you, mighty beast from the abyss

---

Abaris, that's nordic mythology. Nilfheim and Muspelheim were the kingdom of Odin / Wotan.

Did you ever wondered why Zeus/Theos became Deus, then Dieu, Dio,... while Wotan became God, Gott, God,...? Did you ever consider they might have been monotheists, but with a different perspective? Did you ever raise any question at all on any ancient text?

[Minimalist]

While I think you are on the right track by examining the beginnings of these myths you should consider the most likely source, the Sumerians, first.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_bet..._and_grain

The Debate between sheep and grain or Myth of cattle and grain is a Sumerian creation myth, written on clay tablets in the mid to late 3rd millennium BCE.

The story opens with a location "the hill of heaven and earth" which is discussed by Chiera as "not a poetical name for the earth, but the dwelling place of the gods, situated at the point where the heavens rest upon the earth. It is there that mankind had their first habitat, and there the Babylonian Garden of Eden is to be placed."[3] The Sumerian word Edin, means "steppe" or "plain",[13] so modern scholarship has abandoned the use of the phrase "Babylonian Garden of Eden" as it has become clear the "Garden of Eden" was a later concept.[13] Jeremy Black suggests this area was restricted for gods, noting that field plans from the Third dynasty of Ur use the term hursag ("hill") to describe the hilly parts of fields that are hard to cultivate due to the presence of prehistoric tell mounds (ruined habitations).[14] Kramer discusses the story of the god An creating the cattle-goddess, Lahar, and the grain goddess, Ashnan, to feed and clothe the Annunaki, who in turn made man.[1] Lahar and Ashnan are created in the "duku" or "pure place" and the story further describes how the Annunaki create a sheepfold with plants and herbs for Lahar and a house, plough and yoke for Ashnan, describing the introduction of animal husbandry and agriculture.[15] The story continues with a quarrel between the two goddesses over their gifts which eventually resolves with Enki and Enlil intervening to declare Ashnan the victor.

In the bible yarn we get the opposite result.  Cain...the dastardly, miserable farmer, kills his brother, the happy shepherd whose offering to the Lord has already been preferred by 'god' himself.  In the original, the farmer is proclaimed the winner.

The reason for this is quite simple.  The Israelites evolved from a nomadic, pastoral, existence.  The championed the shepherd while the Sumerians were farmers.  When the tale reached the proto-israelites they altered it to make themselves be the winners.

Seek out Sumerian mythology.  Much has been lost but what remains is sufficient.

[Parashu]

Hello,


I have heard of the similarities with the sumerian mythology, but there's one thing you have to take into consideration : archeologists and historians DO NOT consider oral tradition. The sources of the antediluvian myth are not to be found in a written tradition : it's way too old for that (unless you consider we started to speak on monday the 1st of april and then started to write the next week ;D)


The tale of Caïn and Abel is very complicated. It took me a lot of time to get to the bottom of that tale. The Church (and other similar organisations) have based their interpretation on a superficial reading. It's the most "moral" tale in the early texts (while the Garden of Eden and Seven Days are more "informative"/"descriptive") and it is necessary to develop multiple perspectives to reach the core of the story.


"First", it is a story of a tiller who makes the shepperd disappear. It depicts a global trend that is now completely obvious : pastoral civilisations have vanished and tillers have become farmers, working in the field and in the stable... Tillers have "swallowed" the shepperds' heritage...


It can be explained : if there's a disaster, a pastor may loose everything. Animals become sick and die and there's no more herd/flock... while tillers had the advantage of keeping the soil when the crop was lost... So they didn't have to start from zero... Over time, it lead the pastors to become nearly extinct while tillers are still becoming richer and richer nowadays (big ones killing smaller ones...)


Then, as the deltas are mentionned earlier (see my previous post), you have to take into consideration their role to reach the more abstract meaning.


When humans started agriculture, the tillers were working harder than the shepperds. But then, the humans spread and reached the deltas. In these regions, things were completely different : tillers were "blessed" with an annual gift and they didn't have to do much to produce plenty of grain and forage. Thus, in those regions, the tillers became rich : the shepperds, when there was a drought for instance, knew they could go to Egypt to find forage (there's a reference to that in the incredible tale of Joseph at the end of Genesis). In other regions, the deltas played the same role : being a place where tillers were becoming richer and richer from getting a constant income and being providers for their surroundings.


IMO, this economic mecanism leading the tillers to become richer and richer is the reason why writting was developped. One can notice agriculture and writting developped around the major rivers/deltas : China, Sumer, Egypt,the Amazon,... This can be explained if you consider that tillers becoming richer and richer in those regions had so many items at some point they had to make inventories. From this accountancy, writting systems were developped...


So, the deeper meaning is a reference to the written traditions opposed to writting traditions. Again, one has "murdered" the other. It is obvious shepperds were the great thinkers early on : they had to manage animals, whose behaviour is harder to handle than the behaviour of the plants; they met more people from wandering around; they had more time for other activities than work... So, all the ancient stories are pastoral stories, but that have been written by farmers... and then, it is obvious written traditions have "won" over the oral traditions, which are not even considered although they exist and are – for some – way older than writting...


Now, to get to the more abstract meaning and the "moral" perspective, you have to be an honnest lawyer and clean the slate.


The tale of Caïn and Abel is ambiguous about the "guilt"...


Caïn is the first to be born. And the text mentions Abel brings firstlings as sacrifice. Isn't Caïn a firstling?


4.8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.


One can notice Abel, who's a shepperd, is slain when they were on the field. Now, isn't a shepperd supposed to be everywhere but into the field? Is he taking care of his flock? Is he ruining his brother's work? What about the idea that Abel wanted to sacrifice Caïn, a firstling, and that Caïn therefore spoke to his brother when he saw him come? Isn't it what you would do if your brother came to kill you : try to speak first? Isn't it written that Caïn speaked to his brother? Is it completely necessary to mention such a detail? And then, as Abel would have shown determination, Caïn would have slain him in self-defense?


The myth is ambiguous. The guilt can be reversed using the same verses... It needs a deep investigation.


The deep meaning, IMO, is that Caïn represent workers/producers while Abel represents "social workers" such as the boss, the commercials,... all the people in a business who don't produce the goods, but establish links in between people.


From this perspective, the preference of God is made quite clear : God prefers people who establish links between people than any kind of achievement. God prefers :


4.4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.


If you burn animals on an altar, you'll burn their fat... This detail is emphasized. How does a flock become fat? <-> they have to be at peace, well fed and well taken care of.


God would prefer to see us friends than to bend this or that way/eat this and that/say this and that... Isn't it obvious that a God often called "Love" would have such messages?


Then there's another deep perspective on this tale, but this one is really complicated as it involves the previous text and much broader considerations on the Bible.


4.16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.


The term "east" is misleading. In the beginning of the Bible, you can find this :


1.5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


The Almighy, All-knowing God doesn't name the light "light"... Was he drunk or is there a deeper meaning to this? Are we talking about the light that comes from bulbs or stars? Or does this whole text obviously have a metaphoric meaning?


"Day" is not a perfect word to express "light" and it is a word that refers to time. A biblical "Day" is not a period of 24 hours. It may have been used this way is other parts of the Bible, written by other people, but the founding stone was written by a very smart person. A biblical "Day" is more like "a current of life" such as surrealism, structuralism,... you name it... It's a certain light that is "shared" at a certain point. In a biological perspective, it could be a "state of mind" of the ecosystem as it became more and more experienced and complex, passing through extinctions which lead to improvements and the shedding of a new "light" on how to develop...


There's a lot to say about verses 1.3-5 and the notion of "Day", but for this argument, I'll point out that "east" is misleading. The better translation would be "the rising". Caïn is sent into the "land of Nod" – litterally meaning "the land where you're lost" – on the rising of Eden.


2.4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.


2.8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


2.15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.


So, those verses, at the Rising of Eden, mention there's no tiller at that point. Then the man is put into the Garden and then the man is put into the garden to dress it and keep it... Isn't Caïn the only tiller in the early texts? Why is he announced so early?


IMO, the relly "horrible" aspect of Caïn is there : "incest"... He's the second guy in the Garden if you follow that perspective. Adam is always passive and represents the dead people, who became a part of our surroundings, while Caïn is the living person, active. And he is "his own father".


Of course, that's not a sci-fi scenario : Caïn, who represents amongst other things writters, is represented as one who puts himself into the past. He represents people who have invented stories about the past to mislead and manipulate the masses. This happened quite often...


But anyways, all of this is quite complicated. Those myths are very deep and they share links that do not jump to the mind when you read the text for the firrst time or too quickly...

[abaris]

Did you ever wondered why Zeus/Theos became Deus, then Dieu, Dio,... while Wotan became God, Gott, God,...? Did you ever consider they might have been monotheists, but with a different perspective? Did you ever raise any question at all on any ancient text?

And did you ever wonder why Hel became Hell, or why we have Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Similar names in german, by the way.

It all boils down to our origins and as our peoples drifted apart, we took elements from Norsk as well as Roman mythology with us. Thursday, of course, is named after Thor, Friday after Frigg, Saturday after Saturn and Sunday after the sun or more probably Sol Invictus. Hell, of course after the goddess Hel and her domain, which was a simple underworld originally.

[Angrboda]

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....

[Minimalist]

I have heard of the similarities with the sumerian mythology, but there's one thing you have to take into consideration : archeologists and historians DO NOT consider oral tradition. The sources of the antediluvian myth are not to be found in a written tradition : it's way too old for that (unless you consider we started to speak on monday the 1st of april and then started to write the next week ;D)

Agreed, all of this stuff began as oral tales, told and retold and changed every time they did so.  The oral tales are gone and there is no hope of recovering them.  The closest we can get is the earliest version of the story which was written down.  These versions are Sumerian.  For the later Noah story we have three antecedents in Ziusdra, Atrahasis and Gilgamesh.  The story containing the tale of Ziusdra is written in Sumerian cuneiform and dates to the 17th century BCE or the Middle Bronze Age.  By comparing the three tales we can see how the myth evolved even in written form.  The Noah variant is the last and thus the furthest from the original.  The same can be said of the Cain/Abel tale.  You might be able to ascertain the particular propaganda line that the person who re-wrote the story from a so-called "jewish" point of view but the bullshit of fundies aside, we have no indication that there were any "jews" in the modern sense of the word prior to the Persian period which began around 530 BC.  It always drives the fundies nuts when it is pointed out that the earliest versions we have of their so-called old testament are written in Greek - not Hebrew.  The ramifications of this are too much for them so we normally just get



this in response.

Here's another example of the Sumerian antecedents of bible tales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlul_b%C...%C4%93meqi

Ludlul bēl nēmeqi ("I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom"), also sometimes known in English as The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer, is a Mesopotamian poem (ANET, pp. 434–437) written in Akkadian that concerns itself with the problem of the unjust suffering of an afflicted man, named Shubshi-meshre-Shakkan. The author is tormented, but he doesn't know why. He has been faithful in all of his duties to the gods. He speculates that perhaps what is good to man is evil to the gods and vice versa. He is ultimately delivered from his sufferings.[

Remember that this pre-dates the book of Job by at least 1200 years.