Historical Events behind the Genesis Myth

www.sonsofgod-daughtersofmen.com...

6,000 years ago a group of people from a growing Neolithic culture migrated south of their homeland into a fertile valley tucked within the northern peaks of the Zagros Mountains.

They happened upon an existing agricultural community and were welcomed as friends.

A clash of cultures ensued that sparked a revolution and the most famous story of all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

It was the beginning of history for one culture, and the beginning of the end for another...
Angels? Demons? Extra-terrestrials? Survivors of Atlantis?

None of the above. The truth of the story is far more intriguing and tells of a greater mystery, a civilization whose roots reach into the past 40,000 years.

Great post and great link Sapph. I don't quite agree with everything they say but, they've got a pretty tight case anyways.

I see their claims... what I don't see is their evidence that proves their claims. They string together a number of newspaper stories and claim a theory.

That's kind of like stringing together a jewelry robbery in India in 1890 and a bank robbery in Tokyo in 1962 and a string of muggings in Seattle in 1970 and concluding that there's an international crime ring that's been going on for 120 years.

Their evidence just doesn't prove their statement.

Calling it history is going to get a real rise out of the historians, who work hard to bring an accurate picture of real history.

Time to post this again. With the methods of detecting age of fossils and so forth...they are inaccurate mostly. Plus...real proof of cavemen and such keeps getting debunked. Here is a little something I will post about radio-carbon dating:

Radiocarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should know how the technique works, its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we must understand how it works and consider the flood.

Most carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units. However, roughly one in a trillion carbon atoms weighs 14 atomic units. This carbon is called carbon-14. It is also called radiocarbon because it is radioactive (but not dangerous). Half of it will decay in about 5,730 years to form nitrogen. Half of the remainder will decay in another 5,730 years, and so on.

Cosmic radiation striking the upper atmosphere converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon (carbon-14). Most carbon-14 quickly combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which then spreads throughout the atmosphere. Plants take in carbon dioxide, incorporating in their tissues both carbon-14 (unstable) and normal carbon-12 (stable) in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere. Carbon-14 then moves up the various food chains to enter animal tissue�again, in about the same ratio carbon-14 has with carbon-12 in the atmosphere.

When a living thing dies, its radiocarbon loss (decay) is no longer balanced by intake, so its radiocarbon steadily decreases with a half-life of 5,730 years. If we knew the amount of carbon-14 in an organism when it died, we could attempt to date the time of death. The key questions then are: �Has the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 changed in the past, and if so, why and how much?� The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution1 was always the same�about one in a trillion. Actually, that ratio may have been quite different.

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available from decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere�s ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled, organic remains would appear 11,460 (2 x 5,730) years older, etc. Consequently, a �radiocarbon year� would not correspond to an actual year.

Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general, been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight.

Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result. Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases rapidly, just as we would expect in the centuries after a worldwide flood.

Tree-ring dating allows us to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past. Some types of trees growing at high elevations with a steady supply of moisture will reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year. A tree ring�s thickness depends on the tree�s growing conditions, which vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Trees of the same species that simultaneously grew within a few hundred miles of each other may have similar patterns. Trees of different species or trees growing in different environments have less similar patterns.

Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be correct. These claimed �long chronologies� begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods. This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes �missing� rings are added. Each tree ring�s width varies greatly around its circumference. Also, parts of a ring may be dead wood. Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit. However, tree-ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data, so others can do these statistical tests.

Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, a specimen�s carbon-14 atoms can now be actually counted, giving a more precise radiocarbon date with even smaller samples. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only estimates the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations.

This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen�even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new �accelerator mass spectrometer� technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10

Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those �radiocarbon years� correspond to a much younger true age.


Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction has now been confirmed.


Very precise measurements now show that most fossils�regardless of presumed �geologic age��have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. (This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.) Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time�less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.

Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate. Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years, which are typical of coal, probably have much younger true dates near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000 years ago.

While it is difficult to know precisely what happened in the greater Mesopotamian area 6,000 years, archeologists have been working there for over a hundred years and have pieced together a general, but fairly accurate picture of what transpired. This is, of course, hard evidence: pottery, weapons, ruins of structures, etc.

The other half of the picture comes from those who witnessed the events, those who wrote it onto clay tablets and, later, papyrus. For the longest time these stories have been viewed as pure myth by science, but they do match the hard evidence. And the Bible is only a small part of it.

The delicate part of this is that it strongly suggests the early biblical stories are literally true, but it is not what we�ve been told by 2,000 years of religious doctrine.

The symbol of the serpent crosses every race and culture and existed on every continent. A quick search on Encyclopedia Mythica (www.pantheon.org) for �serpent� clearly shows this. It is the oldest religious symbol known to man. The late Marija Gimbutis, renowned Lithuanian archeologist, spent her life studying the cultures of Old Europe. She found thousands of sculptures of the �mother goddess� (some as old as 40,000 years) as well as depictions of the serpent and the bird.

This, of course, is a broad overview. There�s substantially more detail concerning this matter.

The big mystery is how and why did these very early peoples develop this �serpent� religion? And how did it become so prevalent?

Regards
Ed M.

Originally posted by Ed
The symbol of the serpent crosses every race and culture and existed on every continent.

Err... not every culture.

A quick search on Encyclopedia Mythica (www.pantheon.org) for �serpent� clearly shows this. It is the oldest religious symbol known to man.

Funny you should mention that. I hopped on to give a link to a news item about the oldest carvings found that indicate a shamanic religion/practice. Would you believe that the OLDEST is actually not serpent but horse, bird, and (ready for this one?) a half-human/half-lion figure.

www.nature.com...
(one of many references.)

[Edited on 29-12-2003 by Byrd]

Thanks for the link, good article.

Yes, the bird is also ancient, but as cultures and religions progressed theses two icons seemed to have taken on different roles. In the Mayan, Egyptian, and Sumerian (to mention a few) culture the serpent was a badge of royalty.

Shamanic practices centered on a concept called the World Tree where the bird lives at it�s top, and the serpent, its roots. Mircea Eliade�s work, �Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy,� goes into depth concerning this matter. It evolved over the generations to include sons of god and/or angels in the middle branches; god himself lived at the top. This tradition is also worldwide as Eliade explains. This tree is mostly likely the original ideas behind the tree of knowledge (and life) in the Garden of Eden. (There really is no alternative here.)

Although the horse is an ancient icon it doesn�t seem to appear as part of a cosmology until later during the development of Indo-European culture, sometime around 7,000 BC. But more important was their view of the primary god as being a sky god.

It is quite clear that Indo-Europeans started the culture we know live in. It�s an encyclopedic fact that the vast majority of the world�s languages are based on a single Indo-European language. It could also be the case that the growing Indo-European culture selected the serpent as a way of referring to their cultural opponents. Or perhaps they preferred to fold it into their pantheon for reasons unknown to us today. Nevertheless, the serpent took on a significant role. It is prominent in Sumerian as well as Semitic texts. This is even apparent as late as the first century AD with the Christian Gnostics.


Ed M

Originally posted by Ed
Shamanic practices centered on a concept called the World Tree where the bird lives at it�s top, and the serpent, its roots.

Actually, that's Nordic practices only. You'll find that the shamanic practices of other places are much different and have a much different cosmology. I did some research on the god of Costa Rica called "El Grande Chaman" (The Great Shaman) and while birds and jaguars featured heavily, snakes did not. And there was no World Tree concept there.

It evolved over the generations to include sons of god and/or angels in the middle branches; god himself lived at the top.

Can you cite a group that believed this? It's vaguely similar to the Nordic beliefs, but not at all similar to the Hopi beliefs or Navajo beliefs or other shamanic beliefs.

This tree is mostly likely the original ideas behind the tree of knowledge (and life) in the Garden of Eden. (There really is no alternative here.)

I'm familiar with the Nordic myths and find it hard to believe. There's no intermediate lands that share this same (or similar) belief -- and it's certainly different from the beliefs of the Celts (no "garden of Eden" there)

Although the horse is an ancient icon it doesn�t seem to appear as part of a cosmology until later during the development of Indo-European culture, sometime around 7,000 BC. But more important was their view of the primary god as being a sky god.

We don't know that they had one primary god. Shamanism is not a monotheistic religion, but rather a quasi-polytheistic religion. I don't have all my references here, but the horse was an early magical creature.

It could also be the case that the growing Indo-European culture selected the serpent as a way of referring to their cultural opponents. Or perhaps they preferred to fold it into their pantheon for reasons unknown to us today. Nevertheless, the serpent took on a significant role. It is prominent in Sumerian as well as Semitic texts. This is even apparent as late as the first century AD with the Christian Gnostics.

Ehhh... sort of. The bull was a more important symbol, though:
www.atour.com...

The interesting thing about the lion-man is that it's quite consistant with other cave images (the famous "stag-man" shaman and other shamanic figures from the American Indians. In the Northwest, the bear is associated with this and there's no world tree:
home.san.rr.com...

and sheep, too...
home.sandiego.edu...

They're more consistant with El Grande Chaman than they are with the Norse beliefs (which really aren't true shamanism but are polytheism.)

It was the Celts to whom horses were magical figures/shamanic figures. Duh! Shame on me for forgetting that one!



(the Costa Rica research is currently unpublished, by the way. I'm not eligible for anthropological grants for another year; when that comes about, I'll apply for a Fullbright scholarship to go study El Grande Chaman in Costa Rica. Meanwhile I'm doing preliminary work on petroglyphs and some shamanic practices on Internet (therianthropes.) My profs will be thoroughly boggled by this.)

I doubt it that the World Tree and its companion idea of the World Pillar were absolutely everywhere. But I never said it was. While shamanism is found worldwide, of course their practices will vary according to specific cultures.

The Garden of Eden is specific to the Hebrew and in to some extent the Sumerian. Their symbolism is based on older religious traditions.

Anyway�

Best wishes for you and your studies

Even though I have my Faith in one God, and his Son Jesus Christ, I still am intrigued by Archeaology and its findings.

I honestly believe that many of the ancient texts found in the Old Testament are actual, physical events described metaphorically. However, archeaology has proven time and again that some events that have been labled as metaphorical, are actually real.

The story of Adam and Eve, I believe to be metaphorical. The story of Noah and the Flood, I'm still not sure. There is evidence, however, that based on our population number today, that the Flood did in fact happen, and it happened approximately 2300 B.C.

Stay with me now...

Excerpt from "The Signature of God", by Grant Jeffrey

Let us consider the growth rate of our human population to determine whether the Bible's account of man's creation only 6,000 years ago, or the evolutionary scientists' account of man's evolution over 1 million years is consistent with known scientific data. According to the Scriptures, eight people comprising four couples survived the Great Flood approximately 4,300 years ago as described in biblical chronology (estimated date: 2300 B.C.). To be conservative, we will make these calculations assuming that mankind started 4,300 years ago with only one surviving couple, and that all families produced only 2.5 children on average over the following centuries. This rate of population growth is much slower than we are experiencing in this century. If families produce only 2 children on average, then the population would remain static without any growth. This conservative assumption of an average of 2.5 children per family will allow for the natural depletion caused by war, famine and disease.

Throughout history, the average lifespan has lasted approximately 43 years per generation. Using these assumptions, during the last 4,300 years, there would have been 100 generations, lasting 43 years each. The calculations reveal that our population should have grown from the time of the Flood till today to reach approximately 6 billion people. It is fascinating to note that the Earth's population today (6.25 billion worldwide) is almost identical with what we would expect if mankind began repopulating the Earth after the Flood 4,300 years ago."

The text then goes on to describe how the evolution theory just doesn't work:

Now, let us consider what the Earth's population would be if the evolutionary theory were correct. The evolutionary scientists who believe that man has existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the same assumption of 43 years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple, 1 million years ago and use the same assumptions of a 43 year generation and 2.5 children per family. The calculations reveal that we should have a total human population on Earth today of 10 to the 2700th power. The evolutionary theory of a million years of growth would produce trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet."

Now, as I said, I haven't come to any conlusions of my own regarding the Flood. I'm not even sure as to how long man was in existence before the Flood. 40,000 years? That's an easier pill to swallow than 1 million. In other words, I can't just say that this website is a bunch of horse #. He offers some intriguing reading, but no evidence, sadly. I guess you have to buy the book for that.

Xenongod,

thanks for a good primer on why radio carbon aging methods are as accurate as using my thingy' as a ruler.

oops there goes much of archeology...

Originally posted by VeeTwin
(massive snippage)

Let us consider the growth rate of our human population ... According to the Scriptures, eight people comprising four couples survived the Great Flood approximately 4,300 years ago as described in biblical chronology (estimated date: 2300 B.C.). To be conservative, we will make these calculations assuming that mankind started 4,300 years ago with only one surviving couple, and that all families produced only 2.5 children on average over the following centuries.

(more massive snippage)

Throughout history, the average lifespan has lasted approximately 43 years per generation. Using these assumptions, during the last 4,300 years, there would have been 100 generations, lasting 43 years each. The calculations reveal that our population should have grown from the time of the Flood till today to reach approximately 6 billion people. It is fascinating to note that the Earth's population today (6.25 billion worldwide) is almost identical with what we would expect if mankind began repopulating the Earth after the Flood 4,300 years ago."

The text then goes on to describe how the evolution theory just doesn't work:

Now, let us consider what the Earth's population would be if the evolutionary theory were correct. The evolutionary scientists who believe that man has existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the same assumption of 43 years for an average human generation, the population growth over a million years would produce 23,256 consecutive generations.

(etc)

Which means that the Pyramids (built after the Flood, according to the Bible) were put together by around 300 men. The same busy 300 men also built the Sphynx (in their copious spare time) and while they were at it, set up five more pyramids plus several thousand smaller ones down in Ethiopia.

Then they and their 2.5 descendants built all the Egyptian tombs and temples along the Nile. When they were finished with that, hopped off to build the Greek temples, and Rome (and all the Roman cities plus Alexandria and Carthage and the large cities in India.

During nap time they rowed over to the United States and built the mound cities and got their 2.5 kids to stay there so that within 5 more generations after the pyramids they could start building the cities of the Anastazi and then the cities of the Aztec and Maya and Incas while another group ran off to build Ankor Wat and the great temples of Indonesia.

...and another bunch of reprobates ran off to China, split into two groups, and one got busy building the Great Wall (thousands of miles long) in a few years so the other could do some quick breeding and produce the Tartars and Vandals and Genghis Khan and start overrrunning civilization.

Uh... that math doesn't work out, y'know. I don't think you even need to buy the book to figure that one out.