For popular or very good threads
A member posted an interested article about Adam and Eve and other Mesopotamian myths (sorta reminds of the Christ Myth theory):

However, beneath the layers of faith and devotion lies an intriguing connection to earlier mythologies of Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization. It appears that the biblical account of Adam and Eve draws heavily from these ancient tales, suggesting that it is a reimagining rather than a historical reality.

In Mesopotamian mythology, we encounter the epic of Gilgamesh, a legendary hero whose adventures parallel those of Adam and Eve in surprising ways. The story of Gilgamesh includes a tale of a sacred plant that grants eternal youth, guarded by a serpent. Sound familiar? It's no coincidence that this motif reappears in the Garden of Eden, where a cunning serpent tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge.
Furthermore, the Mesopotamian myth of Enki and Ninhursag presents another intriguing parallel. In this tale, Enki, a god of wisdom, creates a garden and a human-like creature called "Adamu" from the dust of the earth. The similarities to the biblical story of Adam's creation from the dust are striking. It seems that the Hebrew authors borrowed elements from these older narratives to construct their own theological framework.

Considering these connections, it becomes increasingly apparent that the Adam and Eve story is not a historical account but a symbolic and cultural creation. It serves as a mythological explanation for the origins of humanity and the presence of sin and suffering in the world. While the historicity of Adam and Eve remains questionable, the story's enduring power lies in its capacity to explore complex philosophical and existential questions in an engaging and relatable manner.
Source: https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/the-origin-of-adam-amp-eve-will-blow-your-mind

Questions:
1. So, what is your verdict? True? False? Don't know either way?
2. What are the implications of Adam and Eve being myth story that was borrowed from other Mesopotamian myths? Does that make it false or unreliable?
3. Did the Jesus and the early Christians believe Adam and Eve to be real?
 
The story of Gilgamesh includes a tale of a sacred plant that grants eternal youth, guarded by a serpent. Sound familiar? It's no coincidence that this motif reappears in the Garden of Eden, where a cunning serpent tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge.
The Garden of Evil story is the better story, with the transgressive element and the seducing someone yo do the wrong thing.

It also has the “good” woman doing the “wrong” thing, but that’s been way overplayed esp. by the Bible! :p


PS Does a story need to include major transgressive elements to be interesting?

I kind of think, Yes.
 
The story of Gilgamesh includes a tale of a sacred plant that grants eternal youth, guarded by a serpent. Sound familiar? It's no coincidence that this motif reappears in the Garden of Eden, where a cunning serpent tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge.
The Garden of Evil story is the better story, with the transgressive element and the seducing someone yo do the wrong thing.
i had a prob with that, and while im unfort not near the guide that i had, the solution maybe lies with the pov; iow in not assuming that there was a literal serpent tempting Eve, but rather a mental-conceptual thing going on, w/ the serpent playing the role of “human wisdom” and Eve being the half of us that is susceptible to emotional appeals. or something.
It also has the “good” woman doing the “wrong” thing, but that’s been way overplayed esp. by the Bible! :p
There are no…male and female in the kingdom

which suggests that “woman” “sister” etc are not meant literally, as the direct statement “No good ever comes from a woman” (paraphrased) maybe even reinforces? Since of course a lot of good might come from an individual woman
PS Does a story need to include major transgressive elements to be interesting?

I kind of think, Yes.
ikr? funny how conflict is more interesting than kumbaya huh
 
Well, its usually characterized as a search for immortality?
Yes your explanation makes sense. I was also thinking about it from the view that says that a story is false/made up or myth because its copied or borrows from other stories. That view would not apply to the original/first creation account - the Enuma Elish.

This leads me into the first question...
1. So, what is your verdict? True? False? Don't know either way?
I don't think it's as simple as calling it a complete myth or something meant to be taken as literal.

One genre it might fit into is the 'historical myth':
Historical myths are told about a historical event, and they help keep the memory of that event alive. Ironically, in historical myths, the accuracy is lost but meaning is gained. The myths about the Trojan War, including the Iliad and the Odyssey, could be classified as historical myths. The Trojan War did occur, but the famous characters that we know from the Iliad and the Odyssey (Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector, etc.) probably did not exist.
Source: https://uen.pressbooks.pub/mythologyunbound/chapter/three-types-of-myth/#:~:text=Ironically, in historical myths, the,Achilles, Hector, etc.)

It's also good to keep in mind the implications to Christians and to skeptics. Christians would want to accept their creation account as literal because it explains 'original sin', and without it Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't make much sense. And of course skeptics dismiss the story because it is inconsistent with science and naturalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009
A member posted an interested article about Adam and Eve and other Mesopotamian myths (sorta reminds of the Christ Myth theory):

However, beneath the layers of faith and devotion lies an intriguing connection to earlier mythologies of Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization. It appears that the biblical account of Adam and Eve draws heavily from these ancient tales, suggesting that it is a reimagining rather than a historical reality.

In Mesopotamian mythology, we encounter the epic of Gilgamesh, a legendary hero whose adventures parallel those of Adam and Eve in surprising ways. The story of Gilgamesh includes a tale of a sacred plant that grants eternal youth, guarded by a serpent. Sound familiar? It's no coincidence that this motif reappears in the Garden of Eden, where a cunning serpent tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit of knowledge.
Furthermore, the Mesopotamian myth of Enki and Ninhursag presents another intriguing parallel. In this tale, Enki, a god of wisdom, creates a garden and a human-like creature called "Adamu" from the dust of the earth. The similarities to the biblical story of Adam's creation from the dust are striking. It seems that the Hebrew authors borrowed elements from these older narratives to construct their own theological framework.

Considering these connections, it becomes increasingly apparent that the Adam and Eve story is not a historical account but a symbolic and cultural creation. It serves as a mythological explanation for the origins of humanity and the presence of sin and suffering in the world. While the historicity of Adam and Eve remains questionable, the story's enduring power lies in its capacity to explore complex philosophical and existential questions in an engaging and relatable manner.
Source: https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/the-origin-of-adam-amp-eve-will-blow-your-mind

Questions:
1. So, what is your verdict? True? False? Don't know either way?
2. What are the implications of Adam and Eve being myth story that was borrowed from other Mesopotamian myths? Does that make it false or unreliable?
3. Did the Jesus and the early Christians believe Adam and Eve to be real?
im guessing the story was adapted from the earlier mythology, likely weaving kundalini (c 7000 bc or something) and other elements in. I guess we should prolly get a copy? I think i saw a DL of it for pretty cheap
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
Well, its usually characterized as a search for immortality?
Yes your explanation makes sense. I was also thinking about it from the view that says that a story is false/made up or myth because its copied or borrows from other stories. That view would not apply to the original/first creation account - the Enuma Elish.

This leads me into the first question...
1. So, what is your verdict? True? False? Don't know either way?
I don't think it's as simple as calling it a complete myth or something meant to be taken as literal.

One genre it might fit into is the 'historical myth':
Historical myths are told about a historical event, and they help keep the memory of that event alive. Ironically, in historical myths, the accuracy is lost but meaning is gained. The myths about the Trojan War, including the Iliad and the Odyssey, could be classified as historical myths. The Trojan War did occur, but the famous characters that we know from the Iliad and the Odyssey (Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector, etc.) probably did not exist.
Source: https://uen.pressbooks.pub/mythologyunbound/chapter/three-types-of-myth/#:~:text=Ironically, in historical myths, the,Achilles, Hector, etc.)

It's also good to keep in mind the implications to Christians and to skeptics. Christians would want to accept their creation account as literal because it explains 'original sin', and without it Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't make much sense.
true…but accepting that sacrifice puts one under the law, Under the law nearly every sin requires blood, as well as all the OT witness against one dying for the sins of another. Iow its perfect, since it addresses the prevalent belief in Cult of Sol, and tbh i rarely or never do what Scooter and i did, simply bc i would prefer that anyone who believes in…that kind of God would retain their beliefs, as at least some sort of leash on their behavior.

As a rule (as noted) you arent going to change their position anyway, and i honestly wish i hadnt chased him away now tbh
And of course skeptics dismiss the story because it is inconsistent with science and naturalism.
Well, wisdom is hidden from the wise i guess, and tbh i dont see any inconsistencies, as long as one doesnt insist upon their definitions? “Dust of the earth” could easily be just living cells, imo
 
Cont'd from post #4...Ancient myths that have some historical basis
Here's a Native American myth involving Crater Lake originating from a battle between gods:
The Creation of Crater Lake

When the first Europeans arrived in the Pacific Northwest, they heard a tale from the Klamath people about the creation of Crater Lake. The Native Americans would not gaze upon the lake, for to do so was to invite death. The lake, they said, had been created in a great battle between Llao, who ruled the Below World, and Skell, the chief of the Above World.
During the battle, darkness covered the land, and Llao, standing on Mount Mazama, and Skell, on Mount Shasta, threw rocks and flames. The fight ended when Mount Mazama collapsed and sent Llao back into the underworld. Rain filled in the remaining depression, forming a lake in the mountain’s place.

Bt but but...here's some historical basis for it....
Science: The tale the explorers heard was not far from the truth, though it wasn’t angry gods but a volcano, Mount Mazama, that erupted 7,700 years ago. “The oral traditions actually contain details about the explosion,” notes Mayor. Scientists now recognize that the Klamath tales describe a real event. Red-hot rocks do get flung through the sky during a volcanic eruption. The mountain did collapse to form a volcanic caldera that was filled in with rainwater.
Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-inspired-them-180950347/#YOrpRhmtefRSQppJ.99

I would imagine, Adam and Eve story applying. They were real figures but probably explained based on how the people back then understood the world. Even so, the question I have is how much of it is history or meant to be taken as such and how much is not.
 
Last edited:
I recommend everyone check out the article in my last post. It will help shed light on how some myths can be grounded in reality, which shows that some myths were just the ancient man's way of explaining things through their primitive and/or superstitious understanding. In other words, myths are not always about conveying some message in a symbolic (intentionally non-literal) way.

Given that there are different types of myth, then I would say that literary analysis alone is not always sufficient. One should also be open to finding evidence for such apparent myths, no matter how magical they sound.
 
Last edited:
I recommend everyone check out the article in my last post. It will help shed light on how some myths can be grounded in reality, which shows that some myths were just the ancient man's way of explaining things through their primitive and/or superstitious understanding. In other words, myths are not always about conveying some message in a symbolic (intentionally non-literal) way.

Given that there are different types of myth, then I would say that literary analysis alone is not always sufficient.
hence why hermeneutics is a fail, imo
One should also be open to finding evidence for such apparent myths, no matter how magical they sound.
Apparently the male/female urge in everyone was more of a thing then? Or maybe newer, so being explored or something? I just recently got onto the kundalini thing, after hearing the word for ten years or whatever. The comparison to Eve and the tree was striking, imo. And the dates seem right.