Re: Genesis of the Humans

On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:

 The True loon lectured:
 

On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:

>
The True loon lectured:
>

The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of
Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve
were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the
origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
original source.
>

>
Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
>

>
The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place.

 That depends what you mean by “The Bible”. It isn’t one book
but a collection of many books written at different times and
based on different sources which in turn drew from different
traditions.
 There isn’t one single date when it was written.
 

Well obviously the Books of Maccabees were written much later than The Symposium given that they take place over 200 years later.
The real question is when was the first book of the Bible that was written written.
Most people have the silly idea that Genesis was written first but maybe it was written last and Maccabees was written before it.

The story
already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.

 That might be possible. Genesis is based on three sources: the
E source(Elohist), J source (Jahwist) and P source (Priestly).
And they all drew on earlier traditions and stories.
 

We know one of the sources was the story of the old woman that Socrates knew about and accused Aristophanes of plagiarising and there are other sources which are common to Plato's Timaeus. What you are referring to are not sources but alternate narratives. There's the main narrative of Genesis which is the most detailed and has Noah around at the time of the Flood and then there's an alternate version of Genesis which misses out most of the details of creation and glosses all over Adam and Eve while at the same time giving a shorter list of generations to the time of Noah and missing out all of dates of begetting and not even mentioning Noah at all but replacing him with 3 other individuals, Jobel, Jubal, and Thobel. After the Food and generations to Abraham it's just one narrative. The only variation is The Book of Jasher which is not part of the Bible. Jasher looks like its drawing upon Roman period sources of the same history and trying to fit in extra details into Genesis such as Moses being Governor of Cush. Form Jasher it's clear to see that they've taken well know Egyptian inscriptions even today and doctored them to fit the existing narrative of the Pentateuch.

It’s possible one of them might’ve taken something from the same
traditional story that Plato and friends used.
 But that still doesn’t mean that Plato’s version of the story is Biblical
canon. Genesis also drew on Mesopotamian creation myths like the
Enuma Elish. But that doesn’t make the Mesopotamian versions of
those myths canon. Why should Plato be any different?
 

Plato's version is taken from Phoenician texts (the ancient Greeks didn't have a clue about Mesopotamia) and that's where the Biblical version comes from too. Some of the Phoenician texts might have been based on Mesopotamian sources such as Gilgamesh for Noah's Ark, but the Greeks also use the story of the Ark in the story of the Deukalion Flood. Even Josephus and Eusebius identified Noah, Ogygus, Deukalion, and Jannus as being the same person.
Clearly there was a standard Egyptian history from which Manetho's account, that of Diodorus, that of Herodotus, that of the Bible, and that of Jasher all come from.
There was similarly a standard history of Syria-Palestine where the biblical events set there all derive from. This may have been the histories of Sanchuniathon from which the Judges figures Jerrubaal/Gideon and Abimelech come from and the Phoenician history of Menander translated into Greek.
There was also the history of the Hittites, Hurrians, and Mittani which is the probable source for the descendants of Shem (Shuttarna I) to Nahor (Naharin) all the way to Jacob. It could also be the source of the story of Adam and Eve given that Eden is Adana in Turkey and given the snake and ornamental garden motives is probably Gobekli Tepe.
Ham is probably based on Khamose from Egyptian history.
Japhet is clearly a corruption of Iapetus and Javan is Ion or Jannus and this is clearly based on chronologies and kings lists that were used by the Romans and also quoted by Nennius and in the Irish Book of Invasions. The Roman chronologies come from The Phrygia by Thymaetes as can be seen in Diodorus histories which demonstrates that this is the source of Ktesias Chaldanian and European histories and the source of Psedo-Berosus and Annius de Viterbe and this the source of The Travels of Noah Into Europe. The Irish Book of Invasions (including the kings of Scotland (literally Scythia/Scotia), and the Swedish, Nordic, and British kings before Brutus given by Nennius are probably using the same Scythian sources used by Herodotus.
For the kingdoms of Israel and Judea there is inscriptional evidence for.

>

And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
>

>
And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
>

 Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
all aware they’re fictional.
 

That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change gender during regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as reality in order to be believed.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." --William Shatner