# Odin, Thor, and Loki are Babylonian deities!!



## Turanil (Apr 8, 2005)

I was googling around, searching info about the ancient Viking priests, when i found this article.

Really interesting!! and WEIRD!

It says that you can root back the Norse mythology back to biblical-babylonian sources...

The Old Testament Source of Norse Mythology 

I already did read somewhere something similar about the Celts of Irelands... But now the Norse too!


----------



## Enkhidu (Apr 8, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I was googling around, searching info about the ancient Viking priests, when i found this article.
> 
> Really interesting!! and WEIRD!
> 
> ...




I'd like to touch on this more deeply than saying that the Norse Pantheon meshes with Semitic myth only through intermediary cousin mythologies, but I'm afraid it would break the no religion rules if I did.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Apr 8, 2005)

I believe it mentions that in the article, too. It's an interesting idea, for sure.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 8, 2005)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> I'd like to touch on this more deeply than saying that the Norse Pantheon meshes with Semitic myth only through intermediary cousin mythologies, but I'm afraid it would break the no religion rules if I did.



 Interesting stuff - sounds like background for a Cthulhu game or something?  

As far as real life discussion goes, there was some discussion that the Irish Celtic goddess Morrigan (on a similar tack to the article the original poster linked to) was analagous (and spawned from) the Hindu Kali-Ma.  The Irish Celt Morrigan is thought to have eventually been anglicized into the Athurian Morganna le Fey, which, in short, means that Morganna le Fey's mythological roots are Indian.  

It was interesting stuff as a discussion of the evolution of religion and myth (and no, I'm not saying that religion(s) are myths).  However, the article this thread links to takes a somewhat dangerous (and scholarly dangerous) position as it insists that parallel ideas cannot evolve in disparate cultures, and that all myths must have been based on real people - none of which are necessarily true.  

NONETHELESS, it's interesting, and he really can't be proven *wrong.*  Of course, he can't be proven right, either, and the evidence in favor of his idea is hardly as conclusive as we might think.  

But it was a fun read. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 8, 2005)

Well, keep in mind, that's only one article on a website devoted to the idea that all of the European peoples are to be equated with the lost tribes of Israel.

I also won't say much about that except that, while it's certainly neither impossible nor unbelievable, nothing that our archeologists, anthropoligists, linguists or any other scientific discipline has ever uncovered has really supported that idea.  Despite that, it's been around for centuries.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 8, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff - sounds like background for a Cthulhu game or something?



Huh?  Why?  What's Lovecraftian or horror about anything there?


			
				The_Universe said:
			
		

> As far as real life discussion goes, there was some discussion that the Irish Celtic goddess Morrigan (on a similar tack to the article the original poster linked to) was analagous (and spawned from) the Hindu Kali-Ma.  The Irish Celt Morrigan is thought to have eventually been anglicized into the Athurian Morganna le Fey, which, in short, means that Morganna le Fey's mythological roots are Indian.



Whomever made that argument had to have been shockingly and embarrasingly ignorant for someone who passes themselves off as a scholar of that stripe.  Even some extremely casual research will show that both the Indians and the Celts spread southest and west respectively from the earlier Proto-Indo-European population of the Pontic-Caspian steppes of the Eneolithic and earliest Bronze Age.  You'd expect some correspondences, but they'd be shared inheritance.  Supposing that an Indian goddess migrated almost all the way across Eurasia when you can instead trace both back to a shared earlier culture is absurd.


----------



## fusangite (Apr 8, 2005)

Indeed. Indo-European studies is becoming a more and more important academic field as we discover that the original Indo-European culture didn't just produce linguistic cognates but mythic ones as well.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 8, 2005)

> Huh? Why? What's Lovecraftian or horror about anything there?



Single-source mythologies originating in the general region of Babylon?  The names of Gods being mere aliases for other "truer" beings?  

It's not like the article came out and said, "Oh, and Odin was a Squamous Tentacle Beast," or something, but it shares a certain perspective with the background of the Cthulhu mythos.  That's all I meant. 



> Whomever made that argument had to have been shockingly and embarrasingly ignorant for someone who passes themselves off as a scholar of that stripe. Even some extremely casual research will show that both the Indians and the Celts spread southest and west respectively from the earlier Proto-Indo-European population of the Pontic-Caspian steppes of the Eneolithic and earliest Bronze Age. You'd expect some correspondences, but they'd be shared inheritance. Supposing that an Indian goddess migrated almost all the way across Eurasia when you can instead trace both back to a shared earlier culture is absurd.



I didn't say it was a *good* argument, just a *similar* argument to the one the article that Turanil so kindly linked us to made.  

The "scholar" had said something along the lines of, "Well, their names are kind of similar, and they have vaguely similar portfolios of worship - so they must be the SAME THING!"


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 8, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Single-source mythologies originating in the general region of Babylon?  The names of Gods being mere aliases for other "truer" beings?
> 
> It's not like the article came out and said, "Oh, and Odin was a Squamous Tentacle Beast," or something, but it shares a certain perspective with the background of the Cthulhu mythos.  That's all I meant.



Oooh, that hadn't even occurred to me.  Cool idea.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 8, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oooh, that hadn't even occurred to me.  Cool idea.



 Glad to be of service!


----------



## Khayman (Apr 8, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> It's not like the article came out and said, "Oh, and Odin was a Squamous Tentacle Beast," or something, but it shares a certain perspective with the background of the Cthulhu mythos.  That's all I meant.




Of course not. That would be _Nodens_...


----------



## BOZ (Apr 8, 2005)

interesting...


----------



## Torm (Apr 8, 2005)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> I'd like to touch on this more deeply than saying that the Norse Pantheon meshes with Semitic myth only through intermediary cousin mythologies, but I'm afraid it would break the no religion rules if I did.



May as well.  Turanil broke the rule starting the thread in the first place - One of my patron G-ds, IRL, is the "Norse" Tyr.

But I won't get _my_ nose bent out of shape. The moderators may not like me saying this, but it looks to me like the REAL rule here isn't "no religion or politics", it is "be nice and respectful to one another." Which is just a good idea on or off the board.


----------



## Turanil (Apr 8, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Turanil broke the rule starting the thread in the first place



Well, I did not think speaking of Norse mythology and Babylonian mythology had anything to do with religion or politics. Well, it had to do with both religion and politics, but this was 2000 years ago. Now, IMO, Norse and Babylonian gods are just good to give flavor to a D&D campaign that don't use the default pantheon given in the PHB.  


(And it is certainly less religious / political than the one about the pope...)


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 8, 2005)

I'd say the thread is safe so far.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 8, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Well, I did not think speaking of Norse mythology and Babylonian mythology had anything to do with religion or politics. Well, it had to do with both religion and politics, but this was 2000 years ago.



C'mon, Turanil.  I know the thread title says Norse and Babylonian mythology, but didn't you read the article?  It's all about the children of Israel, contemporary Christianity and theories combining the two.

I mean, it's a pretty safe thread, but don't try to say it's not something that it clearly is, i.e., explicitly about religion.


----------



## Torm (Apr 8, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> (And it is certainly less religious / political than the one about the pope...)



True that.  

But there are followers of the older gods still around - we just wouldn't survive that way for long if we got bent out of shape every time Marvel put out an issue of Thor.  

Back on topic, did you know that the word "Viking" comes from the word "Vikti", which means "wise", and is the same root word for both "Vicar" and "Wicca"? It is as Fusangite pointed out - and it can have some very neat implications for campaign building, if one wishes to pursue them.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 8, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Indeed. Indo-European studies is becoming a more and more important academic field as we discover that the original Indo-European culture didn't just produce linguistic cognates but mythic ones as well.



Yeah, that's mostly the Georges Dumezil tripartate society theory and it's various spin-offs.  Although a fair number of folks are writing papers about it and have been for a good 15 years or so, it's only fair to point out that many Indo-Europeanists consider the entire line of reasoning to be specious, though.


----------



## tarchon (Apr 8, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Back on topic, did you know that the word "Viking" comes from the word "Vikti", which means "wise", and is the same root word for both "Vicar" and "Wicca"? It is as Fusangite pointed out - and it can have some very neat implications for campaign building, if one wishes to pursue them.



That's just one theory among a very large number. IMO, it's one of the more unlikely ones.


----------



## Henry (Apr 8, 2005)

Paraphrased from some Usenet sources at Usenet.com:



> Possible explanations for the word 'viking' are:
> 
> --Latin Vicus 'settlement'  Those who frequent settlements for trade or plunder
> --Norse 'vik' settlement/anchorage
> ...




I've also heard that to go "a-viking" meant to go travelling or raiding, but that one's a bit more apocryphal.


----------



## Torm (Apr 8, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> That's just one theory among a very large number. IMO, it's one of the more unlikely ones.



That's the beauty part of this - it _doesn't matter_ whether it is right or not, for our purposes here. It only matters that it is a theory with some manner of logical structure that one could potentially hang roleplaying elements on.

Although, the theory makes sense to me, in and of itself.


----------



## Enkhidu (Apr 8, 2005)

The OED holds that its built on the old norse "vic," (fjord, bay, inlet, or where the land meets water), and the saxons called them wicings (roughly "travelers"). In the Anglo-Saxon poems of the period, like the Battle of Malden, they were called invaders.

Easy to see where the origin gets muddy.


----------



## tarchon (Apr 8, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> That's the beauty part of this - it _doesn't matter_ whether it is right or not, for our purposes here. It only matters that it is a theory with some manner of logical structure that one could potentially hang roleplaying elements on.



It's the "Did you know" preface to a highly uncertain piece of information that ever draws my attention. Like "Did you know paladins suck?"


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 8, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Did you know paladins suck?



Yeah, I did.


----------



## Torm (Apr 8, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> It's the "Did you know" preface to a highly uncertain piece of information that ever draws my attention. Like "Did you know paladins suck?"



You're right, I shouldn't have said it that way. (You're *wrong* for your example, btw.  )

Did you know that 85% of all statistics are made up on the spot?


----------



## Enkhidu (Apr 8, 2005)

This whole thread is looking more and more like a dubious PSA.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 8, 2005)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> This whole thread is looking more and more like a dubious PSA.



Huh?  The Poulty Science Association?  A Puegot-Citroen?  The Professional Squash Association?  A Prostate Specific Antigen?


----------



## Torm (Apr 8, 2005)

Potato Survival Administration.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 9, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Back on topic, did you know that the word "Viking" comes from the word "Vikti", which means "wise"...




I did not know that.  What I knew was that the etymology of the word is a bit less clear.  

F'rex - it so happens that the Old Norse word for "creek" or "inlet" is _vik_.  The suffix "-ing" typically means "coming from" or "belonging to".  And thus a viking is one who goes messing about in creeks and inlets a lot.  Reasonable name for sea raiders.  More reasonable than "wiseguys".

Your "wise" version sounds cool, but somewhat less plausible, imho.


----------



## Torm (Apr 9, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I did not know that.  What I knew was that the etymology of the word is a bit less clear. <snip> Your "wise" version sounds cool, but somewhat less plausible, imho.



Yes. This point had been made. Thank you.


----------



## LiarsSmile (Apr 10, 2005)

*How odd..*

I recently started reading a series of books by A. A. Attanasio that deals with the similiar things. 
I haven't finished the first book yet but it is an interesting read.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Apr 10, 2005)

Like many things are, this article is True, False, and Irrelevent, all at the same time.

It is True because, yes, you can find many similarities between Norse myths and Christians myths.

It is False because most of the myths we have (at least here in the US) are from the 11th century from that one dude in Iceland -- Snorri Snurlson, if I remember correctly, which I may not.  He was a Christian monk.  His stories are know to be tinged by his belief but, last time I checked, it wasn't know *how much* of the stories were tinged by his beliefs and how many of them were accurate to actual pre-Christian Norse beliefs.  Add that most of the Norse had been Christianized for centuries at that point, and the authenticity of the stories is really in question.

It is Irrelevent because *all* ancient religions, of the Old World, at least, were influenced by each other.  Kali, the Indian goddess that wears the skirt made of human heads, and who had the Thuggees as her worshippers, is the SAME mother goddess that the Wiccans worship.  One had followers who strangled people and burried them at crossroads; the other has worshippers who eat veggie burgers.  But, when you trace them back, they're different aspects of the same goddess.

The author of the article suffers the failing that many specialists have.  They know their specialty and can see the connections to other disciplines.  What they fail to see is the myriad of other connections that exist, making their tiny snapshot of the facts both quiant and irrelevent.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 10, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> It is Irrelevent because *all* ancient religions, of the Old World, at least, were influenced by each other.  Kali, the Indian goddess that wears the skirt made of human heads, and who had the Thuggees as her worshippers, is the SAME mother goddess that the Wiccans worship.  One had followers who strangled people and burried them at crossroads; the other has worshippers who eat veggie burgers.  But, when you trace them back, they're different aspects of the same goddess.




Wha? I think it's a pretty shifty argument to claim that an ancient indian goddess is the exact same as that of a religion(Wicca) that is about 60 years old. Plus, the idea of a common, pan-european mother goddess isn't an idea that has been accepted by historians or archaeologists in any fashion.

Thematic commonalities? Sure. Influence upon each other in the ancient world? Sure. But to say that they're the same entity is about the same as calling Odin, Ra and YHWH the same entity. Again, spurious IMHO.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Apr 10, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> Like many things are, this article is True, False, and Irrelevent, all at the same time.
> 
> It is True because, yes, you can find many similarities between Norse myths and Christians myths.
> 
> ...




I think you hit the nail on the head.  
Nearly any culture or religion on earth can be compared to another one and indeed seem very similar.  This is because we're all human and live on the same planet therefore we all think in a similar way.  This is also becuase cultures interact with one another and spread ideas.


----------



## Algolei (Apr 10, 2005)

Cyberzombie said:
			
		

> It is False because most of the myths we have (at least here in the US) are from the 11th century from that one dude in Iceland -- Snorri Snurlson, if I remember correctly, which I may not.  He was a Christian monk.  His stories are know to be tinged by his belief but, last time I checked, it wasn't know *how much* of the stories were tinged by his beliefs and how many of them were accurate to actual pre-Christian Norse beliefs.  Add that most of the Norse had been Christianized for centuries at that point, and the authenticity of the stories is really in question.



Yeah.

I like Rydberg's Teutonic Mythology (http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/).  Lotsa interesting ideas, including some stuff about Hel and Urd--he argues that they are the same individual in earlier myths, and that Loki's daughter was not named Hel but rather Leikin.  (The name Hel was transferred to her due to its similarity with the Christian Hell.)

I've used the info in it to modify my D&D-campaign Norse mythology.


----------



## Torm (Apr 10, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> But to say that they're the same entity is about the same as calling Odin, Ra and YHWH the same entity. Again, spurious IMHO.



Depends on what you mean. If you mean that that there are separate entities by those names, certainly. But if you accept that philosophical and religious intertwining has resulted in intermingling of those entities, then it may be argued that they are the same NOW. And if you believe in an overdeity who is the total of all that is and isn't in the universe, who is divided into many perspectives, such as Odin, Ra, the Tetragrammaton, Shemeska, Torm, chair, proton, etc. - and specifically by a name that I will not mention for fear of offending some of our Jewish friends here - like I happen to, then it isn't spurious at all.

It's just a matter of your point of view. [/Obi-Wan]


----------



## Thotas (Apr 11, 2005)

I'm going to have to join the camp of "Those ideas might be great for the plot of a game, but not to be taken seriously in real-life".  The All-Father that Snorri refers to as surviving Ragnarok, for example; as pointed out, the transcriber of the myths was a Christian monk.  And as a Christian monk, can't have that over-god be one of the Aesir.  But we all know a story from Germanic origins about somebody getting swallowed whole by a wolf, but survives because the wolf is cut in half right after.  Likewise, after the Fenris Wolf swallowed Odin, his son Vidar immediately ripped the wolf in half ... so it would seem to me that, like the little girl who stole the plot, Odin, who is known as the All-father, wouldn't have died.  Yes, I am saying I think the jarl of the Norse gods has more in common with Little Red Riding Hood than he does with Ra and YHWH.

And if every group that was supposed to be the lost tribes of Israel were the lost tribe of Israel, then everyone is a Jew.  Not that there would be anything wrong with that per se, it's just not true.

If you're looking for an explanation for civilization springing up so suddenly in so many different places, with little archaeological evidence of it being built up as slowly as one would think, and each of those having a story of a flood that almost destroyed civilization in it's early days, I recommend a book called "Noah's Flood", I forget the authors but I'm sure Amazon dot com will know.  It's got an interesting theory, not proven by a long shot, but so far as I know it's not disproven; and it seems credible.  I would synopsize the idea here, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be breaking a rule or two.


----------



## Torm (Apr 11, 2005)

Not sure if that was in response to what I said at all, but I wasn't suggesting that mankind sprang into being in one place - I was suggesting that perhaps the gods that created (or divided into, or just guided?) mankind, in many different places, all come from a common place (or more to the point, are components of the same greater entity, as we are, albeit smaller ones) themselves.

If that were the case, it would make since for certain themes to recur throughout all of the diverse cultures, to greater or lesser extents. Then again, the shared experience of simply being human may be enough to ensure that, regardless.

But don't mind me. I have been known to be 37 different suburbs of Crazytown.


----------



## Ds Da Man (Apr 11, 2005)

Reminds me of the dragons show on Animal Planet, showing how many different civilizations, who didn't really have connections, still had artistic representaions of dragons, and they all looked fairly close. Big lizard, flying, etc...


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 11, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> And if every group that was supposed to be the lost tribes of Israel were the lost tribe of Israel, then everyone is a Jew.  Not that there would be anything wrong with that per se, it's just not true.



Just to be nitpicky, the lost tribes are not the Jews.  The Jews are the tribe of Judah, and were never lost.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 11, 2005)

> If you're looking for an explanation for civilization springing up so suddenly in so many different places, with little archaeological evidence of it being built up as slowly as one would think, and each of those having a story of a flood that almost destroyed civilization in it's early days, I recommend a book called "Noah's Flood", I forget the authors but I'm sure Amazon dot com will know. It's got an interesting theory, not proven by a long shot, but so far as I know it's not disproven; and it seems credible. I would synopsize the idea here, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be breaking a rule or two.



Please post it - as long as the discussion (I think) is just about the possibilities, not about the right/wrong aspect and doesn't degenerate into personal attacks, we should be A-OK.  I think it's relevent to the discussion...


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 11, 2005)

On a similar note, Fingerprints of the Gods by Graham Hancock makes much of recurring mythic (and architectural) themes in order to STRONGLY HINT that humans have extraterrestrial origins (and thus share a single common history, rather than multiple simultaneous civilizing influences).

I tend to think it's crap, but it might resonate seriously with some of you - and, as with the original post, it makes for interesting background for a game, regardless of truth or falsehood.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 11, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I tend to think it's crap,




So does pretty much the entire historical and archaeological establishment if it makes you feel any better 

And so do I


----------



## Algolei (Apr 11, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> If you're looking for an explanation for civilization springing up so suddenly in so many different places, with little archaeological evidence of it being built up as slowly as one would think, and each of those having a story of a flood that almost destroyed civilization in it's early days, I recommend a book called "Noah's Flood", I forget the authors but I'm sure Amazon dot com will know.  It's got an interesting theory, not proven by a long shot, but so far as I know it's not disproven; and it seems credible.  I would synopsize the idea here, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be breaking a rule or two.



Is that the argument that all major civilizations, which seem to have sprung up out of no where, settled near high mountains?  Being near high mountains is evidence that the seeds of each civilization were remnants of a Great Flood:  Just like Noah's ark, each of them came to rest atop a mountain, then descended to the low lands to create a settlement.


----------



## Torm (Apr 11, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I tend to think it's crap, but it might resonate seriously with some of you -



If you mean it might resonate with the stuff _I'm_ saying, bear in mind that I don't believe ANYTHING that contradicts scientific Theories (note the cap T). My beliefs exist in the gaps of that knowledge only - for purposes of fun, moral reinforcement, and spiritual wonkiness.  If good science were to directly prove wrong or even shed serious doubt on any of what I believe (which would be pretty impressive, since it is about as far removed from anything science can currently touch as you can get), I would expect to revise my understanding of my beliefs, not science.  Currently, though, science seems to find more and more that AGREES with my beliefs all the time - but that may change, I suppose.

The only reason I suggested separate acts of Creation by separate gods for separate peoples of the world isn't because I believe it, but because plenty of people (possibly here) that I wouldn't wish to disrespect DO. I believe evolution. I just happen to believe that it (and many other aspects of the world) is happening on a program, and that perhaps _that program_ was influenced by many entities.

And some of the stuff in those books, if they are the ones I am thinking, flies in the face of good science. Of course, as you pointed out, they still might make interesting reading for gaming materials.  

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the "lost tribes" were lost because they died out from war and other causes and/or were taken into the other tribes and lost their separate identities. If you want a better Biblical source that definitively says there were people in other lands ASIDE from the decendents of Adam, look to where Cain and Seth found their wives.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 11, 2005)

> If you mean it might resonate with the stuff I'm saying, bear in mind that I don't believe ANYTHING that contradicts scientific Theories (note the cap T).



My statement was not directed to any particular poster - I was just trying to follow the forum rules, and let everyone know that if it was something that you hung your theological hat on, that was cool with me.  



> My beliefs exist in the gaps of that knowledge only - for purposes of fun, moral reinforcement, and spiritual wonkiness. If good science were to directly prove wrong or even shed serious doubt on any of what I believe (which would be pretty impressive, since it is about as far removed from anything science can currently touch as you can get), I would expect to revise my understanding of my beliefs, not science. Currently, though, science seems to find more and more that AGREES with my beliefs all the time - but that may change, I suppose.



I don't think that you and I probably have a single major religious belief in common (from what little I can gather), but I can totally agree with you on this statement. 



> The only reason I suggested separate acts of Creation by separate gods for separate peoples of the world isn't because I believe it, but because plenty of people (possibly here) that I wouldn't wish to disrespect DO. I believe evolution. I just happen to believe that it (and many other aspects of the world) is happening on a program, and that perhaps that program was influenced by many entities.



Can't prove that it is/was, and you can't prove that it isn't/wasn't. 



> And some of the stuff in those books, if they are the ones I am thinking, flies in the face of good science. Of course, as you pointed out, they still might make interesting reading for gaming materials.



 Oh yeah - some of it would be instantly dismissed by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the subjects the author touches on.  

A







> lso, unless I'm mistaken, the "lost tribes" were lost because they died out from war and other causes and/or were taken into the other tribes and lost their separate identities. If you want a better Biblical source that definitively says there were people in other lands ASIDE from the decendents of Adam, look to where Cain and Seth found their wives.



 I don't think the bible definitively states where and how they came to find wives.  I admit, however, that you have to do some interesting theological tapdancing to reconcile that part of the story with the earlier portions.  

Interestingly, the bible doesn't seem to conclusively state that all of humanity descended from Adam until _after_ the Flood - at which point, all humanity (according to the Bible, believe or not as you please) would have descended from Noah, since only he and his sons (and their families) survived.  Incidentally, that also means that they descended from Adam (since Noah was a descendent of his) but the bottleneck is really in a different place than most people actually think.


----------



## Torm (Apr 11, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Can't prove that it is/was, and you can't prove that it isn't/wasn't.



Exactly - makes a nice safe place to stick a belief. 



			
				The_Universe said:
			
		

> I don't think that you and I probably have a single major religious belief in common (from what little I can gather)



If you believe (as many religious people do) in the divinity of Christ, we do - but our thought paths to get us to that conclusion are probably vastly different. And since the devil is in the details, and I'd like not to be devil's advocate, I'll leave it at that. 



			
				The_Universe said:
			
		

> I don't think the bible definitively states where and how they came to find wives.  I admit, however, that you have to do some interesting theological tapdancing to reconcile that part of the story with the earlier portions.



Not really, if you read it in the original languages involved - translation is a strange thing, sometimes. I'd recommend looking specifically at the different words that are translated into English as "G-d". If you'd like more detail about what I mean by that, email me: torm1975@bellsouth.net.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 11, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Also, unless I'm mistaken, the "lost tribes" were lost because they died out from war and other causes and/or were taken into the other tribes and lost their separate identities.



No, the lost tribes were literally lost.  They were carried off and relocated by several different entities including the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Persians at various points, and some of the tribes literally got lost in the shuffle, whereas during the reign of (IIRC Darius) the Jews, who were _not_ lost, were allowed to resettle Canaan/Palestine/Israel.  Some apocryphal sources of the Bible indicate that they fled to "the land northward" but very little detail is given.  And that's exactly why theories like the one espoused by this Ensign group, whomever they are, have had various degrees of support for a long time.  The lost tribes went north.  The Europeans are to the north.  The Europeans wanted to stake a claim to being affiliated with the Chosen People.  There were various traditions of Israelitic settlements in Britain and other places.  Etc. etc.  Torm, you don't mind if I e-mail you too, right?  I'm curious about continuing this discussion; it's been an object of some interest of mine for many years.  I don't claim to be an expert on Biblical archeology by any stretch of the word, but I'm always interested in a discussion.


----------



## Torm (Apr 11, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Torm, you don't mind if I e-mail you too, right?  I'm curious about continuing this discussion; it's been an object of some interest of mine for many years.  I don't claim to be an expert on Biblical archeology by any stretch of the word, but I'm always interested in a discussion.



Not at all - and that goes for anyone else, too. Come one come all. If you want polite discussion, excellent. If you want to be abusive, that can be fun, too - I like having people who give me an excuse to be mean in new and inventive ways.  

[shameless plug]Actually, if anyone wants to have conversations that border on breaking the rules for religion or politics _here_ on a forum, you can always go over to www.minioninc.com, get an acc't, and start a thread. Please use your ENWorld screenname for clarity, though. I'm "Baron_von_Brueger" there - don't ask. I'll pick up another acc't labelled Torm if any of these conversations pop up. It is sparsely populated, presently. But be warned - Eric's grandmother would have a coronary. There are almost NO rules there. And don't mind "Meca-Jesus" - he's like that with _everyone_.[/shameless plug] 

Or, if you just want to email, cool. Either way.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 11, 2005)

Well, I gambled and went ahead and sent you an email before I saw your response.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 11, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Not sure if that was in response to what I said at all, but I wasn't suggesting that mankind sprang into being in one place - I was suggesting that perhaps the gods that created (or divided into, or just guided?) mankind, in many different places, all come from a common place (or more to the point, are components of the same greater entity, as we are, albeit smaller ones) themselves.
> 
> If that were the case, it would make since for certain themes to recur throughout all of the diverse cultures, to greater or lesser extents. Then again, the shared experience of simply being human may be enough to ensure that, regardless.





I think people did start in one area. And then spread out over the years/millenia. And they took their customs with them and over over many more years, the customs got altered/changed due to the distance from the original source. Or adapted to the land they lived in. The human race is one that adapts fairly quickly to their surroundings. 



> But don't mind me. I have been known to be 37 different suburbs of Crazytown.




 What else is new? Considering what you've been thru. Most *would* be nutso after that.  :\


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 11, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Exactly - makes a nice safe place to stick a belief.




Most beliefs can't be correlated by science. It's a "nice" shady grey area. And not all people would want their beliefs analyzed by science. 




> If you believe (as many religious people do) in the divinity of Christ, we do - but our thought paths to get us to that conclusion are probably vastly different. And since the devil is in the details, and I'd like not to be devil's advocate, I'll leave it at that.




Ain't that the truth!  :\ His is the *most* convoluted path I've *ever* seen! I've been raised going to church for most of my life. 

And considering the "source" of the devil "calling the kettle black" in at least one instance....   But that's all *I* will say to that.   




> Not really, if you read it in the original languages involved - translation is a strange thing, sometimes. I'd recommend looking specifically at the different words that are translated into English as "G-d". If you'd like more detail about what I mean by that, email me: torm1975@bellsouth.net.




There was no doubt, one language at one time until the incident at the Tower of Babel. Then we now have the multitude of languages that we have now, with some changes/deletions/additions/modifications/mutations over the millenia since that event. And there are quite a few similarities with at least some of the languages. Even from one side of the world to the other.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 11, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Not at all - and that goes for anyone else, too. Come one come all. If you want polite discussion, excellent. If you want to be abusive, that can be fun, too - I like having people who give me an excuse to be mean in new and inventive ways.




And Torm joins the circus.....   



> [shameless plug]Actually, if anyone wants to have conversations that border on breaking the rules for religion or politics _here_ on a forum, you can always go over to www.minioninc.com, get an acc't, and start a thread. Please use your ENWorld screenname for clarity, though. I'm "Baron_von_Brueger" there - don't ask. I'll pick up another acc't labelled Torm if any of these conversations pop up. It is sparsely populated, presently. But be warned - Eric's grandmother would have a coronary. There are almost NO rules there. And don't mind "Meca-Jesus" - he's like that with _everyone_.[/shameless plug]
> 
> Or, if you just want to email, cool. Either way.




I'd rather not go to a place where there's no doubt a bunch of flame wars over religious "debates". I've seen enough of that at times on a "Star Trek Off-Topic" board here on AOhell. Usually between an Islamic and a "Rabid" Christian (she loves to bash anyone and anything that goes against her beliefs, rather than professing tolerance as one should do. One should love one another, not try to bite their heads off.


----------



## Torm (Apr 11, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I'd rather not go to a place where there's no doubt a bunch of flame wars over religious "debates".



Actually, it isn't that bad, except in the Warzone. It's a board run by my sort-of sister (complicated - what ISN'T?  ) and her husband for some of our "family" (not much of our actual blood, but our adopted families) and friends. I figure that includes anyone who would be paying attention to my posts here.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 11, 2005)

> If you believe (as many religious people do) in the divinity of Christ, we do - but our thought paths to get us to that conclusion are probably vastly different. And since the devil is in the details, and I'd like not to be devil's advocate, I'll leave it at that.



 Interesting. I had you pegged at least partially incorrectly. Now I *am* interested. But best not to get into it here...


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 12, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Interesting. I had you pegged at least partially incorrectly. Now I *am* interested. But best not to get into it here...





True. It's one helluva dissertation, I'll tell ya that.....


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 12, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Actually, it isn't that bad, except in the Warzone. It's a board run by my sort-of sister (complicated - what ISN'T?  ) and her husband for some of our "family" (not much of our actual blood, but our adopted families) and friends. I figure that includes anyone who would be paying attention to my posts here.





"Sort-of sister"? 

Sorta like a new family after where you told the real ones to go?   Heck. I'd love to tell my "father" that. The non-existant SOB.

Especially those who you're imitating Pepe Le Pew with.....


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 12, 2005)

And as for "Meca-Jesus" ,or anyone else for that matter, if he got out of hand, I have a "little" gift for him:


----------



## Thotas (Apr 12, 2005)

Josh, you're right, I should have said "Semites" to be techniclly accurate.  You're also right that it's nitpicky.    

Torm, my post was not in response to your post specificly, it was a general comment.

Since I've been asked, I will lay out the bottom line of the book I mentioned.  I figure if I am a little over the quidelines, my defense is that a couple of people openly asked and I tried to be good.     What it comes down to is that the Flood waters never did recede; Noah's flood is pretty much the Black Sea.  It seems that the Bosphorus had a natural dam in (geologicly) recent times.  That dam finally burst, and filled up the valley below to create the Black Sea.  Unfortunately for humanity, that's where we decided to begin the process of civilization.  The protocivilization had to flee in all directions, carrying with them some common cultural ideas and a story about a disastrous flood that ended the world (as they knew it, anyway).  They discus some interesting evidence (but admittedly not yet proof) in geology, archaeology and mythography to back it up.  If anyone decides to persue it further, I hope you'll find it interesting, whether you think it's credible or not.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 12, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> Josh, you're right, I should have said "Semites" to be techniclly accurate.  You're also right that it's nitpicky.



Yes, it is.    And to add to the flame, Semites is too broad.  It would include the Arabs, the Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Phoenicians, among others, which isn't what you had in mind, I don't think.  The Hebrews or the Israelites would work, though.


----------



## Thotas (Apr 12, 2005)

Arabs are included in Semites?  So an anti-Semite would include Arabs in their prejudice?  Now that I didn't know.  I'd only heard the word "semite" in the Hebrew/Isrealite context.  Thanks for the info.  'Cause, truth to tell, I've got kind of a nitpicky nature, too.


----------



## jester47 (Apr 12, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> Josh, you're right, I should have said "Semites" to be techniclly accurate.  You're also right that it's nitpicky.
> 
> Torm, my post was not in response to your post specificly, it was a general comment.
> 
> Since I've been asked, I will lay out the bottom line of the book I mentioned.  I figure if I am a little over the quidelines, my defense is that a couple of people openly asked and I tried to be good.     What it comes down to is that the Flood waters never did recede; Noah's flood is pretty much the Black Sea.  It seems that the Bosphorus had a natural dam in (geologicly) recent times.  That dam finally burst, and filled up the valley below to create the Black Sea.  Unfortunately for humanity, that's where we decided to begin the process of civilization.  The protocivilization had to flee in all directions, carrying with them some common cultural ideas and a story about a disastrous flood that ended the world (as they knew it, anyway).  They discus some interesting evidence (but admittedly not yet proof) in geology, archaeology and mythography to back it up.  If anyone decides to persue it further, I hope you'll find it interesting, whether you think it's credible or not.




The best explanation I have ever found for a global flood is a comet impact in the pacific.  (and I am talking a big impact).  Such an impact would probably not leave a crater, but it would disrupt the atmosphere and kick up enough water to drown continents.  The Bible states that Noah worked on the Ark for 120 years.  Most comets have orbits and are visible regularly.  I propose that one comet was seen every 120 years.  Figureing out that the earth is round is not that hard.  The greeks suspected it, as did I think the chineese.  Once you understand that the sun is stationary, and the earth is round you can then begin to track the movements of the other planets acccurately.  I believe on one pass someone was able to calculate that the next pass would be an impact.  The boat I suspect was set up to do two things:  Act as a place to weather the results of a ground impact or should it be a water impact float the occupants to safety.  I think anything is possible.


----------



## tarchon (Apr 12, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> Arabs are included in Semites?  So an anti-Semite would include Arabs in their prejudice?  Now that I didn't know.  I'd only heard the word "semite" in the Hebrew/Isrealite context.  Thanks for the info.  'Cause, truth to tell, I've got kind of a nitpicky nature, too.



Arabs thus tend to express much consternation when accused of anti-Semitism.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 12, 2005)

Thotas said:
			
		

> Arabs are included in Semites?  So an anti-Semite would include Arabs in their prejudice?  Now that I didn't know.  I'd only heard the word "semite" in the Hebrew/Isrealite context.  Thanks for the info.  'Cause, truth to tell, I've got kind of a nitpicky nature, too.



When using the term anti-Semite, you're probably meaning anti-Jew.  I've never heard anti-Semite used any other way.  But technically, Semite and Semitic are linguistic designations, and do include all the groups I mentioned above.  Here's the Wikipedia article on it.


----------



## Torm (Apr 12, 2005)

The sons of Noah were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Decendents of Shem are considered "S(h)emitic), and include the Hebrews, Assyrians, Aramaeans, and Arabs. Decendents of Ham are "Hamitic", and this includes much of northeastern Africa, including the Ethiopians. Decendents of Japheth are "Japhetic", but are more commonly known as Indo-European.

Source: Asimov's Guide To The Bible. An _excellent_ book.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 12, 2005)

Well, the modern usage of the term doesn't exactly match the Biblical one.  There are population groups that Biblically would have been considered Hamitic, but linguistically (today) are called Semitic, for instance.

But the modern linguistic term is derived from the Biblical one, at least.


----------



## Torm (Apr 12, 2005)

You mean like the way the Bible goes out of the way to specify that Canaanites are Hamitic, rather than Semitic, because they had long been conquered by Egypt at the time that part of the Bible was written?  

Asimov goes into a lot more detail than I did - my summary above was brief for our purposes here, but really does his book very little justice.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 12, 2005)

Ah, yes, that specifically.    Say, this Asimov isn't any relation to some guy who had a thing about robots, is he?


----------



## Torm (Apr 12, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, that specifically.    Say, this Asimov isn't any relation to some guy who had a thing about robots, is he?



One and the same.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 12, 2005)

jester47 said:
			
		

> The best explanation I have ever found for a global flood is a comet impact in the pacific.  (and I am talking a big impact).  Such an impact would probably not leave a crater, but it would disrupt the atmosphere and kick up enough water to drown continents.  The Bible states that Noah worked on the Ark for 120 years.  Most comets have orbits and are visible regularly.  I propose that one comet was seen every 120 years.  Figureing out that the earth is round is not that hard.  The greeks suspected it, as did I think the chineese.  Once you understand that the sun is stationary, and the earth is round you can then begin to track the movements of the other planets acccurately.  I believe on one pass someone was able to calculate that the next pass would be an impact.  The boat I suspect was set up to do two things:  Act as a place to weather the results of a ground impact or should it be a water impact float the occupants to safety.  I think anything is possible.




Only problem is that there's no evidence of a mass extinction during the (geologically) modern human era. I can certainly keep my mind open to the various flood myths having originated with some local mass flooding that evolved over the subsequent centuries as it was absorbed by other cultures. However a comet strike would leave evidence, much as a severe meteor strike would. We'd notice a global sediment layer perhaps, or find mass deaths of non specific species during that postulated time period, etc. And there's no evidence for that so far as it concerns the period of modern humanity, unless you go with created humans living with dinosaurs in the absence of evolution at which point I'll have to disagree wholly with you and remain polite about it.

As far as I'm concerned, alot of pre-Abrahamic material is summed up with one word: metaphor. That's my opinion anyway, you can feel free to disagree.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 12, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Only problem is that there's no evidence of a mass extinction during the (geologically) modern human era.



Nonsense.  There most certainly is such evidence.  It's *usually* attributed to the end of the last glacial epoch and global climate changes, though.  And the timing isn't precise.  Some people believe that fauna like mammoths and such were still alive in the New World as recently as a few thousand years -- or even less -- ago.

Now, nobody I know of seriously is positing that this extinction event had anything to do with the Flood... but I can't think of any reason why someone _couldn't_ posit that.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 12, 2005)

*Regarding Floods...*

While there may not be any geological/paleontological evidence of a massive human extinction, there most certainly *is* geological evidence aplenty for massive shifts in planetary water levels throughout the history of the human race. All those ruins you read about that people find hiding at the bottom of the sea(s) weren't built by ancient scuba divers.  

Further, just because you don't have a recorded instance of a major human kill-off doesn't mean that it could not have happened. You're operating under the idea that the human race was widespread - but when the population of humanity was relatively new (and hadn't dispersed to the four winds) a flood could have destroyed a significant amount of the total human population and still not have made a dent in the fossil record. 

Now, does that mean that it happened? No. 

Does it mean it *could* have? Absolutely.


----------



## The_Universe (Apr 12, 2005)

> As far as I'm concerned, alot of pre-Abrahamic material is summed up with one word: metaphor. That's my opinion anyway, you can feel free to disagree.



As a general rule, I think that most of the stuff you're talking about here actually happened, at least from the perspective of the people recording it. I tend to think that there was a flood, etc. 

My rationalization is that I tend to imagine that the timelines are *way* off. Even with the Bible (apparently) drastically inflating ages as we understand them to work today, it still works out to be - what? - a 7-8,000 year old world? 

I tend to think that the order is correct, and that most of the events are basically true...but if you tell me that X event really happened more years before Z even than the bible says, I'd not be disturbed in the slightest. 

As always, YMMV!


----------



## Torm (Apr 12, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, alot of pre-Abrahamic material is summed up with one word: metaphor. That's my opinion anyway, you can feel free to disagree.



Asimov (I know I keep bringing this up, but its a GOOD book. About the Good Book.  ) thought that generally, before Abraham, anytime you saw people referred to - Ham, Shem, and Japheth, for example - that those were iconic representatives of a particular tribe, rather than actual people, and that the begats in those parts reflected tribes that separated and came out of other tribes.

If that were true, there would be a LOT of metaphor involved.


----------



## tarchon (Apr 12, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Asimov (I know I keep bringing this up, but its a GOOD book. About the Good Book.  ) thought that generally, before Abraham, anytime you saw people referred to - Ham, Shem, and Japheth, for example - that those were iconic representatives of a particular tribe, rather than actual people, and that the begats in those parts reflected tribes that separated and came out of other tribes.
> 
> If that were true, there would be a LOT of metaphor involved.



That's more or less the usual modern interpretation, not unique or original to Asimov. Personified tribal eponym stories are so common in ancient literature (and "oral traditions") that it could almost be considered a genre. The degree to which ancient contemporaries viewed them as factual is unclear, though it probably was a matter of personal opinion much as it is today. Some view it as having been more of an abstract approach to organizing knowledge of contemporary geography and ethnology. It is personally difficult for me to see an intent to record literal history in the Yahwist's continual and arguably often satirical wordplay though.


----------



## Torm (Apr 12, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> It is personally difficult for me to see an intent to record literal history in the *Yahwist's*



Careful, there. I'd almost be surprised this thread hasn't shut down yet, if it weren't for the maturity level of the conversation, but you want to be careful with what you just did - many Jews regard pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton outside of specific religious purposes to be blaspheme. You came real real close.


----------



## Henry (Apr 12, 2005)

And on that note...

As much as I've been appreciative of the civil and mature nature of the conversation here, it's really gone way outside the bounds of the usual limits of religious discussion, here, and I feel it's better to shut it down than let it continue here. If the participants want to continue it, it sounds like several other avenues and places have been mentioned where it would be more on-topic to discuss.

Sorry to all, and thanks again for being as courteous as all have been.


----------

