Gobekli Tepe (And The Eden Story)

[elfprince13]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Eden.html

has anyone else heard/read about this? What are your thoughts?


[Amended the post title to include the development of the discussion - Taal]

[Taalcon]

I think it's a fascinating archeological discovery. Not being drawn in on the Eden theories, though.

A blog I like wrote in depth about it, and linked to some videos of the site as well.

[elfprince13]

I don't know.....the in depth Eden-theory explored in the article I linked to seems pretty convincing (or at least very thoroughly explored, and not of the crackpot variety) to me.

[Taalcon]

'Clever', maybe, but to me, an archeologist's re-imagining of the Eden story based on a random (but cool) archeological find should not be 'convincing'.

[elfprince13]

I think it's important to consider that the events of Genesis prior to the time of Abraham (basically everything before the genealogies of Noah's descendants) are highly likely to be folk memories.....the point when it stops being "family history" for the Israelites and relies on cultural knowledge Abraham would have taken from his Chaldean heritage. I do believe that all of those stories are grounded in historical events, or else there would be no reason for the folk memories to exist in the first place, but I find it hard to interpret them literally.

[Taalcon]

People ask me if I believe the Eden story is Literal, or Symbolic. My answer is, "Yes."

There are many, many things that aren't known concerning the details. But there are some core things I believe that, to me, are non-negotiable. An historical, literal uniquely- and separately-created Adam and Eve are part of that.

And yes, I also believe that True Doctrine/ True Religion does not contradict True Science.

I tend to find most Science vs. Religion discussions that attack religious views, in many cases, are attacking arguments and doctrines I don't believe in (Such as literal 24-hour creation periods, and the impossibility of the evolutionary process as a means of creation).

[elfprince13]

People ask me if I believe the Eden story is Literal, or Symbolic. My answer is, "Yes."

There are many, many things that aren't known concerning the details. But there are some core things I believe that, to me, are non-negotiable. An historical, literal uniquely- and separately-created Adam and Eve are part of that.

It's certainly not a possibility that I would exclude, but I do find it hard to believe that those two managed to populate cities by the time of Cain + Abel (or at least for their to be sufficient population for Cain to build a city).

And yes, I also believe that True Doctrine/ True Religion does not contradict True Science.

I tend to find most Science vs. Religion discussions that attack religious views, in many cases, are attacking arguments and doctrines I don't believe in (Such as literal 24-hour creation periods, and the impossibility of the evolutionary process as a means of creation).

You're absolutely right with this one.

[jotabe]

I think this discussion would belong better in the science thread (archaeological science) since its connection with morals and religion is very secondary (dealing with the creation myths in near-eastern religions).

That said, this read, and others i did as a consequence, have changed my view on the origin of civilization in a surprising, but not shocking, way.

I had a pet speculation that it had been the faith-gene what gave us the edge over the rest of human species: Neanderthal humans, for example, were as smart as ourselves and more robust physically, but they lived in groups determined by the natural reality of genetic proximity: families, and even clans. Modern humans, on the other side, maybe thanks to the faith-gene, might have been able to create arbitrary, unobservable realities, like gods and "nations" (tribes) that helped them to gather into greater groups.

This is a large step, and a risky one, evolutively speaking, because you are compromising the perpetuation of your own gene pool and your grasp of the surrounding reality (for how long did humanity burn offerings asking for good weather and good game, instead of learning the weather and ecology patterns?), in exchange for larger, tighter social groups.
We won that bet, though: we are the only human species now.

So, religion being the trigger of the change from hunter-gatherer society to settled livelihood would just be another meaningful change that belief introduced in our evolution.

[lyons24000]

And yes, I also believe that True Doctrine/ True Religion does not contradict True Science.

I, as well as most other Jehovah's Witnesses, agree with you. I find it stupid when religionists and scientists battle it out over really dumb things like, for example, life on other planets. I personally don't have a set belief on that matter but I tend to lean towards the "Life is Undoubtedly Out There" spectrum (or at least the "Life is Very Possibly Out There" spectrum). Then I take into consideration that if evolution (without God) is true, then it is almost definite that life is out there but since I do not believe in evolution at all, I believe that if God did not create life besides us then life does not exist.

I tend to find most Science vs. Religion discussions that attack religious views, in many cases, are attacking arguments and doctrines I don't believe in (Such as literal 24-hour creation periods, and the impossibility of the evolutionary process as a means of creation).

Jehovah's Witnesses don't teach the literal 24-hour creation periods, either. The "creation by evolution" argument, Jehovah's Witnesses flat-out deny it. We take the steps laid out in Genesis 1 and 2 to be completely true. God made a garden in the east and laid man in it. Then He took a rib from the man and made woman. I don't agree with the whole "God didn't communicate that literally with Moses because Moses couldn't have comprehended it. If it happened that way, God would have told Moses, even if no one for thousands of years would understand it. There are many examples of Scriptures that were not understood until later. (Isaiah 53; Daniel 10-11) That's our take on it. The life on other planets is completely mine!

It's certainly not a possibility that I would exclude, but I do find it hard to believe that those two managed to populate cities by the time of Cain + Abel (or at least for their to be sufficient population for Cain to build a city).

That is something I never thought of. However, since the Bible says it, I believe it. With the Bible, unless there is a disclaimer "The Kingdom of the Heavens is Like" or "There was a man with one sheep...that man is you, David!", I believe that it is literal unless it is obviously symbolic. (Daniel-Succession of Beasts, Zechariah-Woman in Basket; Lampstands with Oil, Revelation-Beasts out of the Sea) Jehovah's Witnesses take the historical aspects of the Bible literally.

[locke]

thanks for the link Thomas. Love hearing stuff like that.

I've always found it curious that Genesis has two accounts of the creation, one right after the other, that's part of why I always took the two stories of creation to be more 'folk memories' as you put it than an accounting accurate enough to be taken literally.

whether or not it's 'Eden' it's apparent the find is one of the cradles of civilization, and a fascinating source of our agricultural origins.

[elfprince13]

One thing that I found interesting in comparing the story in Genesis to the "Eden theory" regarding Gobekli Tepe, is that in both cases (talking about Cain + Abel as the related story in Genesis) the hunter gatherer is in the right, and the farmer is the one who commits the crime. Perhaps Cain's offering wasn't accepted by God because he wasn't living in a sustainable relationship with the Earth and causing desertification. Just a thought that occurred to me as I was rereading the first couple chapters of Genesis, which I felt was worth sharing.

[Azarel]

Elfprince,

The Cain and Abel example you gave above is interesting. My own opinion of it is if there soley a physical aspect to the Eden theory or the Genesis account however we call it, I would probably agree entirely. Now hopefully what I write below with accompany what you said, not contradict it...

I believe Cain's offering was rejected because although Cain would have worked hard to grow the food he brought to God, it was not living or alive as was the Lamb that Abel brought.

This is significant for two reasons:

- In bringing food, Cain is perhaps representing the type of thinking that hard work and effort alone will put you right with God. This turned out not to be the case. Cain and Abel were brothers, why did Cain not simply ask Abel for another worthy Lamb and share in the process? There was no death in Cain's sacrifice, no real cost, and given that the event in the bible lead up to the death of Jesus I believe that even back here and also with Abrahams son Isaac, God wanted this example to be set.

- Abel raised sheep. Man did NOT create sheep from scratch (and even in Dolly's case, this is still true) So in working with God's creation, which is already living, already producing, but Abel, having kept them without blemish, is then more so than Cain working with God in order to live well.


---
There, now again, I didn't mean to contradict, and I think what I've said could still result in what Elfprince suggested.

[elfprince13]

Elfprince,

The Cain and Abel example you gave above is interesting. My own opinion of it is if there soley a physical aspect to the Eden theory or the Genesis account however we call it, I would probably agree entirely. Now hopefully what I write below with accompany what you said, not contradict it...

I don't think that is a purely physical aspect of it. We're given a strict charge to exercise authority over the Earth using the same language used to describe God's authority over us. In other words, while we have been given the authority to rule over God's creation, He expects to use the same love and care in ruling it that He uses in ruling us. Living unsustainably and abusing God's creation is every bit as sinful as anything else we could do.

I believe Cain's offering was rejected because although Cain would have worked hard to grow the food he brought to God, it was not living or alive as was the Lamb that Abel brought.

This is significant for two reasons:

- In bringing food, Cain is perhaps representing the type of thinking that hard work and effort alone will put you right with God. This turned out not to be the case. Cain and Abel were brothers, why did Cain not simply ask Abel for another worthy Lamb and share in the process? There was no death in Cain's sacrifice, no real cost, and given that the event in the bible lead up to the death of Jesus I believe that even back here and also with Abrahams son Isaac, God wanted this example to be set.

I agree that the sacrificing of the lamb is the first lead up to the sacrifice of Jesus, but at the same time in later portions of the Old Testament, God consistently makes clear that He'd rather have obedience to His laws as our way of showing our love for Him than any sacrifice at all.

Abel raised sheep. Man did NOT create sheep from scratch (and even in Dolly's case, this is still true) So in working with God's creation, which is already living, already producing, but Abel, having kept them without blemish, is then more so than Cain working with God in order to live well.

We didn't exactly create fruits and vegetables from scratch either :p

There, now again, I didn't mean to contradict, and I think what I've said could still result in what Elfprince suggested.

There are certainly multiple reasons God could have made His decision, but the view I shared isn't one I've ever heard discussed before, and certainly seems more applicable to how we live today than a question of what to sacrifice to Him (seeing as most Christians no longer engage in animal sacrifice).

[lyons24000]

When it comes to the Cain and Abel story, I probably lean towards the opinions of most: Cain was rejected, not because his sacrifice was displeasing, but because he was displeasing, his entire attitude. The Bible says that when Cain sacrificed, God "did not look with any favor upon Cain and upon his offering." (Genesis 4:5) This shows that there was a direct correlation between Cain himself and his offering. Cain had a bad attitude because, instead of correcting his personality flaw, he allowed feelings of anger, jealousy, and hatred to overpower his clear judgment.

Further, I believe that this point is further proved by Jehovah's own words. "If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exaltation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance." (Genesis 4:7) Elfprince was right when he said that "obedience is better" to God "than sacrifice". (1 Samuel 15:22, New Living Translation) If Cain's attitude had been right, Jehovah would have accepted his offering. His being rejected had nothing to do with what he offered, it was the thought.

Just my two cents!

[Taalcon]

I agree.

An expanded account of this in LDS scripture (Moses 5:18-21) presents the more explicit idea that Cain's love of the world - and of the things prompted by Satan - were far more powerful than his love for, and desire to be obedient to, the commandments of God.

The command to Sacrifice by God was not obeyed. But then, because "Cain loved Satan more than God", and Satan wanted to make a show of this, "Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord."

This commandment was to do a good thing, but from the source of obedience was perverted. The initial commandment from God, Cain did not obey. But now that Satan gave him a different motivation, he hearkened to that - a perversion of the original commandment.

"And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. "

The right things for the wrong reasons get you nowhere. And often times, worse than nowhere. The Lord's disapproval of his poor intentions led Cain, not to repentance, but to a downward spiral of self-justification that led to horrible consequences for him, and for a large majority of the posterity of Adam who took Cain as their Patriarch and moral leader rather than Adam.