Monday, January 14, 2008

Prelude To A Preface

(Updated quote at end)
Sometimes I feel like I have been robbed of a portion of my spirituality. Skeptic groups with their meticulous dissection of the Torah with the scalpel of logic has enlightened my intellectual understanding of religion but at the same time amputated my yearning for the ineffable mystery and experiential aspects of human existence (say what?). And so I have chosen to read Between God and Man: An interpretation of Judaism from the writings of Abraham J. Heschel, a great Jewish philosopher. I'm not thoroughly versed in philosophy and often find I get so lost in the verbose presentation that I begin to think the philosopher (in general) hadn't a clue as to what he was writing about. If you can't break it down into simple language, you ain't got it.

Back to this book in particular. I started reading the preface by F.A. Rothchild and found my head spinning and quite lost. I was about to give up on the book when I just decided to jump ahead to the text from Heschel. It was surprisingly easier to read than I imagined. I'm still wrestling with some of the concepts and not sure I agree with them all but he seems to be addressing my concerns mentioned at the very beginning of this post. But why on Earth would you make the preface less accessible to the reader than the text itself? Quite frustrating to say the least.


As I searched for an image of the cover, I discovered a newer edition than the one I'm reading which has a foreword by David Hartman. From other writings of Hartman, I expect more philo-talk. So I'll skip that too.


In the meantime, for all you quote-miners out there:
"Remember that there is a meaning beyond absurdity. Be sure that every little deed counts, that every word has power. Never forget that you can still do your share to redeem the world in spite of all absurdities and frustrations and disappointments." -A. J. Heschel
-
"The unthinking embrace of irrationality is literally madness. But embracing rationality while denying the existence of any mystery to life and its meaning-that is no less a form of madness than eager devotion to unreason." -Odd Thomas in Forever Odd by Dean Koontz

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 30, 2007

Odd Dog Out

I read my first Dean Koontz book after a few disparate sources espoused his works. Well worth it and I look forward to more. What I like to do when reading fiction is glean words of wisdom or insights into human nature presented parenthetically. Tidbits of reality mixed with an engaging, albeit fictional, story makes for a more poignant message. (I have been saying this about the Bible but that is not the direction I'll be taking this). I first noticed my real appreciation for this method of reading when I began reading Michael Crichton even though sometimes the line between fact and fiction sometimes became blurred. In Crichton's book Prey (not my favorite), in the midst of all the action, there was a 2 page digression that held a fascinating insight into self-reflection. I guess I'm reminded of this because it follows somewhat along the lines of my last post.

"There's one problem with all psychological knowledge-nobody can apply it to themselves. People can be incredibly astute about the shortcomings of their friends, spouses, children. But they have no insight into themselves at all...Psychological knowledge doesn't work if you look in a mirror." He then compares this to a computer procedure called recursion which causes the computer program to loop back on itself. Sometimes the computer gets lost in a infinite regress and is stuck there like "those fun-house mirrors that reflect mirrors, and mirrors, even smaller and smaller, stretching away to infinity...something similar must happen when people turn their psychological insight-apparatus on themselves. The brain hangs. The thought process goes and goes, but it doesn't get anywhere. It must be something like that, because we know that people can think about themselves indefinitely. Some people think of little else. Yet people never seem to change as a result of their intense introspection. They never understand themselves better. It's very rare to find genuine self-knowledge." Nice.

In Brother Odd by Dean Koontz, Odd Thomas, as he is named, reflects on the nature of dogs. "All that is wanted is affection, while all that is offered is everything, symbolized in the defenseless posture of the exposed tummy.
Dogs invite us not only to share in their joy but also to live in the moment,...where the enchantment of the past and future cannot distract us, where a freedom from practical desire and a cessation of our ceaseless action allows us to recognize the truth of our existence, the reality of our world and purpose-if we dare."

It's funny where the circuits of the mind can take us sometimes. When I read this, I was taken back to some previous relationships I had been in. There were a few women, including my now ex, that I felt that I would do anything for them and all I asked in return was to be loved in return. I do not mean to imply that I consider myself or men in general to be dogs but far be it from me to restrict the path which your mind wanders. To these women, I exposed myself (cancel that image, please), I opened my soul, bore out my deepest secrets and desires. I thought women wanted a man to be open about his feelings and be able to share them. Well, that crock of crap I was fed growing up (by TV, other women, magazines, etc) was entirely baseless. Women want their man to be strong and once they see their man as having weakness and vulnerability it becomes an exploitable commodity. They need to respect their man so he needs to maintain his image and aura. As a friend, such levels of openness are OK but not safe for a monogamous relationship. One of the main things I have noticed among the married couples I have had lunch with on many Shabbatot is the lack of respect the wives afford their husbands (yes, it does go both ways but you can write your side on your own blog). There is something about these men that disappointed their wives and that disappointment manifests as subtle and sometimes not so subtle public degradation. "I don't get no respect". Rodney Dangerfield wouldn't be funny if it didn't ring true.

I watched an episode of BBC's Coupling where Sally wouldn't introduce her new boyfriend to her gal pals until "he's finished." A woman has all sorts of visions how she can mold her man only to be disillusioned later because he remains who he is. And what right does anyone have to change another person? If you love someone, love them for who they really are, flaws and all. But don't pay lip-service to the concept and throw it all out the window once the ring is on.

Women feel the need to be empowered, they want to be independent and make their own choices (and they should have every right to pursue success) but in the end they want a guy who will stand up and make the decision like about where to go out. They don't want to hear, "So where would you like to go for dinner?" Rather it should be "I'm thinking about 2 places A & B, do you have a preference?" Thus they feel empowered, part of the decision making but the man has laid out the options available. I was out with a bunch of female friends one night and we went to a party. We suspected it would be lame but I took my cue from the women, 'maybe we should try it, it can't be bad.' So we went in and it was a disaster. Later they told me not to be a buffoon and that they had hoped I would just stand up and say this would be lame, let's not even waste our time. Am I a mind reader? Apparently, I need to be to hang out with them. But what they were really saying was that they want the guy to take charge, protect them, make sure things work out. I can't tell you how many women have told me they are so turned on by a guy who takes charge. So while I believe in equal rights, I do believe that many women are deluding themselves into thinking that they don't have the same instinctual demands on their mates that they have had for thousands of years. As much as they say they want a sensitive man, the reality is they want a strong, take charge man. Women can go to their ladies groups for all the emoting they need. The male's role is different and he should not cross to the other side. They want an alpha male but in the end they settle for you and never let you forget it.

If you want a good laugh on the matter see Chris Rock on relationships on you tube.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Wicked Writer


What a disappointment. I finally decided to READ Wicked by Gregory Maguire after loving the Broadway musical.
There were some memorable quotes like, "I don't comprehend religion, although conviction is a concept I'm beginning to get. In any case, someone with a real religious conviction is, I propose, a religious convict, and deserves locking up."
Or, "I don't really understand the point of frienship...between unmarried people...It seems- distracting."
Or, "She had the nearsightedness of youth. She reasoned that becasue she was beautiful she was significant..."

Or, "Perhaps every accidental cluster of people has a short period of grace, in between the initial shyness and prejudice on the one hand and the eventual repugnance and betrayal on the other."

Or, "They had too much common history to come apart over a pair of shoes, yet the shoes were planted between them, a grotesque icon of their differences. Neither one could retreat, or move forward. It was silly, and they were struck, and someone needed to break the spell."
V'hamayvin Yavin.

The book was awfully painful. Too many big words that one is unlikely to ever encounter anywhere else. I finally gave up with the dictionary and just skipped them. The story was good but it dragged and I felt loose ends were not thoroughly tied up. Not so with the musical. My advice, skip the book but don't skimp on seats.

Labels: , ,

Monday, October 09, 2006

Not Your Childhood Battlestar


I remember when I was young…maybe I’m crayyyzee...(Gnarls Barkley); I thoroughly enjoyed the Battlestar Galactica TV series. I was too young to find it overly simplistic. I reveled in the sci-fi adventure, futuristic technology, and mechanical/diabolical Cylons. The series began with a brief history of a long war between man and the machines he created to serve him and the subsequent rebellion. Finally, after many years of war, there was to be a peace treaty. The left-wing politicians, in their infinite gullibility in the ultimate good of people (or in this case Cylons), fell for the trap hook, line, and sinker. The result was a devastating destruction of the human home world. Only a handful of survivors led by Adama, the single voice of caution (that went unheeded), escaped in search of a lost world, all the while pursued by the bloodthirsty Cyclons.

I remember how Black and white every thing was. Who was good or evil? What were the obvious choices? Who was right and who clearly wrong? I easily equated this to my emerging political point of view. I saw this story being played out in the Middle East. I thought peace with Egypt was a trap, I felt the Left was prepared to sell out the Jewish people based on a pipe dream. I lived in a world of black and white. Do what needs to be done no matter what the world thinks, no matter the backlash. Solutions were simple back then.

Fast forward 20+ years. A new version of Battlestar Galactica has entered its second season. It seems that the writers have evolved. This version is exceptional; with great depth, mystery, character development, politics, global issues, and even spirituality. What I find fascinating is that it is the mechanical Cyclons that are deeply spiritual, believing in the one God while the humans are the pagans! The Cylons wrestle with the proper way to convey the word of God. Should it be through force and if so how much do the ends justify the means? The humans fighting for their very survival wrestle with what methods are acceptable forms of resistance? Is suicide bombing justified and how is that any different from sending a soldier into a battle we know he can’t return from? In a long run, how detrimental is it to dehumanize one’s enemy? Can there be dialogue with the enemy? Does any form of cooperation imply collusion or is some level of acquiescence acceptable in the broader picture? Is it proper to sell out your compatriots to save the one you love? Can two very different species attempt to merge and build trust and even loving relations? I think there may also be some sci-fi adventure stuck in there somewhere.

WOW!

My politics have evolved greatly and my appreciation for the much broader picture has brought me to the world of grays. Black and white is reserved for the fantasies of “If only I could just do x, y, & z…” Reality is much more complicated. Through my difficult marriage and subsequent divorce, I learned to be more cognizant of the fact that there is not only one right answer and that I must account for others equally valid(?) positions.

I watch Battlestar Galactica and it gives me a different angle to more objectively view conflict (and other issues). Yet, it’s just a show. It’s not real. It’s a LIE. But I appreciate the insights I draw from the show. This in itself is a lesson. The story may not be true but the ideas and truths it espouses are very real and very true indeed.

Labels: ,

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Zoo Torah

No this is not about my wild experiences in the yeshiva classroom. Nor does this respond to those who feel I belong behind bars but that’s another matter. This here is about Rabbi Slifkin and his attempts to reconcile Torah and science.

I heard three lectures by Rabbi Slifkin this past weekend and he makes a lot of sense. He has helped me reconcile some troubling aspects of Torah. For instance, scientifically the creation story in Genesis is inaccurate. Even those who claim that each day was an era, still plants couldn’t come before the sun. Simple answer: It’s an ALLEGORY serving to teach us a lesson. It is not a scientific document. Its message is to combat creation mythologies of other religions where cosmic battles are fought and the victor creates the world. Other creation myths begin similarly with chaos and then a great battle ensures. The reader of Genesis is primed to hear such a tale with the preface that the universe was a void. But then a very different story emerges. Here the unity of God is espoused and from that unity levels of differentiation occurred (He said differentiation was explained in his book so I can't elaborate on this).

The specific mention of Tanin on a later day of creation is a direct challenge to those who believe that Tanin (one of the cosmic sea creatures) was one of the gods involved in the battles before creation. Here the Torah says, God created everything in the universe even the likes of Tanin. The theological lessons of Genesis are in no way minimized by its lack of scientific authenticity precisely because it isn't meant to be a blueprint of actual creation.

In similar vein, the DINOSAURS are not mentioned because the people who this Torah was meant for, the Jews of 3,500 yrs ago knew nothing of dinosaurs and it would be meaningless to them. If they were told the age of the world and the millions of years, which dinosaurs ruled, mankind would suddenly feel insignificant. The creation story focuses on man being the culmination of God's creation. Revelation of creatures that ruled the earth far longer would minimize the message of the Torah but more importantly it would be meaningless in the context of the people's lives at the time. Context is critical. Know your audience. It boils down to the first people who were to receive the message of the Torah. Giving them such a radical, earth shaking perspective of the world; one so different from their level of understanding nature, would be more confusing, require more explanation, be harder to swallow. The truth…you can’t handle the truth!

The Jews were familiar with the animals of their region that is why kangaroos are not mentioned (as it was unknown and meaningless to the first adherents to the Bible). I read a 99-page "letter to my rabbi" a while back, which challenges the Torah's supposed all-encompassing details regarding the animal kingdom.. In the past, “4 animal species [are] mentioned in the Torah as irrefutable proof of it being God's word” (as per Ari the skeptic). Yet there are exceptions not listed in the Torah but do exist and thus a great proof went up in smoke. So we need to look at scripture and see if we can understand it correctly in light of new evidence. Well simply put, the Torah spoke to its original audience where extraneous information might make it unacceptable to buy into (as described in the previous paragraph).

Rabbi Slifkin had an interesting approach to MIRACLES. God created the laws of nature/physics. Like Rambam and Ralbag, Rabbi Slifkin tries to minimize the occurrences of miracles. Miracles actually DETRACT from the greatness of God. Picture Windows XP program. Suddenly difficulty crops up and a repair or update program must be added. This signifies a deficit in the original programming. If it was originally perfect, all contingencies would have been accounted for. God, in his infinite wisdom created a perfect set of laws that during the course of history would unfold as needed in the divine plan. If we say He needs to make miracles that defy his original laws that shows an inherent weakness in His original program. Thus miracles having a logical explanation actually enhance His greatness.

Timing of ‘miracles’ is probably a more appropriate way of defining miracles. That is what I would call the essence of the miracle. Timing, as I see it, does not detract from God.

I see no harm in trying to reinterpret text in a way that make then not only meaningful but valid as well. I recognize that the testament to the value of a religion is its ability to make itself meaningful to successive generations. And while I see many of the stories as allegorical or metaphorical, I still derive important life lessons. So even if something is not literally true it is still possible for it to yield truth.

Overall, I felt that Rabbi Slifkin had a very honest approach to Torah and science. We just need to recognize God's hand in the wonders of science.

I should just conclude with Joseph Campbell. He expressed concern that we have fallen short, today, in our potential ability to take ancient mythology and religion (with all their valued lessons) and make them relevant and meaningful today. The story or more accurately the interpretation of the story must change, mold, and morph to assume its role as our guide to the world. I don't know too many people brave enough to walk that path but I think Rabbi Slifkin might be one of them.

I just found a more detailed blog about Rabbi Slifkin's speech here .

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 29, 2006

EDEN REVISITED


Naomi H. Rosenblatt is the author of Wrestling with Angels, which is a psychotherapist’s take on the lessons on Genesis. She has a fascinating chapter on Adam & Eve.

When Genesis describes the Tree of Knowledge it uses the term ‘Da'at.’ Da’at has a dual connotation. It certainly refers to knowledge in general but also to sexual knowledge. It is the emergence of sexual awareness/knowledge that plays a primary role in the “universal human passage from childhood innocence into the world of adult experience.” With the knowledge that comes with age, there is great responsibility.

The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for growing up. The garden itself represents the safe and secure environment of one's childhood home. In the early phase of our childhood, all our needs are provided for by our parent(s). For Adam & Eve it literally grew on trees. They were oblivious to the fact that they were naked, just like children. Suddenly, the questioning of the parent begins. The child begins to challenge the boundaries established by the parent. Why? Why not? What would happen if I disobey?…

Eve is the first person to question. She is also the first person to feel the stirrings of sexuality. This is alluded to with snake imagery. The snake was a symbol of fertility and the phallus. ‘You're curious, it's ok to touch…’ Her curiosity spurred her desire for knowledge. “She realizes that the sheltered greenhouse of Eden will never be conducive to intellectual or spiritual growth.” And so she is willing to “relinquish a world of safety and security for knowledge and experience.”

[This is a radically different way to view Eve than in the past. Here, it is the woman who brings knowledge and personal growth to mankind. She is no longer the temptress but a savior of sorts!]

God acts very much like a parent. He provides for the needs of his children. He gets angry when his children disobey. He may yell and he may punish, yet he is not without conscience or love. He still provides for Adam & Eve as they are made to leave home. God clothes them, thus providing a most basic need!

So it is time for the children to leave. Whether they go voluntarily or not, they are destined to leave the safe and nuturing home. In the Bible, it sounds like an eternal punishment but it is just a reality check. What sounded like a decree of punishmnet was a lesson in the facts of life. As a man, Adam would need to work the fields for a living and in doing so endure toil and hardship. Eve on the other would be subjected to pregnancy and suffer the pangs of childbirth. They could never return to the innocent stage they had lived in prior to coming to the age of knowledge. The path back to Eden forever lost.

God had been torn between holding his children back and allowing them to progress. And so He attempted to shield knowledge from His young. This knowledge was the facts of life. Now it was time for Adam & Eve to live life. God did not abandon them. He just took a step back and gave them space.

As a parent, I so enjoy watching my children during their innocent stage of childhood and I wish it would last forever. But with each level the children master, their curiosity grows. Boundaries are set up and challenges are offered. The children are growing in size and knowledge. They no longer believe in the tooth fairy nor do they take everything literally anymore. I notice as my nephews and nieces enter puberty, they seem different. They are not the cute little innocent beings they once were. Once they are exposed to their sexuality, they can never return to the childlike stage ever again. They have lost their innocence.

A parent tries to retain Eden for as long as possible but must invariably yield to the cycle of life. Children must leave their protective home and (hopefully) find a spouse to travel life’s journeys. And so the safe haven of Eden is traded for the knowledge and gift of life’s experience. Eden is not eternal, its realm is fleeting, but it’s paradise while it lasts.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, June 23, 2006

Heaven on Earth

The History Channel had a program titled “In Search Of Eden”, which featured archaeologist David Rohl’s theory about the location of the Garden of Eden. In it, he uses the literal text of the Bible, Sumerian legend, linguistic, and geographic sources to identify Eden.

The Story of Eden takes place approximately 7000 years ago, which coincides somewhat with the Neolithic revolution. There was a major shift in human subsistence. Settlement into farming communities and domestication of crops and animals occurred. This allowed for the growth of civilization. (A good book on the factors allowing for the society to grow and succeed is “Guns, Germs, & Steel” by Jared Diamond).

Genesis2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads (Roshim).
11The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush.
14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Perat.



Previous unsatisfying theories identify the Nile as the Gihon based on the Gihon's association with the land of Cush. Cush is present-day Sudan and Ethiopia. This separation of the Gihon/Nile river from the known Hiddekel (Tigris) and Perat (Euphrates) necessitated the Pishon to be of somewhat equal distance in the opposite direction and so the Ganges or the Indes where chosen as possibilities. Thus the Garden of Eden encompassed the entire ancient world! If this large area was correct for the Garden of Eden, to where, then, would Adam & Eve have been banished?

Another failed theory is that there are two other rivers that join the Tigris and Euphrates that flow out into the Persian Gulf. The problem here is that the Hebrew text says the river of the garden divides into four Roshim, which are not endpoints but headwaters.

We must look on a more narrow scale closer to the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates, which would lead us to Eastern Turkey and North Western Iran. There are 2 major rivers in this area that flow out into the Caspian Sea. There is the river Aras (Araxes), which was called the “Gaihun” by the Islamic conquerors of Persia. “Victorian dictionaries had referred to the river as the Gihon-Aras.” The region by the Aras is known as Cush and there is even a mountain called Kushadag (meaning the mountain of Kush/Cush). Thus, this river is to be identified as the Gihon of the Bible.

The other river is the Kezel-Uizon, which means 'the golden Uizon'. Gold and other precious stones are found there even today, just like the description of the Pishon. Linguistically the Persion U has been translated into Hebrew as P. The Minean(?) city of Ushteri has become Pishderi in Semitic language. Thus Uizon is to be identified as Pishon.


Other useful clues that lead us to this very region are quite interesting. There is an ancient Sumerian legend called “Enmerkar and the Land of Arrata”, where an envoy was sent from Suza (situated on a broad plain by the river Kerkeh in SW Iran). He traveled through seven gates (mountain passes or gorges). {This is reminiscent of the seven levels of heaven culminating in the throne of glory. Seventh heaven is ‘Paradise’!} The envoy descends into the plain of Arrata “known to Sumerians as a land of happiness and plenty – to obtain gold and lapis lazuli to decorate a temple that Enmerkar was building in Uruk.” The Sumerian word for plain is ‘Edin’. Dr Irving Finkel, a Sumerian specialist, describes this as a steppe land outside of town; a plain or uncultivated land past the settlement.

The envoy went “through the Zagros Mountains, to the foothills of Mt. Sahand,” where his journey would end, at Edin. King Sargon of Assyria in the 8th century BCE made a similar journey. After the seven mountain passes, he ended up in Surrikash which is the modern Kurdish town of Sakkez, on the Minean Plain (other source says Miyandoab Plain).

To help us further, we return to the Bible, which uses the term ‘Gan’, which is a very specific type of enclosed garden in Hebrew. (Interestingly, the ‘Persian Gardens’ where enclosed by high walls, with a central spring flowing out in four direction like this +. It is from this form of enclosed space (pairi-daeza) that the word paradise derives).

So, in identifying Eden, we are looking for an enclosed plain, with a river running through, which has four headwaters of major rivers. The plain described above fits well with those requirements. Today it is called the valley of Tabriz. It is in this region that the major rivers identified above are found. The plain is enclosed on the south and north by high mountain walls. The western end is sealed by the lake of Urmia. Climatologists have shown that this enclosed plain had a microclimate benefiting from the moisture from the warm western winds off the Mediterranean Sea. This allowed for the growth of dense vegetation. Apples, apricots, pistachios, almonds and grape vines were identified in excavation.

There is an eastern pass through the mountains. If you recall, the ‘first’ humans were banished to the east. Cain was exiled and he settled in the land of Nod. Beyond the eastern pass are areas designated upper and lower Nochdi, which may be related to Nod. “All over this region there are villages called Nod-i (belonging to Nod).”

The path back to Eden was guarded by a fiery, flaming sword, which could easily be the thunder and lightning that is often associated with the volcano known as Mt Sahand. In the book of Ezekiel it mentions the mountain of God (Ezekiel 28:11-19) overlooking the garden. This would probably be that same volcano. “Cascading down this mountain (Sahand) is a small river, the Adji Chay (the name of which translates in local dialect as ‘walled garden’).”

Cherubim were posted as guards. Cherubim are the Kuribu (Akkadian)/Karabu of ancient Babylonia and Mesopotamia which serve to guard sacred places and temples. They are winged and frightening. There is a town in Nod (Nochdi) called Kheruabad, which means settlement of the Kheru people. There resided priests who wore vultures’ wings. Perhaps, they where the cherubim mentioned.

In the village of Kandivan in this region, red clay (red ochre) is well distributed in the landscape. This is reminiscent of the use of ADAM as the term for the first human. Adom means red and Adama means earth. The Neolithic revolution played prominently in this region. Perhaps it is from the descendents of these people that the first civilization in Sumer was founded. The Sumerians lived on the open plains of Iraq but they built Ziggurats to replace the mountains of god that they recalled from their past further north. “The so-called "pottery trail" is good evidence of that southerly cultural migration.”


One point of contention, Mr Rohl uses a grid pattern (envision a + in a box to yield 4 smallerboxes). When he applies the grid to the plain, rivers fall out in each quadrant. This however, is not the exact meaning of the Bible when it says (Gen2:10) “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.” These four rivers do not truly come out from one source (I think). The Pishon is found in the SW quadrant and I am unclear if it is a tributary of the river in the plain in the same way as the Aras.

There is, however, a convergence of many related pieces to the puzzle. Not all are 100% perfect but they certainly make a strong case for the area in northern Iran to be identified with the Garden of Eden. Even if true, this doesn’t mean that Adam and Eve were the first humans or that they lived in paradise. It just means that the authors of the Bible retold familiar epic legends (and created new ones) with familiar landmarks that perhaps the reader would recognize. Associating stories with elements of truth enhance the readers’ enjoyment, make the story easier to relate to and transmit, and even make the story believable as well. By the way, that area of Tabriz, Iran looks like a run-down industrial Arab town. Paradise is truly lost.

"Adam is a metaphor for the oldest ancestor in memory, the first historical man, the head of a genealogy, a spiritual and political leader in one. He is, too, I think, the representative of the first settled people, former hunter-gatherers, who, through the Neolithic revolution, learnt to domesticate animals and to plant crops. Religion is a function of settlement, of social organization, of hierarchy, and of needing a political leader/shaman-priest who is in touch with the gods of nature. Adam, with Eve, probably represents an important marriage between two such settled tribes. They're the founding family of civilization."

Since I obtained most of this information from a TV program, there may be grammatical errors in the names of places or people. I still can’t find the book on this subject called Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation.

I realize that on the second picture there is a spot labeled the 'Location of Noah's Ark'. I took this from an article by Peter Martin http://www.ramsdale.org/dna6.htm
It occured to me when reading about Eden that there may be a reason people thought there was a global flood and that many cultures had the same notion. One of the volcano's mentioned, had a lake at its summit. Perhaps people thought that only such a global flood would leave such a stable source of water on the mountaintop. Just a thought.

Labels: , ,