Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Genesis of the Humans
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 01:36:47 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <1049s2v$13q9g$2@dont-email.me>
References: <d256db867cb0f8c466e98ca20469a0a0@dizum.com>
 <103mvu0$bv2e$1@dont-email.me> <103n0ie$c559$1@dont-email.me>
 <103n1eb$c3gv$1@dont-email.me> <103n92j$e9bs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 02:36:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b0f7f8412f2fdda0e5fa56f68f1bb80c";
	logging-data="1173808"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GkoglqcXr97emf2Sd/SbL3u8qySXHFrA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iG0KLSzXT3+QK+y/lr9iblpP644=
In-Reply-To: <103n92j$e9bs$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 28/06/2025 00:21, solar penguin wrote:
> 
> The True loon lectured:
> 
>> On 27/06/2025 21:56, solar penguin wrote:
>>>
>>> The True loon lectured:
>>>
>>>> The Bible doesn't say rib, it says SIDE. Eve was made from the side of
>>>> Adam because Adam was parted in two to make Eve. Originally Adam and Eve
>>>> were one. Read Aristophanes' speech in Plato's Symposium which makes the
>>>> origin of the Bible story clear especially when Socrates cites the
>>>> original source.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even if Plato and/or Aristophanes knew about the Genesis story,
>>> it doesn’t make their fanfic part of the Biblical canon.
>>>
>>
>> The Bible was written AFTER Plato's Symposium took place.
> 
> That depends what you mean by “The Bible”. It isn’t one book
> but a collection of many books written at different times and
> based on different sources which in turn drew from different
> traditions.
> 
> There isn’t one single date when it was written.
> 

Well obviously the Books of Maccabees were written much later than The 
Symposium given that they take place over 200 years later.

The real question is when was the first book of the Bible that was 
written written.

Most people have the silly idea that Genesis was written first but maybe 
it was written last and Maccabees was written before it.

>> The story
>> already existed in Athens in 416 BC before Genesis was even composed.
> 
> That might be possible. Genesis is based on three sources: the
> E source(Elohist), J source (Jahwist) and P source (Priestly).
> And they all drew on earlier traditions and stories.
> 

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

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

Plato's version is taken from Phoenician texts (the ancient Greeks 
didn't have a clue about Mesopotamia) and that's where the Biblical 
version comes from too. Some of the Phoenician texts might have been 
based on Mesopotamian sources such as Gilgamesh for Noah's Ark, but the 
Greeks also use the story of the Ark in the story of the Deukalion 
Flood. Even Josephus and Eusebius identified Noah, Ogygus, Deukalion, 
and Jannus as being the same person.

Clearly there was a standard Egyptian history from which Manetho's 
account, that of Diodorus, that of Herodotus, that of the Bible, and 
that of Jasher all come from.

There was similarly a standard history of Syria-Palestine where the 
biblical events set there all derive from. This may have been the 
histories of Sanchuniathon from which the Judges figures 
Jerrubaal/Gideon and Abimelech come from and the Phoenician history of 
Menander translated into Greek.

There was also the history of the Hittites, Hurrians, and Mittani which 
is the probable source for the descendants of Shem (Shuttarna I) to 
Nahor (Naharin) all the way to Jacob. It could also be the source of the 
story of Adam and Eve given that Eden is Adana in Turkey and given the 
snake and ornamental garden motives is probably Gobekli Tepe.

Ham is probably based on Khamose from Egyptian history.

Japhet is clearly a corruption of Iapetus and Javan is Ion or Jannus and 
this is clearly based on chronologies and kings lists that were used by 
the Romans and also quoted by Nennius and in the Irish Book of 
Invasions. The Roman chronologies come from The Phrygia by Thymaetes as 
can be seen in Diodorus histories which demonstrates that this is the 
source of Ktesias Chaldanian and European histories and the source of 
Psedo-Berosus and Annius de Viterbe and this the source of The Travels 
of Noah Into Europe. The Irish Book of Invasions (including the kings of 
Scotland (literally Scythia/Scotia), and the Swedish, Nordic, and 
British kings before Brutus given by Nennius are probably using the same 
Scythian sources used by Herodotus.

For the kingdoms of Israel and Judea there is inscriptional evidence for.

>>
>>> And it definitely doesn’t make it biological fact.
>>>
>>
>> And neither is a Time Lord changing gender during regeneration.
>>
> 
> Nobody ever claimed Time Lords were any kind of fact. We’re
> all aware they’re fictional.
> 

That doesn't change the fact that Time Lords can't change gender during 
regeneration. Fiction has to be as constant as reality in order to be 
believed.

-- 
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw

"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it 
stands for." --William Shatner