Was the real Jewish Garden of Eden located in Jerusalem?

[outhouse]

"The Great Goddess, the Divine Ancestress, was worshiped as far back as the Upper Paleolithic about 25,000 BC --

Which I would not confuse with Asherah since she had her own mythology far removed from these figures.


Not only that, nothing is even known about how those figurines were worshipped, in any way shape or form.

 

[Ingledsva]

Which I would not confuse with Asherah since she had her own mythology far removed from these figures.


Not only that, nothing is even known about how those figurines were worshipped, in any way shape or form.

Asherah - as show earlier - is related - by name changes - over time - and area - to far earlier Goddesses.

*

 

[outhouse]

Asherah - as show earlier - is related - by name changes - over time - and area - to far earlier Goddesses.

*

The mythology evolved into its own for Israelite cultures. Yes the influence of pre existing Mesopotamian figures that evolved down into Canaanite mythology is well known.

But nothing goes back much further that we can even call a slight similarity. Its more then juts name changes, it is a completely different mythos.

Your pre history figurines are actually off topic for any discussion about The Garden of Eve mythology because we don't know anything about them.

 

[rosends]

Yes and it is not up for debate.

Israelites were polytheistic until roughly 200-400 BC

I don't recall making any statement about whether or not they were polythesitc, only that, textually, the claim that there was specific goddess worship with predates monotheism is not borne out. You have not shown otherwise.

Ah but they key is when was this book finished?


And the answer is far removed from any actual events, and parts are from a minority biased narrow view point..

So your answer is that text doesn't matter because it may not be written when it speaks about. So then why rely on it at all. It seems rather capricious to say that text is authoritative in one regard but not in another.

Sorry your wrong here.

The multi cultural people here were not all on board with monotheism.

I don't recall saying that. In fact, I agreed that there was idolatry and that a single god-belief then came in and dominated. Inventing a position for me so you can "refute" it is not so impressive.

Some people worshipped Yahweh alone, many did not. Some people still worshipped Asherah, some did not.

And some baal and some molech etc. Your point?

 

[rosends]

BULL it's not textual. Bull to generations just sitting in Judah and Jerusalem. Fathers, and Kings, tells us generational, and they obviously were in multiple places.

The Hebrew did worship a Goddess - as shown - by bible text, and others.

They worshiped the Queen Of Heaven - whom I have shown to be connected way back before the Iron age, - and thousands of years before Abram.

Did you miss this up above?

"The Great Goddess, the Divine Ancestress, was worshiped as far back as the Upper Paleolithic about 25,000 BC -- not 7000 BC as had been previously believed by archaeologists and scholars based on archaeological evidence."


*

So you say "bull" to the text which doesn't agree with your position but rely on other parts which do. OK, if that's your method then no one can argue with you because you can simply dismiss the parts you don't like. I'll leave you to that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Asherah - as show earlier - is related - by name changes - over time - and area - to far earlier Goddesses.

Therefore?

 

[outhouse]

So then why rely on it at all. It seems rather capricious to say that text is authoritative in one regard but not in another.

One needs to study the text, not assume.

 

[rosends]

One needs to study the text, not assume.

Then let us study the text. How's your Hebrew. Mine's pretty darned good.
The verse in question grounds itself rather clearly, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂינוּ אֲנַחְנוּ וַאֲבֹתֵינוּ מְלָכֵינוּ וְשָׂרֵינוּ בְּעָרֵי יְהוּדָה וּבְחֻצוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם unless you can explain it differently qua text.

 

[psychoslice]

For me the garden is a metaphor, it could never be a geographical place on earth. if it was, that place would be become an idol, it would be worshipped and there would be fighting over it, who owns it and who doesn't.

 

[Vishvavajra]

What I meant by that, because of the Gardens of Delight we know of from other city states, within Royal complexes, that the myth was a take off on a real Garden of Eden motif within a Jerusalem Palace or temple complex.

Regards
DL

It's based on a type of irrigated pleasure garden known in the Middle East, sure. I think that's all we can say, really. There's not enough to go on to posit that it's based on a specific garden in a specific place, especially as the details in the Eden myth are vague and only there to serve the narrative, not to invoke realism.

Eden is also effectively removed from the mortal realm in the story when Yahweh expels humans from it and places divine guardians to prevent their reentry. If Eden had literally been at the site of Jerusalem, then people would never have been able to settle there. As for whether Jerusalem had a garden that the mythographer was thinking of... who can say? There may have been several. There's just nothing but speculation there.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Can a man/hunter rule the home or tribe from the hunting terrain, or is it more likely that a female/gatherer closer to home will rule the tribe and teach the children?

Regards
DL

Sorry but that is an argument but not a conclusive argument. Of course there is a possibility of a matriarchy but that is not conclusive evidence for one.

You are correct for the times after the Bronze age.

Before that, not so much.

There is quite a bit of information available out there but let me just give you this one piece.

Role Of Women In Ancient Egypt - Historic Mysteries

Cleopatra was not the first Egyptian queen. Just the most famous.

Regards
DL

The aforementioned is a link to an article written by someone with degrees in law and education, not in history. They make an unsubstantiated claim that worship of the moon gives rise to matriarchies. Why can't worship of the moon just be worship of the moon? Why must it have given rise to such & such? They explain nothing and provide no bibliography, no links or clues where they get their information.

 

[outhouse]

Then let us study the text. How's your Hebrew. Mine's pretty darned good.

Translation accuracy does not guarantee historicity does it?

 

[rosends]

Translation accuracy does not guarantee historicity does it?

Not at all! Which is why I work in the original, not in translation. Of course you can claim that the original does not necessarily imply historical accuracy either. In that case, then there is no reason to trust anything in the text and making a claim based on what the verse says (which is what was done) is useless because even that claim can be countered by the simple dismissal of "but that's historically inaccurate."

At a certain point if you want to use the text you have to insist a consistent and consistently reliable text. Otherwise, the choice to accept or dismiss is subjective, inconsistent and academically useless.

 

[outhouse]

Not at all! Which is why I work in the original, not in translation. Of course you can claim that the original does not necessarily imply historical accuracy either. In that case, then there is no reason to trust anything in the text and making a claim based on what the verse says (which is what was done) is useless because even that claim can be countered by the simple dismissal of "but that's historically inaccurate."

At a certain point if you want to use the text you have to insist a consistent and consistently reliable text. Otherwise, the choice to accept or dismiss is subjective, inconsistent and academically useless.

My point is, no matter how original you get, you factually have to study the text to determine historicity.

No matter how close you get the "original" you will never be able to give historicity to mythology or literary creations.

Original does not mean accurate or accuracy for historicity. maybe for theology but that's not what we are discussing.

 

[rosends]

My point is, no matter how original you get, you factually have to study the text to determine historicity.

No matter how close you get the "original" you will never be able to give historicity to mythology or literary creations.

Original does not mean accurate or accuracy for historicity. maybe for theology but that's not what we are discussing.

But in that case, beginning by citing the text for its historicity is improper. You can't say "the verse attests to Goddess worship" ad say that that statement is historical, but when it says "in the cities of Judah under the auspices of kings" claim that that phrase isn't historical because it doesn't agree with the conclusion you might want to draw from the first part.

 

[outhouse]

But in that case, beginning by citing the text for its historicity is improper.

Is it? If it is one sided mythology and has no historicity as written, then we can throw that argument out.

You can't say "the verse attests to Goddess worship" ad say that that statement is historical, but when it says "in the cities of Judah under the auspices of kings" claim that that phrase isn't historical because it doesn't agree with the conclusion you might want to draw from the first part

I did not talk about the methodology, you did and only that historicity trumps theology in a historical question.

 

[rosends]

Is it? If it is one sided mythology and has no historicity as written, then we can throw that argument out.

Huh? Half a verse is one side mythology and the other is absolute historical truth? You want to throw out the argument that you can't pick and choose when deciding what to rely on? So you want to pick and choose. OK.

I did not talk about the methodology, you did and only that historicity trumps theology in a historical question.

You are employing methodology. If yours is flawed you should be told. And on a forum entitled "Religious debates" under the larger heading of "Religious Topics" I would think that historicity as considered when ignoring the religious context of the text is meaningless. But feel free.

 

[outhouse]

. And on a forum entitled "Religious debates" under the larger heading of "Religious Topics"

This statement, Is a cop out on your part and it is showing bias.

Apologist are not credible scholars. Theology does not make anything historical. Your book is not 100% historical and mythology free.

 

[rosends]

This statement, Is a cop out on your part and it is showing bias.

Apologist are not credible scholars. Theology does not make anything historical. Your book is not 100% historical and mythology free.

It is fine that you say that. I really believe that you have every right to say that. I don't even necessarily disagree. My point is simply that if you claim that it is not 100% accurate then the decision about which parts you choose to rely on as historical and which you dismiss ends up being arbitrary and subjective. So if half the verse says "they worshipped idols, and the other half says "in Jerusalem" it seems capricious to say "the first half is accurate but the second half isn't." And that's what was being done here.

 

[outhouse]

My point is simply that if you claim that it is not 100% accurate then the decision about which parts you choose to rely on as historical and which you dismiss ends up being arbitrary and subjective.

Not always.

You study the text for information you need, and do not take it as so, and even for scholars there is no guarantee. BUT in many cases there is no dispute and it is not subjective.


More often then not there is what is plausible academically, and what is refused by apologetic bias. Im not accusing anyone yet, but assuming the "text" is accurate follows this line most of the time. Or assuming it covers different cultures belonging to one religion that covered a large geographic area.

"they worshipped idols, and the other half says "in Jerusalem" it seems capricious to say "the first half is accurate but the second half isn't." And that's what was being done here

What I am saying is that it is not debated that these multiple authors that redacted the text to monotheism to Yahweh may have viewed others as idol worshippers, but that it did not reflect the majority of the population. They held a partial position.

Geographic location matters not and especially in Jerusalem where multiple cultures gathered.

Around the time of the verse in question before the text evolved "King Josiah" era, monotheism to Yahweh was not well established in all the people. And just because the political decision for the people to become monotheistic, does not mean it even held the majority position.