12,000 BC origin of the Adam/Eve snake and tree myth - Page 2 - Historum

**Mike McClure** · May 14th, 2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles brough

Eve picked the fruit from the tree---all three items representing fertility and agriculture, that is, the feminine, the goddess(es). The patiarchal creator god idea was moulded into the mythology-doctrines by his taking control over and punished Adam and Eve by bannishing them. He took control over them. From then on, male gods set out to completely destroy the goddess as repesented by the snake. But of course, she was more than just a single snake, they had to portray her as a huge serpent capable of being a terrible threat. So she became a "dragon."

There are, of course, different interpretations other than this, but experts such as Renfew, Gimbutas and others support it. It well fits the far under-appreviated switch from the female to the male gods some 5,000 years ago and explains why the symbol of the tree and the snake are so universal in the Old World. It also explains why the appearance of "dragons" occurred in China, in the Hindu RigVeda, Mesopotamia and carried into Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The part of the story I don't understand is the goddess represented by the snake causing Adam and Eve to feel guilt. Where does the guilt come from?

**Rasta** · May 14th, 2012, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naomasa

I have difficulty believing that, in the absence of writing, a story could be passed down for as long as 12,000 years just through oral retelling.

I am skeptical as well. However at least some Australian aboriginal myths have been shown to describe events that occurred 10,000 years ago.

Quote:

An Australian linguist, R. M. W. Dixon, recording Aboriginal myths in their original languages, encountered coincidences between some of the landscape details being told about within various myths, and scientific discoveries being made about the same landscapes.[5] In the case of the Atherton Tableland, myths tell of the origins of Lake Eacham, Lake Barrine, and Lake Euramo. Geological research dated the formative volcanic explosions described by Aboriginal myth tellers as having occurred more than 10,000 years ago. Pollen fossil sampling from the silt which had settled to the bottom of the craters confirmed the Aboriginal myth-tellers' story. When the craters were formed, eucalyptus forests dominated rather than the current wet tropical rain forests.[6][7] (See Lake Euramo for an excerpt of the original myth, translated.)

Source:

Australian_Aboriginal_mythology

**Rasta** · May 14th, 2012, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McClure

Then where does the part where eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil brings out the idea of guilt come from?

This is likely a justification to explain cultural changes in standards of modesty.

laketahoejwb · May 14th, 2012, 12:14 PM

The Myth comes in many versions. I like the Biblical one.

The first human myth / Adam & Eve story could be 40,000 years old.
It is also the story of Original sin.

God makes Adam out of dust and gives him dominion over fish, birds, and every moving creature that moves on the ground.

God didn’t say that this was good.

God makes Eden. And put man in it. Saying to Adam not Eve: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

(Here is the original sin when Adam defied God and set aside God to become another competing God.)

The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” So he makes Eve from Adam.
Satan the serpent talks to Eve (not God not Adam) and convinces her that “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

20 Adam[c] named his wife Eve,[d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e]of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

**Mike McClure** · May 14th, 2012, 07:01 PM

It isn't really original sin, but original guilt. It is the story of how guilt came into the world.

laketahoejwb · May 14th, 2012, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McClure

It isn't really original sin, but original guilt. It is the story of how guilt came into the world.

hello, mike

Adam's guilt is relevant here. However since he defied God, all will surely die. Because Christ atoned for this Original Sin. Now we have a chance to step back to walk with God as Enoch did.

Lake

charles brough · May 15th, 2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaddam IV

Marija Gimbutas and other proponents of this Goddess theory are simply making rather dubious inferences from very limited archaeological data, often excluding data that does not fit their theory.

There was never any "universal female led society" and I frankly doubt that Gimbutas ever stated there was. It is easy to pick at what seem like little contradictions into a misinterpreted version of the concept. The social theory consensus is that there never existed a matriarchal society, but the matrilineal descent and the universal existence of female dieties in both ancient mythology and evidenced by archeology is too significant to be objectively dismissed.

Since the women were the gatherers, it is reasonable to propose they were the ones who developed agriculture, not the hunters, the men. Why would agriculture become dominant if it were not for the rise in population putting too much pressure on the hunters who had to be contend with less abundant game? So a religion of the hunter would have been in decline. Babies, being born by females, in a polygamous society, agricultural fertility would have been associated with the female. There was no such thing as a marriage, no such thing as a "father." The diminished male role would have meant the society was led by female public opinion. It determined what was "politically correct."

But it was far from universal. The large agricultural communes would have been surrounded by hunter-dominated societies and later on, herder-led ones. Later, they would account for what the historian label as "barbarian invasions."

I have an extended account of the whole complex picture that is accessable in my webpage.

**Rasta** · May 15th, 2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles brough

There was never any "universal female led society" and I frankly doubt that Gimbutas ever stated there was. It is easy to pick at what seem like little contradictions into a misinterpreted version of the concept. The social theory consensus is that there never existed a matriarchal society, but the matrilineal descent and the universal existence of female dieties in both ancient mythology and evidenced by archeology is too significant to be objectively dismissed.

Since the women were the gatherers, it is reasonable to propose they were the ones who developed agriculture, not the hunters, the men. Why would agriculture become dominant if it were not for the rise in population putting too much pressure on the hunters who had to be contend with less abundant game? So a religion of the hunter would have been in decline. Babies, being born by females, in a polygamous society, agricultural fertility would have been associated with the female. There was no such thing as a marriage, no such thing as a "father." The diminished male role would have meant the society was led by female public opinion. It determined what was "politically correct."

But it was far from universal. The large agricultural communes would have been surrounded by hunter-dominated societies and later on, herder-led ones. Later, they would account for what the historian label as "barbarian invasions."

I have an extended account of the whole complex picture that is accessable in my webpage.

These are some great points. In fact we do see that women often do the agriculture in tribal societies. We also see that in the bronze age, women held much more prestigious positions in religions and religious ceremonies.

Dromon · May 15th, 2012, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles brough

the serpent and the tree mythology goes back much further, back to 12,000 BC both in China and in Turkey. (see Archeology magazine, Nov./Dec, 2008 and Tree of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't see anything about "12000 BC", nothing about "Turkey" and the section about China is unreferenced.

Myths do not have a particular date of birth. They develop hand-in-hand with civilization. Some version of the myth should be there even in 100.000 BC. This particular myth refers to the relations between father (god), mother and sons.

Evidence of rituals related to a snake-god 70.000 years old have been found in Botswana
World’s Oldest Ritual Discovered – Serpent Worship

**Louise C** · May 15th, 2012, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles brough

There was never any "universal female led society" and I frankly doubt that Gimbutas ever stated there was. It is easy to pick at what seem like little contradictions into a misinterpreted version of the concept. The social theory consensus is that there never existed a matriarchal society, but the matrilineal descent and the universal existence of female dieties in both ancient mythology and evidenced by archeology is too significant to be objectively dismissed.

Since the women were the gatherers, it is reasonable to propose they were the ones who developed agriculture, not the hunters, the men. Why would agriculture become dominant if it were not for the rise in population putting too much pressure on the hunters who had to be contend with less abundant game? So a religion of the hunter would have been in decline. Babies, being born by females, in a polygamous society, agricultural fertility would have been associated with the female. There was no such thing as a marriage, no such thing as a "father." The diminished male role would have meant the society was led by female public opinion. It determined what was "politically correct."

But it was far from universal. The large agricultural communes would have been surrounded by hunter-dominated societies and later on, herder-led ones. Later, they would account for what the historian label as "barbarian invasions."

I have an extended account of the whole complex picture that is accessable in my webpage.

It seems very unlikely that there was ever a society where fatherhood was not acknowledged. Or one that didn't have marriage. Fatherhood and marriage are concepts that exist in even the most primitive of societies.

Nor does it seem probable that men would have had a diminished role in agricultural societies. Even in agricultural societies, the men would still have been the hunters. And most likely the chiefs would have been men. Just because women were toiling in the fields, that doesn't necessarily mean they had a higher status. In many peasant societies, women work in the fields, but that does not give them a particularly high status.