Much has been written about Atlantis, much has been written about the biblical creation story, but I've seen very little written that attempt to connect the two. The one thing I did see by Eli Stills, written last year, came close but didn't directly connect to the destruction of Atlantis in circa 9600 BCE.
Let me preface this by saying that many biblical scholars, in analyzing Genesis 1-3, not only see links to other ancient creation literature, but in addition, interpret Genesis 1-3 as a polemic. In other words, whereas other creation literature describes various aspects of the created order as divine beings, e.g., the sky god, the god of fresh water, etc., the biblical account explains them as created by a single god not associated with any particular aspect of creation.
Let me also preface this by saying that there are distinct similarities that are worth paying attention to:
1) Other ancient creation literature speaks of a "place where creation occurred," e.g. Heliopolis or Eridu. This was always a place in close geographic proximity to the people who wrote the literature. The biblical equivalent would be the garden of Eden (hence, Eden wouldn't have been in Iraq if the literature was composed in the Levant).
2) Other ancient creation literature wasn't meant to be interpreted literally, though it often had literal elements. For instance, there really was a King Gilgamesh, but he never went in search of the fabled plant of life.
3) Other ancient literature described creation as an ordering out of primordial chaos or primordial waters, rather than nothingness.
Now if, as Graham posits, other ancient cultures such as Egypt and Sumer, were the recipients of wisdom traditions going back to doomed Atlantis, what if the biblical account was an attempt to reject the wisdom tradition while acknowledging the true heritage of that tradition?
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Adam and Eve existed around the time of 4000 to 3000 BCE. That would be the seventh "day" of creation, or if you want to get technical, the end of the sixth "day."
What happens if we take the equation, a day is as a thousand years? (Ps.90:4, 2 Pet 3:8)
Day 7 = 4000 - 3000 BCE
Day 6 = 5000 - 4000 BCE
Day 5 = 6000 - 5000 BCE
Day 4 = 7000 - 6000 BCE
Day 3 = 8000 - 7000 BCE
Day 2 = 9000 - 8000 BCE
Day 1 = 10,000 - 9000 BCE
On day 1, supposedly "the earth was without form and void." During this first "day," God separated the light from the darkness. Sounds a lot like the aftermath of the destruction of 9600 BCE to me.
Adam is told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the wisdom tradition). In addition, the tree of life is placed in the garden. In later biblical tradition, this was seen as "the way that leads to life" or simply ethical behavior.
Thoughts?
BTW, I'm not suggesting simply rejecting the wisdom tradition out of hand. After all, Moses was said to be an adept in Egyptian magic, and the Temple was built according to an Egyptian style. I'm suggesting that Genesis 1-3, when properly understood, was a metaphorical way of rejecting the by then at least partially degenerate wisdom tradition.
Damon
Let me preface this by saying that many biblical scholars, in analyzing Genesis 1-3, not only see links to other ancient creation literature, but in addition, interpret Genesis 1-3 as a polemic. In other words, whereas other creation literature describes various aspects of the created order as divine beings, e.g., the sky god, the god of fresh water, etc., the biblical account explains them as created by a single god not associated with any particular aspect of creation.
Let me also preface this by saying that there are distinct similarities that are worth paying attention to:
1) Other ancient creation literature speaks of a "place where creation occurred," e.g. Heliopolis or Eridu. This was always a place in close geographic proximity to the people who wrote the literature. The biblical equivalent would be the garden of Eden (hence, Eden wouldn't have been in Iraq if the literature was composed in the Levant).
2) Other ancient creation literature wasn't meant to be interpreted literally, though it often had literal elements. For instance, there really was a King Gilgamesh, but he never went in search of the fabled plant of life.
3) Other ancient literature described creation as an ordering out of primordial chaos or primordial waters, rather than nothingness.
Now if, as Graham posits, other ancient cultures such as Egypt and Sumer, were the recipients of wisdom traditions going back to doomed Atlantis, what if the biblical account was an attempt to reject the wisdom tradition while acknowledging the true heritage of that tradition?
Let's assume, for sake of argument, that Adam and Eve existed around the time of 4000 to 3000 BCE. That would be the seventh "day" of creation, or if you want to get technical, the end of the sixth "day."
What happens if we take the equation, a day is as a thousand years? (Ps.90:4, 2 Pet 3:8)
Day 7 = 4000 - 3000 BCE
Day 6 = 5000 - 4000 BCE
Day 5 = 6000 - 5000 BCE
Day 4 = 7000 - 6000 BCE
Day 3 = 8000 - 7000 BCE
Day 2 = 9000 - 8000 BCE
Day 1 = 10,000 - 9000 BCE
On day 1, supposedly "the earth was without form and void." During this first "day," God separated the light from the darkness. Sounds a lot like the aftermath of the destruction of 9600 BCE to me.
Adam is told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (the wisdom tradition). In addition, the tree of life is placed in the garden. In later biblical tradition, this was seen as "the way that leads to life" or simply ethical behavior.
Thoughts?
BTW, I'm not suggesting simply rejecting the wisdom tradition out of hand. After all, Moses was said to be an adept in Egyptian magic, and the Temple was built according to an Egyptian style. I'm suggesting that Genesis 1-3, when properly understood, was a metaphorical way of rejecting the by then at least partially degenerate wisdom tradition.
Damon