Gaslight digest of discussion for 97-apr-03
----------------------------THE HEADERS---------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 23:58:28 -0800
From: jporter(at)ricochet.net (Julie Porter)
Subject: Re: MacDonald [11116] [11137] [11143] [11145] [11161]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:52:55 -0800
From: jporter(at)ricochet.net (Julie Porter)
Subject: Re: G. MacDonald, et al. re: Lilith [11155] [11162]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 08:58:21 -0500
From: "S.T. Karnick"
Subject: Re: MacDonald [11161] [11163]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 08:55:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Annie Craft-Kincheon
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154] [11156] [11164]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:34:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris Carlisle
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154] [11156] [11164] [11165]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:35:20 -0800
From: Jeff Sargent
Subject: Re: About Lilith [11160] [11166]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 13:05:43 -0500
From: "James D. Hake"
Subject: RE: space between conference [11146] [11147] [11167]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:34:57 -0800 (PST)
From: "linda j. holland-toll"
Subject: RE: space between conference [11146] [11147] [11167] [11168]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:16:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ
Subject: CHAT: Myth and Paradise [11169]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:46:04 -0500
From: "Sherwood, Norman"
Subject: RE: CHAT: Myth and Paradise [11169] [11170]
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:55:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Debah(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11171]
-----------------------------THE POSTS-----------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 23:58:28 -0800
From: jporter(at)ricochet.net (Julie Porter)
Subject: Re: MacDonald [11116] [11137] [11143] [11145] [11161]
>S.T. Karnick
appears to have written
>
>The notion that the bulk of MacDonald's writings are not up to his best is
>certainly true, but true of all writers who produce more than three or four
>books. I have heard of no evidence that he failed as a parson; to my
>knowledge he simply had a talent for writing and utilized it.
This prompted me to find the unfortunatly overead books from the closet
where they are stored. The combined copy of _Phantastes and Lilith_
contains the oft quoted C.S. Lewis introduction. (Origionally for George
MacDonald: an Anthology 1946). In this Lewis says in part
> ... By 1852 he was in trouble with the 'deacons' for heresy, the charges
>being that he had expressed belief in a future state of probation for
>heathens and that he was tainted with German theology. <
Lewis goes on to say MacDonalds salary was lowered in an attempt to force
his resignation. He tried to live on the lesser amount living off the
collection.
Again I quote Lewis
>IN 1853, however, the situation became imossible. He resigned and embarked
>on the career of lecturing, tutoring, ocassional preaching, writing and
>'odd jobs'...<
So he did fail from the established point of view. We are probaby much the
better for this. I can not find the refernce that implied he wrote pap for
the 'canary in the cage' type victorian lady, since no one woud read his
dark fantasy work. _The Gray (Grey?) wolf_ and the _Cruel Painter_. will
definatly keep one up at night.
>
>> I also recall in some referneces that he apealed to "Rosa Budd" type
>> ladies. Fortunaly he did leave us with some amazing children and Fairy
>> Stories. These are much darker and I would definatly say these are
>> "interesting and provocative.", What I am refering to is the 30 or so
>books
>> that are sort of Christian Appologia. (Why does a religion need an
>> applogy?)
>
>Because some people are so inclined to attack it. This use of the term is
>in fact the original meaning of _apology_ -- that of giving a formal,
>rational defense of a proposition, rather than apologizing for it as in the
>now-common sense of the word -- see your dictionary for more explication.
>The reason people use the word is that it emphasizes the formal nature of
>the reasoning in contrast to emotional defensiveness -- the exact opposite
>of the impression people commonly get when one uses the word today.
>
>Having read a good number of MacDonald's apologetics, I can say that they
>are quite interesting and provocative without being in any way perverse.
The question was asked rhetorically. I am well aware of the use of the word.
Mutch of what bothers me about the modern Christian; has such thin skin.
This though is not apropriate though for the subject at hand. Other than CD
saw much of this in Drood. Are any of the characters there true christians.
Or do they have an agenda, for which the church provides a shield. Anyone
else note the simularity of Jasper and that "Star Trek" cult leader. Both
chior directors. Both charismatic.
>
>The notion that he was sexually predatory is new to me, and I consider it
>quite suspect, given everything else we know about him.
Preditory? I do not know how you read that into my post. I found where I
got this impression of the 'apealing to the refined lady' in the preface
to a collection of the childrens stories. (The two Curdie books, and much
of the Adela Cathcart material) Lewis skips this part chronologically it
follows the above quote.
>... The small familiy were always on the brink of poverty...
>Fortunatly,the poet, Byron's widow, recognising George's gift as a writer
>started to look after the family finacially. They moved down to London,
>living in a house then called 'The Retreat' ... later lived in by the
>famous poet and storyteller William Morris...<
Not exactly grace and favor. This passage, however, brings up something
entierly unrelated. I, as one of three original members involved with the
beginning of the computer industry in 1977, have been compared to Ada
Byron, Countess of Lovelace. I have a collection of her letters. She was
pretty weird. The picture her letters give of her mother, border on the
vindictive. The commentation states that she was forbiden to see her
father. She (Ada) to not leave england. He, (Byron) to not return to
england and seek communication with his daughter.
That the vindictive mother would support the Scottish writer, while
treating her own daughter with contempt is ironic. Ada, forbidden to
indulge in romatisisim and meloncholy, went to Babbage's lectures, the rest
well I am typing on it.
Might there be more to Dickens' _Domby and son_ then meets the eye? If
Doyce in _Dorrit_ is Babbage, could Ada have given rise to the poor
Florence Dombey, Ignored by her parent, to hang about with a precision
instrument maker?
This has delved a ways from the _Mystery of Edwin Drood_. Then that is what
makes Drood so facinating. The directions it leads.
Does anyone know if the Letterd of CD to Ada are still existant. The book
was about her letters, Mostly to her tutors, some to Babbage. Any letter
she would have written to CD would have been burnt, when CD destroyed his
corespondance after someone 'Leaked' something personal.
>
>[edit]
>
>> A word of warning. A christain publisher was butcherd some of the titles.
>> Cutting whole chapters & rewriting whole sections in modern bible thumper
>> engilsh. Be careful.
>
>Yes, these are dreadful, although I would take objection to the term _bible
>thumper_, which is a type of epithet that would not be allowed in public
>against any other group.
(squack, polly wanna cracker) I no is pollitically correct. I also resent
censorship. The world is a dynamic place, it will not stay static. No more
that it is possible to stop a hurricane. To attempt to force otherwise is
pointless. It only creates anger. This then returns us to Jasper and his
escape form reality.
-jP
>
>Best w's,
>
>S.T. Karnick
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 00:52:55 -0800
From: jporter(at)ricochet.net (Julie Porter)
Subject: Re: G. MacDonald, et al. re: Lilith [11155] [11162]
> What was the fascination with Lilith toward
> the end of the century? I see "Lilith"
> mentioned in many titles, as the subject of a
> poem or as the allusory theme of a novel.
>
> Stephen D
> Sdavies(at)mtroyal.ab.ca
For me it was the idea of 'forbiddoen fruit'. The idea that in the 1970s
there was still something dark and hidden in litrature. A congregational
minister in a wendsday night lecture introduced me to her. (He also did a
rather interesting lecture on Frankenstien as christian aligory). He
covered the talmudic basics. After that she seemed to pop up everywhere.
Look again at CS Lewis's Narnia. The evil that arises there is of her. The
good of Adam and Eve. I do not recall if he mentions her by name. She is
also the jinn. Sometimes refered to as Babylon.
Others on the list have covered the subject well in the relation to the
expansion of female empowerment. This is somethin of a new idea for me. I
like it.
Lilith must be returning to the conscienceness of society. A few month back
the newspaper had the above question as well in the Q&A column. The answer
dealt with the talmutic tradition. In some sense Lilith is the distaff side
of satan. The female counterpart.
The modern world has torn aside the curtain. There is no longer room for
fantasy in the works of the scientent. "Just the facts, Mam". Joe Friday
would be a reader of Charles Dickens. I bet _Hard Times_ was his favorite.
He sure quotes Dickens a lot :-). This aside the modern world does not
reward the imaginative.
To be a scientist requires a specialised skill set. To dissassociate from
the animal. To be precise. Never to make a mistake.
Some paths of research are now blocked. To even mention them is to incure
the wrath of the ingorant. Then again would we want would be alchemist
cooking up atom bombs in there garret. HG Well made us aware of the horrors
of vivisection in _Dr Morrou_(Sp). School Districts find themselves liable
for the possibility of poisioning the science student. (No loss there the
reactions of the chemicals are well known, Students copy the answers
anyway). It has all been done before. "Let someone else do the work, I am
here for the party."
In the latter part of the last century all was still thought to be
knowable. What more then to look again at the creation myth. Fit it into
the world view of the time. Would it be easer to be litteral. Make the
world black and white. A world of just four simple elements (Earth, Air,
Fire, and Water). It is no wonder that one third the population now thinks
that someone is messing with their mind. A fact of 100 years ago is now
disputed as beeing porly thought out.
Into this insert the temptress. The leader into decadence and chaos. An
object to trap the curious.
Humans by nature are Pantheistic (Many gods). Even a monotheistic religion
(Judisim) becomes corrupted over time. The hierarchy of the host seriphim
and the cheribim, Then Abraham, Moses and the company of the proffits.
Chrisianity with the trinity. Corrupted chrisianity with the Madonna, the
saints, and again the heirarchy of the hevens. I am not familure enough
with Buddisim and Islam to comment on those. Although I think there are
many buddahs. And the goal is to be come buddah onself. Is islam
monotheistic? if so it is the best example of this.
We here at the end of the 20th Century have our UFOs and Angels. The Romans
had the Larries and the Vestas. The middle ages Knomes and Fairies. It
seems to be part of the human psyche to create these michevious helpers and
hinderers.
Lilith is an extention on this. The mother of these fantasies and fears.
-julieP
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 08:58:21 -0500
From: "S.T. Karnick"
Subject: Re: MacDonald [11161] [11163]
Julie Porter's attempts to criticize MacDonald's personal life are clearly
a matter of how one interprets the facts of it. Hostility toward the work
(or at least the bulk of it) will breed hostility toward the man, and
enjoyment of the whole of his work breeds sympathy. That is as it should
be.
She wrote, in part,
> S.T.Karnick wrote,
> >Yes, these are dreadful, although I would take objection to the term
_bible
> >thumper_, which is a type of epithet that would not be allowed in public
> >against any other group.
> (squack, polly wanna cracker) I no is pollitically correct. I also resent
> censorship. The world is a dynamic place, it will not stay static. No
more
> that it is possible to stop a hurricane. To attempt to force otherwise is
> pointless. It only creates anger. This then returns us to Jasper and his
> escape form reality.
The point, which Ms. Porter certainly discerned despite her attempts to
mock it and pretend that the author considered it somehow original, is that
although one is free to insult other people, one should not do so. To take
a polite objection to an insult and compare it to an opium addiction is
truly bizarre and speaks for itself.
Best w's,
S.T. Karnick
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 08:55:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Annie Craft-Kincheon
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154] [11156] [11164]
In regards to your last paragrah, it also seems to me that since the person
didn't see the ghost until long afterwards, were there other ghosts who had
come for other people before the Elwell ghost?
annie
At 07:04 PM 4/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>In a message dated 4/2/97 1:09:56 PM, you wrote:
>
>>And I felt it was the moral force of the injured Elwell that compelled
>>Edward to accompany him to whatever judgment awaited them both, for as
>>the attorney said, either could have played fast-and-loose--"it was
>>business", after all
>
>I was troubled by Elwell's committing suicide, his easy way out but he also
>left a wife with a weak heart caring for children and a mother. They
>couldn't take that easy way out. So, no matter how much the frustration and
>the loser that he might have been it says something about his character as
>well that he was capable of leaving them. Mary "may" have been left by
>Edward for supernatural reasons or base reasons but Elwell just as surely and
>rather callously left his wife (and kids and mother) as well. I'm sorry that
>he was so distressed but that didn't excuse him in my eyes on a moral level.
> So who was he to come fetch Edward--? This is a little outside the
>perameters of the story but it didn't make me feel sympathetic towards him.
> If he'd died due to his health failing (like his wife's was) then I would
>have been. But a botched suicide attempt that must have really taxed his
>wife with him lingering two months--sorry, no. It's just pathetic and
>selfish.
>
>I agree with Marsha, too, that Mary was very short sighted but that sort of
>thing was prevalent in the stories of this era either because husbands didn't
>wish to trouble their pretty little heads (rightly or wrongly) or their
>pretty little heads didn't wish to be bothered. It's surprising how much of
>it I still see today.
>
>Still...the story is very eerie for the final effect, the line echoing in her
>head "not till long afterwards." I would find it interesting to have a book
>full of the other stories to do with this house, eh? How many "afterwards"
>were there up to this time period?--and how personal were they, some good,
>some bad, etc. Interesting idea.
>
>Deborah McMillion
>debah(at)aol.com
>http://www.primenet.com/~bucanek/
>
>
>
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 11:34:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris Carlisle
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11151] [11153] [11154] [11156] [11164] [11165]
>In regards to your last paragrah, it also seems to me that since the person
>didn't see the ghost until long afterwards, were there other ghosts who had
>come for other people before the Elwell ghost?
YES!! Annie is right. How would the person who told the couple about the
ghost have known about it, and about its propensity to not SEEM a ghost
until long afterward, unless it had appeared before?
I don't think that the ghost would have routinely taken people away,
though. This would have given the house a bad reputation, which it
really didn't have. I suspect that it was often benign, like the
ghosts at Duke's Denver in the Dorothy Sayers novels.
Perhaps each person got from the ghost what was DESERVED in each case?
Gentle, though disquieting courtesty for the wife, torturing guilt for
the husband (though I agree that he might not have deserved quite so
MUCH guilt).
Kiwi Carlisle
carlisle(at)wuchem.wustl.edu
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:35:20 -0800
From: Jeff Sargent
Subject: Re: About Lilith [11160] [11166]
> In short, when Jeffery speaks of mixing myths from different cultures,
> he cannot be referring to anything Biblical or anything within the
> bounds of either Jewish or Christian orthodoxy.
I don't have access to references at the moment, but isn't the Old Testament
formed from several older myth cycles creeping up along the fertile crescent?
It's been 15 years since Ancient History, and I've been rather preoccupied with
work, so forgive me if my scholarship bites.
Having opened my big yap once too often, I'll just nab some of these finger
sandwiches, and quietly slip out of the room.
Sorry to have wasted bandwidth. I'm a bug.
Sarge
--
Comper Sarge Jeffery L. N. Sargent
Tippett Studios 2741 Tenth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710 (510) 649-9711
sarge(at)tippett.com jefs(at)dnai.com
-----------------------------------------
Boredom is a vital problem for the moralist, since
at least half of the sins of mankind are caused by
the fear of it. - Bertrand Russell
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 13:05:43 -0500
From: "James D. Hake"
Subject: RE: space between conference [11146] [11147] [11167]
At 08:34 PM 4/1/97 -0500, Bob wrote:
>Roslyn's post seems to have been misdirected, but my curiosity has
>been aroused. What is "the space between"? Sounds like a trendy
>bar, but conferences about bars are few and far between. (The
>more's the pity.)
Fewer still take place in bars ;-)
Regards,
Jim Hake
Work:j.hake(at)ieee.org
Home: jdh(at)apk.net
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 10:34:57 -0800 (PST)
From: "linda j. holland-toll"
Subject: RE: space between conference [11146] [11147] [11167] [11168]
On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, James D. Hake wrote:
> At 08:34 PM 4/1/97 -0500, Bob wrote:
>
> >Roslyn's post seems to have been misdirected, but my curiosity has
> >been aroused. What is "the space between"? Sounds like a trendy
> >bar, but conferences about bars are few and far between. (The
> >more's the pity.)
>
> Fewer still take place in bars ;-)
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Hake
> Work:j.hake(at)ieee.org
> Home: jdh(at)apk.net
>
All too true, alas!
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:16:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ
Subject: CHAT: Myth and Paradise [11169]
Sarge says:
<
>> In short, when Jeffery speaks of mixing myths from different cultures,
>> he cannot be referring to anything Biblical or anything within the
>> bounds of either Jewish or Christian orthodoxy.
>I don't have access to references at the moment, but isn't the Old Testament
>formed from several older myth cycles creeping up along the fertile crescent?
>It's been 15 years since Ancient History, and I've been rather preoccupied with
>work, so forgive me if my scholarship bites.
The term "myth" is itself pretty loaded, although in common understanding
it means "a story that isn't true" (as in, "The story of George Washington
chopping down the cherry tree is a myth"). However, scholars use it
in many ways, so you have to be careful in reading any scholarly work to
understand exactly what the author's definition is. Even then, I think that,
if we consider carefully, we would have to admit that many of the things
that we count on as being true fall into this category of "untrue story.
Indeed even many things scientists, the great dispellers of myth supposedly,
have believed in over the years have turned out to be quite untrue.
On the other hand, I think we might surmise that, where a great many myths
seem to dovetail, there _could_ be some truth behind them. Thus, the fact that
the Bible tells a story about a man named Noah who survived a great flood
and the Babylonians tell a story about a man named Gilgamesh who did
the same doesn't mean that we can discount the story of Noah as simply
a copy. It means, in all likelihood, that a great flood did occur, that some
person of unusual intellect and piety survived it, and that the Jews called
this person Noah. (It is helpful, of course, that some geological evidence
for a great flood actually exists.) The relation between Gilgamesh and Noah
will, in all likelihood remain problematic.
As often as not, many stories from the Bible that scholars in the past have
dismissed as mythical (i.e., untrue) have been shown to have a factual basis.
Just as Schleimann exploded the idea that Troy was a Homeric myth, for
instance, archaeologists have discovered the ruins of cities like
Jericho, and have tantalizing hints that the cities of Sodom and
Gomorrah, far from being fantasies as always believed, were real places.
The basis for the previous belief in their non-existence was the fact
that they weren't mentioned in any ancient texts other than the Bible.
Yet when you discover, in known cities, traces of accounting records that
point to trade with a city apparently located where the Dead Sea presently
lies, the story in the Bible begins to looks more
and more acceptable.
Incidentally, the fact that stories very similar to Jewish and Christian
ones were common in Asia Minor and Europe has been noted by scholars of
both faiths for a great long time. In fact, such stories are often told
throughout the world. African missionaries, for instance, were
surprised to find a story very like the Garden of Eden already extant
among their converts in Central Africa. (Believers would say, perhaps,
that this is a matter of God's Providence, a way of convincing others that
the Biblical stories are true.)
The hunt for the Biblical Eden, you might be surprised to learn, is still on.
This is because Genesis gives a specific location. (The Mesopotamian paradise,
Dilmun has never been located--its placement varies from writer to writer.)
As late as 1980, a scholar named Juris Zarins used space age technology-
a satellite image--to show that the four rivers which the Bible mentions as
meeting in Eden were real. Two of these them, the Tigris and Euphrates, are
well known; the other two had never been found, which was considered a
considerable blow to the Genesis account-until Zarins showed that they
existed. To quote Richard Heinberg in his work on Paradise,
"On the basis of this new evidence, Zarins concluded that Eden was a
relatively small area south of the spot where the four rivers met, a region now
covered by the tip of the Persian Gulf." Moreover, this area was shown to
be rich in bdelium, an aromatic grain resin, and in gold--both substances
mentioned in Genesis 2:10-14 as being found in Eden. It was also
once rich in vegetation.
None of this proves that there is anything to the Adam and Eve story,
of course. But it does suggest that because statements and stories
appear in Bible we cannot automatically dismiss them as mere tales. The
Jews, after all, have always been a people with a particular interest in
history.
Bob Champ
rchamp(at)europa.umuc.edu
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:46:04 -0500
From: "Sherwood, Norman"
Subject: RE: CHAT: Myth and Paradise [11169] [11170]
--Boundary (ID hrRsXE115uuBN2iCIoyiSA)
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Bob,
Thanks for that post..very interesting (hadn't heard about Dilmun!).
>----------
>From: Robert Champ[SMTP:rchamp(at)europa.umuc.edu]
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 1997 3:16 PM
>To: GASLIGHT(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
>Subject: CHAT: Myth and Paradise [11169]
>
>Sarge says:
>
><
>>> In short, when Jeffery speaks of mixing myths from different cultures,
>>> he cannot be referring to anything Biblical or anything within the
>>> bounds of either Jewish or Christian orthodoxy.
>
>>I don't have access to references at the moment, but isn't the Old Testament
>>formed from several older myth cycles creeping up along the fertile
>>crescent?
>>It's been 15 years since Ancient History, and I've been rather preoccupied
>>with
>>work, so forgive me if my scholarship bites.
>
>The term "myth" is itself pretty loaded, although in common understanding
>it means "a story that isn't true" (as in, "The story of George Washington
>chopping down the cherry tree is a myth"). However, scholars use it
>in many ways, so you have to be careful in reading any scholarly work to
>understand exactly what the author's definition is. Even then, I think that,
>if we consider carefully, we would have to admit that many of the things
>that we count on as being true fall into this category of "untrue story.
>Indeed even many things scientists, the great dispellers of myth supposedly,
>have believed in over the years have turned out to be quite untrue.
>
>On the other hand, I think we might surmise that, where a great many myths
>seem to dovetail, there _could_ be some truth behind them. Thus, the fact
>that
>the Bible tells a story about a man named Noah who survived a great flood
>and the Babylonians tell a story about a man named Gilgamesh who did
>the same doesn't mean that we can discount the story of Noah as simply
>a copy. It means, in all likelihood, that a great flood did occur, that some
>person of unusual intellect and piety survived it, and that the Jews called
>this person Noah. (It is helpful, of course, that some geological evidence
>for a great flood actually exists.) The relation between Gilgamesh and Noah
>will, in all likelihood remain problematic.
>
>As often as not, many stories from the Bible that scholars in the past have
>dismissed as mythical (i.e., untrue) have been shown to have a factual basis.
>Just as Schleimann exploded the idea that Troy was a Homeric myth, for
>instance, archaeologists have discovered the ruins of cities like
>Jericho, and have tantalizing hints that the cities of Sodom and
>Gomorrah, far from being fantasies as always believed, were real places.
>The basis for the previous belief in their non-existence was the fact
>that they weren't mentioned in any ancient texts other than the Bible.
>Yet when you discover, in known cities, traces of accounting records that
>point to trade with a city apparently located where the Dead Sea presently
>lies, the story in the Bible begins to looks more
>and more acceptable.
>
>Incidentally, the fact that stories very similar to Jewish and Christian
>ones were common in Asia Minor and Europe has been noted by scholars of
>both faiths for a great long time. In fact, such stories are often told
>throughout the world. African missionaries, for instance, were
>surprised to find a story very like the Garden of Eden already extant
>among their converts in Central Africa. (Believers would say, perhaps,
>that this is a matter of God's Providence, a way of convincing others that
>the Biblical stories are true.)
>
>The hunt for the Biblical Eden, you might be surprised to learn, is still on.
>This is because Genesis gives a specific location. (The Mesopotamian
>paradise,
>Dilmun has never been located--its placement varies from writer to writer.)
>As late as 1980, a scholar named Juris Zarins used space age technology-
>a satellite image--to show that the four rivers which the Bible mentions as
>meeting in Eden were real. Two of these them, the Tigris and Euphrates, are
>well known; the other two had never been found, which was considered a
>considerable blow to the Genesis account-until Zarins showed that they
>existed. To quote Richard Heinberg in his work on Paradise,
>"On the basis of this new evidence, Zarins concluded that Eden was a
>relatively small area south of the spot where the four rivers met, a region
>now
>covered by the tip of the Persian Gulf." Moreover, this area was shown to
>be rich in bdelium, an aromatic grain resin, and in gold--both substances
>mentioned in Genesis 2:10-14 as being found in Eden. It was also
>once rich in vegetation.
>
>None of this proves that there is anything to the Adam and Eve story,
>of course. But it does suggest that because statements and stories
>appear in Bible we cannot automatically dismiss them as mere tales. The
>Jews, after all, have always been a people with a particular interest in
>history.
>
>Bob Champ
>rchamp(at)europa.umuc.edu
>
--Boundary (ID hrRsXE115uuBN2iCIoyiSA)--
===0===
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:55:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Debah(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: "Afterwards" [11171]
In a message dated 4/3/97 10:40:49 AM, you wrote:
>How would the person who told the couple about the
>ghost have known about it, and about its propensity to not SEEM a ghost
>until long afterward, unless it had appeared before?
This is why I said it would be neat to have a volume of the stories of the
other ghost tales. Obviously the house has some kind of "haunting" for it to
have this reputations. It also reduced the price on the house a bit, just
for that reputation. And like I said--I didn't think the ghosts would be all
bad either. Or no one would venture there. Call the volume AFTERWARDS, and
tell tales all through time from the beginning of the house's reputation
(perhaps what started this natural Doorway--was it built on some old stone
circle site?, etc.) till current times and always the ghost wouldn't be
recognized till later.
Or would that be too much of a schtick?
Deborah McMillion
End of Gaslight digest.