Why we don't have a bible in the house, nor would...

According to Jaynes and others, there was early speech but reflection and consciousness were so underdeveloped due to the state of the brain that explanations for auditory hallucinations coud not be articulated so they were perceived as being god talking to our ancestors. They haven't claimed man couldn't speak, just provided a set of theories about underdeveloped speech and its relationship to simplistic views of there being a higher power that was governing their experiences.

Sorry if I didn't explain very well. I only remembered the bicameral mind when Greatnan mentioned speech development and social cooperation.

Homeric epics can be dated to at least 3000 years ago; they were passed down orally long before they were written. Same goes for biblical stories.

3000 years ago sounds very recent. Massive stone monuments were built 5000 years ago, could they have done that without speech?

Speech development, and changes in the brain as consciousness evolved, is suggested to have occurred around 3,000 years ago. Jaynes' Bicameral Mind is a theory that posits that the brain's two distinct hemispheres did not communicate and humans experienced auditory hallucinations in one half of the brain that they could not yet articulate via the other, separate half in undeveloped speech. As the brain evolved, so did language development and expression of conscious awareness. Jaynes and others suggest that primitive appreciation of human experiences of nature resulted in explanations like a god talking to humans when they were having auditory hallucinations, or causing sensational events that humans believed could only have been brought to them by a deity, when we now know that thngs like fires, floods and plagues can happen naturally.

I am sure there are many other alternative explanations for how primitive humans began to believe in the supernatural. Expansion of language did not occur in a vacuum and shared communication and understanding had to start somewhere. We are animals who have evolved at our own pace. It's now acknowledged that other animals have some degree of consciousness and even the beginnings of language that we don't yet understand.

Religion is a relatively recent phenomenon in the evolution of modern man. Worship of objects, the sun, the planets and the ocean were probably as vehement as worship of a god for our ancestors.

It's a nice thought! Anthropology (and Darwin) suggest a less rosy picture.

You tell me, Lily, you are the Christian!
I don't believe any tribe could exist if they had not been more co-operative than combative. Hunting was a group activity which called for close communication - probably the motivation for speech to develop. The rules they had may not have been the ones we abide by today, but they would certainly have had an acceptable code of conduct, which members broke at their peril.

There are cultures where the concept of stealing doesn't exist and the prohibition on killing has been quite varied. I think it is a sweeping generalisation to say these rules of communal life exist everywhere, even today, or that the rules were the same 'before the Bible was written'. When was that, by the way?

Greatnan What is even more interesting is that the leader of the herd is a granny. Matriarchs matter –in many species.

I think we are beginning to understand that we have been arrogant in the past, thinking we were the only creatures who could feel empathy and grief. I find the sight of elephant cows grieving with a mother who has lost a calf to be very moving.

Some lies are useful and not bad. Did you know that other primates can "tell lies", by which I mean practise deception. Got this from a programme years ago by Charlotte Uhlenbroek or David Attenborough about Toque Macaque monkeys living on ancient Buddhist ruins somewhere in Sri Lanka. The programme was reporting about a long-standing study that has been going on there led by someone whose name I've forgotten.

Which apparently unrelated side issue says to me that 'morality' is part of our make-up as a social species. Being 'good' is about the best way to survive satisfactorily as a member of a social species (you could say survive and be happy). The ability to tell apart what is good and what is bad is there in our very old ancestors from before we even evolved as modern humans. Just a wee bit before the bible then.

I think you will find the same general rules govern the conduct of all societies. Except for the bit about 'not having strange gods before me' of course. People were managing to live together a long time before the bible was written. The concept of adultery might not have existed, though - monogamy would not be viable in some societies. The prohibitions on killing, stealing, lying would be necessary for any community.

Not speaking as a Christian has any one come across a better set of rules Thou shalt not kill or Honour thy (grand)father and (grand)mother?

I teach English as a second language so I know the difficulties inherent in translation, so no; I have many different translations. biblestudymagazine.com/preview/choosetranslationWeb.pdf

And are they all from the same translation?

absent
There are probably about thirty different bibles in my house! I don't want to miss out on any 'nuances'.

Well it is called "the good book":

Good question
Am I my brother's keeper?

Good point
The labourer is worthy of his hire.

Good advice
Be not righteous overmuch; neither make thyself overwise.

Good politics
Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.

Good description
The hair of my flesh stood up.

Good insult
Go up, thou bald head.

Good observation
A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance.

Good grief
God is no respecter of persons.

Have a good day out, petallus. I like Coventry as well. I remember being blown away when I went to visit the first time. I think I was about 11.

Well, it certainly isn't relevant to me! I hope I live a decent and morally acceptable life without any god's intervention.

What God obviously didn't demand was the sacrifice of Isaac. What he expected was a willing obedience. Although perhaps 'expected' is the wrong word to use since the whole story starts with 'man's first disobedience' and goes on with one account after another of deliberate disobedience, arguing the toss with God and ignoring what people knew perfectly well God wanted them to do. And doing things they knew He didn't want them to do! And your Sam Harris says the Bible isn't relevant today......

Lilygran that is so interesting.

I am quite excited about the theological interpretations. The bible is such an interesting book when viewed in this way.

However going out for the day now. To Coventry Cathedral as it happens. Lovely building, especially the big window. Also an exhibition there at the moment.

Thank you, Lily and absent - your posts are very interesting. As a child, I remember thinking that my parents would never sacrifice me, no matter how much god commanded it, and wondering why any god would ask that of a parent. It just seemed like cruelty to me - and it still does!

Yes. I feel stronger now. I was going to research Isaac properly but what the hell. Here goes. What absent says has given me confidence. Abraham ('the first Jew ') was seeking for an understanding of the nature of a God who was very different from the other gods around. It appears that human sacrifice was a common practice at the time. One interpretation is that the story is clearly an indication that Abraham's God didn't want human sacrifice. Another is that what God does want is obedience, not slavish obedience or obedience through fear but a questioning and deliberate choice of submission. It was Isaac's choice to go with his father and an act of personal sacrifice for both. Both Isaac and Abraham were prepared to do what they believed God wanted. Christians believe that this interpretation foreshadows the self-sacrifice of Jesus whose ancestry is traced back to Abraham. The three themes, of a personal relationship with God, of a thinking and willing obedience to Him and of personal sacrifice even as far as death travel through both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. I'm not a theologian and this is a lay person's interpretation of the story. There's probably a lot I've missed out. Interpreting scripture (Jewish and Christian) is a full-time job.

I have no idea who Sam Harris is but he sounds a complete philistine.
Whether you believe the religious significance of either book, they are very important in terms of their cultural and historical influence on all of Western civilisation.

It cannot helped if people if people choose to take it literally, or quote random parts out of context to suit a particular argument. They have influenced societies in a major way.

Given that in general we no longer burn people at the stake; or send small boys up chimneys, or as a state, promote slavery; etc. Some sort of moral and religious ethical views have civilised us over the centuries. Its hard to view any UK history with out Christianity as an important reference point.

absentgrana that was very interesting and exactly the kind of deeper exploration that I like.

Bags No explanation for god's demand is given in Genesis, but I wonder whether the Isaac sacrifice also functions as something of a back story. I think I am right that Jewish tradition demanded that the first born – human or animal – should be sacrificed. However, an animal could be substituted (in fact, probably had to be substituted) for a child. The story of the ram in the thicket legitimises this substitution.

Re "insecure human traits", there are quite a lot of references in the Old Testament to god claiming to be a "jealous god". There is also something in the New Testament about the necessity of abandoning family in favour of love of god. Can't think where right this minute.