Here we are in the present, trapped between everything that ever has happened and everything that ever will happen.  And who's the better?

Is it more likely that a person living nearer the time of Creation understands Creation, Life, Love, the Universe, God better, or one who has the benefit of generations of Thinkers and Experimenters?

If the first parents really did have an experience with God, then surely they would have told their children.  Modern civilization goes from one sit-com episode to the next, from one new story to the next propaganda piece.  But less technologically burdened cultures repeat the same stories over and over.  While the first parents who told their children stories may have invented new stories from time to time, some stories they would have repeated.  "How we found each other", "What you were like as a baby", "Where the best huckleberries are to be found", "What God said to us in the Garden of Eden". 

Some of these stories, such as a direct visitation from God, or a talking serpent, or a friendly angel that stabbed me in the back, would have been so riveting, the children would never have forgotten them.  Even if they didn't tell them often, when they needed a new story to entertain, challenge or scare their children with, they would have repeated this remarkable tale.   The nearer to those first generations we get, shouldn't we expect to find increasingly accurate accounts of what really did happen?  Isn't that reasonable?

The further we get from the source, as the stories are told generation after generation, how likely is it that there would be absolutely no elements dropped out, embellishments added, or details rearranged?  Surely much would be changed, however slightly. 

Then should we give more credence to the earliest Sumerian accounts of, for example, a great flood, or to the later versions?  When the Semites conquered Sumeria, they adopted not only their government structure, pottery technology, irrigation and farming methods, writing system, commerce, and architecture, but also their myths and legends. They changed those myths and legends in ways that can be traced backwards to the Sumerian original (with gaps).  Without recognizing that collection, readers of the Old Testament see symbols, metaphors, and poetic license rather than the literalness originally intended.  If one accepts that the Semites took the Sumerian religion, incorporated significant Egyptian elements, then one can see how Judaism itself developed into the religion of Jesus' day. 

I believe one problem Jesus faced was how to present True God to a people whose religion was based on other (Sumerian, Egyptian) cultures' religions.  There would naturally be contrasts.  But since everyone believes their religion is "the most true," "the only true," or "absolutely true," any new teaching that contrasted with theirs would meet strong opposition. 

Getting close to the origin of humanity hasn't yet gotten us to a pre-Sumerian state of affairs which recognized only a single God.  That may not be bad.  Today, religions teach of angels, and some of demons.  The early Igigi and Anunaki could have been spiritual beings.  So the early civilizations that revered a primary God and allowed a number of hearth or nature gods may have merely been misidentifying angels or other spiritual beings.  Another possibility is that every god in a pantheon may have been merely a different manifestation, or a different way of looking at the True God.  For example, the Old Testament recognizes El-Shaddai, El-Elyon, and other gods.  As monotheists, we say they are the same God.  But did the peoples before Moses see them as a single God, or as a plurality of gods? 

Coming fresh from their Sumerian conquests, having embraced the Sumerian pantheons (and then edited them), and then having adopted Egyptian wisdom tales, proverbs, and language styles, the most likely answer is that the Jewish people recognized a number of gods besides the two national gods Elohim and Yahweh.  The religious writings of the Sumerians are relatively few.  But they are closer to the original humans than the much later Semitic religious writings.  Therefore, shouldn't the Sumerian texts be considered more credible than what came after?  It is unfortunate that writing developed so late in human history.  It was still thousands of years after the founders of Sumerian civilization had introduced agriculture and pottery technologies, till records could be written which lasted to our day.  Surely there is something in these records to tell us of their predecessors and of their predecessors' relations with deity.

Over the past couple of years, I discovered the music of various previously French colonies.
Until I had visited imeem, I was not familiar with Oliver N'goma / Oliver Ngoma.  Even if you don't understand French, the music is beautiful.


Ecole - Oliver Ngoma

Asi des colonies de la France se libérent, sa musique aussi fleurent.