Were they like us?

“If you look only at Genesis as an allegory, you have a major problem, because if it's an allegory, then tell me who our ancestor was? If Abraham was real, then from Abraham if Adam isn't real, if it's just an allegory, it's just a story, then what's the real Adam who really fell in a garden and really sinned? Where did we come from?”  

—Ken Ham

 By Alex P. Vidal

 

The first people introduced in the Book of Genesis are Adam and Eve.

They live on our Earth and eventually have children.

We tend to think of Adam and Eve as people like ourselves, and as a family with children.

“Is this a valid assumption?” asks Dr. Erwin Ginsburgh in the First Man.

Then Adam! “Were they really people like us? How might they have differed? What were they? Let us look at the available information.”

The Legends of the Bible, a compilation of material made by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg and used by Ginsburgh as reference, claims that Adam either visited or passed six other worlds before he reached the Earth.

This is the story narrated by Ginsburg, a physicist, in the book, which he also described as “a scientific interpretation of the Book of Genesis”:

In the Book of Genesis we find Adam and Eve living in a Garden of Eden.

This garden provided anything necessary to support life for two people.

Their food came from their plant kingdom. But there were two trees which were taboo:  the so-called Tree of Knowledge and the so-called Tree of Life.

The Book of Genesis (3:22) says that the fruits of the latter tree could provide immortality.

Eve breaks the taboo relating to the Tree of Knowledge. She and Adam ate the forbidden fruit from this tree (Genesis 3:6).

Because of this, and to keep them from eating of the Tree of Life (Genesis 3:23), both she and Adam are forced to leave the garden where everything was provided and must support themselves in our world.

They have at least three male offspring who have difficulty living with each other, and the problem reaches a climax when Cain kills Abel (Genesis 4:8).

 

SONS

 

When their two remaining sons, Cain and Seth, marry we are never told where their wives came from.

Among later descendants, the biblical record shows that there is a tendency for intermarriage within the group.

Adam and his immediate descendants are very long-lived. Many of the first descendants have life spans greater than 900 years.

Noah is famous for having survived the biblical flood.

After Noah, the lifespan of his son, Shem, falls dramatically to about 600 years.

Then there is a second fall in life span to 438 years for Shem’s son Arpachshad.

The life span stabilizes for three generations, and then a third fall to about 200 years occurs at the time of Peleg.

By the 20th generation, Abraham, the lifespan is down to 175 years.

Ultimately, man’s life expectancy falls to approximately present day lengths.

No lifespan can be listed for Enoch, the father of Methuselah, because the Bible does not record his death.

Significantly, there is explicit mention of the death of all the others, but not Enoch.

Genesis says (5:23 & 24), “In his 365th year Enoch walked with God and was not of the Earth, for God took him.”

The Legends discuss this further in the section called the “Translation of Enoch.”

The last paragraph of this section is especially interesting to a 20th century reader: “To the right of him sparkled flames of fire, to the left of him burnt torches of fire, and on all sides he was engirdled by storm and whirlwind, hurricane and thundering.”

Noah was 500 years old when his son, Shem, was born; none of Adam’s descendants had an heir so late in life.

Shem’s birth occurred at a time when Enoch would have been 900 years old if he were alive.

 

COINCIDENCE

 

Was it coincidence that Noah waited until he thought Enoch had lived out his normal lifespan of some 900 years?

Abraham lived about 2,000 years after Adam’s birth.

The Legends discuss in detail the fact that the bodies of the first and second generation did not decay at death.

Specific mention is made that Abel’s body did not decay.

Since the second generation is directly descended from Adam and Eve, we can expect this generation to have inherited, and the bodies of the third generation decay after death.

Something must have changed between the second and third generations. In fact, very specific instructions are given for preparing the bodies of the first two generations before they are “buried” in the cave of Machpelah near Hebron.

According to the Book of Genesis some of the members of Adam’s family were the originators of metallurgy, music and domestication of animals.

Genesis (4:20-22) relates: “Jabal was the father of such as dwell in tents and have cattle. His brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and pipe. And…Tubal-Cain, the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron.”

Why should the Bible identify the start of some of the major facets of high civilization?

In addition, the Book of Genesis says that members of Adam’s family talked to God.

It is not clear whether all the late generations were able to talk to God, but certainly Noah, the 10th generation, and Abraham, the 20th, do have this ability.

For God told Noah to build a ship to survive the flood (Genesis 6:14) and also God entered into a covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:18).

The ability to talk to God seems to decrease from this time onward, although Moses is still able to do so much later.

There appear to be some final vestiges of this power later in the Bible when the prophets received visions and warnings from God.

Today, is extra sensory perception a remaining fragment of this ability to communicate with God?

Adam apparently had some technically advanced and highly sophisticated devices.

In addition to the well-known Thee of Knowledge and the immortality-giving Tree of Life, there was a set of God-made clothes that made the wearer invincible and irresistible.

The Legends claim that Nimrod (Noah’s great-grandson) is supposed to have worn them.

 

INGENIOUS

 

There is also a very ingenious engraving device, the “Shamir,” which reputedly was used to cut stones for Solomon’s Temple, but which has since disappeared.

The Sword of Methuselah was reportedly used by Abraham when he and his small band defeated the armies of the five kings.

Even as amazing as these people were, they still had problems living with each other.

Ultimately, immortality and evil living led to the destruction of all of Adam’s descendants except Noah and his family (Genesis 6:17).

In an attempt to improve morality, as Noachide code of seven rules was drawn up to provide guidance so the remaining people could live with each other.

In the 20th generation, a very formal relationship was established between God and Abraham; specifically, a covenant was drawn up.

Apparently, there was no earlier need for such a formal arrangement.

As the lifespan of Adam’s descendants was falling and approaching that which we today consider as normal, and as it became increasingly difficult to distinguish, Abraham’s heirs from the rest of mankind, all the males descended from Abraham were circumcised.

Before this covenant, Abraham was known by the name “Abram.” As part of God’s covenant, his name was changed to “Abraham.”

The Legends also relate that Abraham was the first of Adam’s descendants who aged as he grew older.

In addition, Jacob was the first man who declined physically before death.

Before his time, death occurred quite rapidly.

Paradoxical wit and wisdom

“It takes a heap of sense to write good nonsense.”

—Mark Twain

By Alex P. Vidal

 

A US-based psychologist, who deals with problems including the art of insult, has coined a new vocabulary we won’t find in any dictionary (at least not yet): oxymoronica.

I bought a copy of the book for only $6; its original price is $14.95 plus tax on a sale day in the Barnes and Noble bookseller in California in November 2012.

The author, Dr. Mardy Grothe, described it to be containing “paradoxical wit and wisdom from history’s greatest wordsmiths.”

Grothe did actually define oxymoronica in the book: “(OK-se-mor-ON-uh-ca) noun, plural: Any variety of tantalizing, self-contradictory statements or observations that on the surface appear false or illogical, but at a deeper level are true, often profoundly true. See also oxymoron, paradox.

Examples: “Melancholy is the pleasure of being sad.” Victor Hugo;

“To lead the people, walk behind them.” Lao-tzu;

“You’d be surprised how much it costs to look this cheap.” Dolly Parton.

Grothe introduced “oxymoronica” to readers in the delightful collection of 1,400 of the most provocative quotations of all time.

“From ancient thinkers like Confucius, Aristotle, and Saint Augustine to great writers like Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, and G.B. Shaw to modern social observers like Woody Allen and Lily Tomlin, Oxymoronica celebrates the power and beauty of paradoxical thinking,” wrote Grothe.

“All areas of human activity are explored, including love, sex and romance, politics, the arts, the literary life, and, of course, marriage and family life.”

He added: “The wise and witty observations in this book are as highly entertaining as they are intellectually nourishing and are sure to grab the attention of language lovers everywhere.”

He came up with the word in the early 1990s when he was working on his 1999 book Never Let a Fool Kiss You or a Kiss Fool You.

 

INVENTION

 

“A new word invention is formally called a neologism, and my dream is that oxymoronica will one day show up in a dictionary (and given the meaning "a group or collection of oxymoronic and paradoxical quotations"),” Grothe explained.

According to Grothe, The Never Let a Fool Kiss You book introduced people to the fascinating literary device known as chiasmus (ky-AZ-mus).

“Chiasmus occurs when the order of words is reversed in parallel phrases, as in Cicero's ‘One should eat to live, not live to eat’ or Mae West's ‘It's not the men in my life, it's the life in my men,’" he explained.

He revealed that even though chiasmus shows up in some of the world's most famous sayings (like John F. Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" line), the term is not well known, even among sophisticated and highly literate people.

“While compiling quotations for my Never Let a Fool Kiss You book, I kept running into many other quotations that I loved, but that didn't fit into the chiasmus theme. Some of the most fascinating quotes captured my interest because they had one special thing in common—they contained either a contradiction in terms or a contradiction in ideas:

“Be careful what you wish for, it might come true.”

“Free love is too expensive.”

“I must be cruel only to be kind.”

“A yawn is a silent shout.”

“Man is condemned to be free.”

“To lead the people, walk behind them.”

 

COLLECTION

 

As his collection of these kinds of quotes slowly grew from a few dozen to a few hundred, and then burgeoned from a few hundred to a few thousand, he needed a word to describe them.

Some contained a classical oxymoron (like silent shout) and others a classical paradox (like cruel only to be kind).

But simply calling them oxymoronic or paradoxical didn't come close to capturing their collective magic.

“Then, one cold winter day in the early 1990s, I found myself looking up the word erotica in the dictionary. I knew what the word meant, but wanted to get a precise definition. Very quickly, the entry on erotica took me to another familiar word with the same suffix: exotica,” Grothe narrated.

“Both words referred to collections of things, especially things that hold a particular fascination or interest. Just like that, a word popped into my mind.

“Oxymoronica. I tried the word out on a number of friends and it almost always brought a smile to their faces. I knew I was on to something.”

To speak or not to speak Tagalog

 “An academic dialect is perfected when its terms are hard to understand and refer only to one another.” —Mason Cooley

 

By Alex P. Vidal

I MET Dr. Jose Palu-ay Dacudao, a surgeon based in Butuan City, through our late friend, Willie Branum of Jaro, Iloilo City sometime in 2007.

Willie, a political strategist who worked with Sen. Serge Osmena and former President Fidel V. Ramos, described Dacudao as “advocate of the preservation of our native languages.”

“Dr. Dacudao does not believe that other dialects are inferior to Tagalog,” Willie said.

Cebuanos, Ilonggos, Ilocanos, Warays, among other natives in the Philippines should be proud to use their dialects except when they communicate with people who speak Tagalog in Metro Manila.

When you are in Rome, act like a Roman.

When you are in Metro Manila, speak the dialect of those who live in Manila, the doctor was trying to imply.

These are the reasons why our languages must be preserved, according to Dacudao:

1.Unity in diversity vs. Unity in uniformity. It is the basic morality of our cause that we deem the diversity of Creation as natural and good.

 

SCHOOLS

 

Philippine schools for the most part teach only two languages, ‘Filipino’ and English, Filipino because of a nationalist ideology rooted in the idea of unity in uniformity, and English because it is beneficial to the economy being the international language of the business world and a necessary language for income-rich overseas workers. What about the survival of our rich array of native Philippine languages? History had repeatedly shown that in multi linguistic areas, any government policy that officially uses only one or two languages eventually drives the neglected languages into extinction (as for example in the Roman Empire whose policy of using only Latin in government communication killed of most of the languages used around the northern Mediterranean, or in the Caliphates whose policy of using only Arabic killed off most of the languages in Northern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula).

We are against any national policy that tries to impose unity in uniformity, such as ‘isang bansa isang lahi’, because pursued to its logical conclusion it means killing of all our ethnolinguistic peoples except one. We are many peoples, and always have been, not one people. There are at present 159 ethnolinguistic peoples in the Philippines according to the Summer Institute of Linguistics, with 3 or 4 having become extinct in the past few generations. Our peoples have existed since before the Spaniards’ arrival, even before there was a Philippines, and do not owe their existence to the Philippines. There must be respect and equality among our peoples for us to make a strong country.

 

DEFINES

 

Language defines a people. A Visayan who cannot speak a Visayan language, even if he has been born and grew up in the Visayas-Mindanao area where there have been Visayans for more than a thousand years since the area first came under the influence of the Sri-Visaya Empire, is not a Visayan. Such a person has been cut off from an ancient cultural identity that remains one of the oldest in the world. Or how can a person be an Ilocano if he cannot speak it? Without language, we have no culture, no identity, and we are nothing.

No one can artificially create an ethnolinguistic people. Only the Creator can. The survival of our ethnolinguistic peoples in a Creation of diverse beauty is not even a matter of right or wrong but a matter of existence or oblivion. A hundred years from now, any debate as to whether the existence of an ethnolinguistic people is right or wrong when it has already ceased to exist is completely inutile because what is being discussed is already dead. Likewise, any discussion on so-called ‘ancestral lands’ loses its essence when the ethnolinguistic people involved has ceased to exist because of the death of its language. For example, a Manobo is by definition   as a person whose native language is Manobo. So how can you talk of ‘saving’ the ancestral lands of Manobos when the Manobos have been obliterated with the death of their language? How can you talk about a people’s ancestral lands if the people do not exist?

Will you uniformize your faces with that of your neighbors and seatmates just because an ideology says we all would look nicer if we had the same face? Of course not, as we were created with different faces and personalities. Similarly with languages, will we uniformize all Philippine languages just because an ideology says we ought to? Of course not, instead we must accept that there is something wrong with that ideology, even if it has been taught to us since elementary school by a system that does not respect its own peoples.

 

ARGUMENT

 

The basic argument for preserving an ethnolinguistic people is the same as that of preserving a species, and stems from a conscious decision to stand for the diversity of Creation. A renowned paleontologist once said: I can see and study the fossil bones of now extinct birds, but never will I see the colors of their feathers nor hear the sweetness of their songs. Costumes and artifacts are dead things we keep in museums and show to tourists, but the living soul of a people is its living identity carried by its language. A government that makes a minority people wear native costumes and dance around in front of TV cameras for the sake of attracting tourists but does not teach its language in schools is utterly hypocritical and exploitative. If we are really sincere in helping an ethnolinguistic people to survive, we must teach their language in the schools of their traditional areas. Once a people is dead our descendants will never see the bonds that they formed, nor ever hear the melody of their tongue.

There is another argument for preserving the diversity of Creation, albeit a more practical and perhaps selfish reason. We can never know the possible future uses of a specific species or language. A plant that seems to have no practical uses now may suddenly be the source of an important antibiotic in the future.

 

EXAMPLES

 

As examples of the use of a specific language:

1. Some languages, which are intrinsically difficult to learn, can form the basis for codes. During World War II, the Americans suddenly found Navaho (a native North American tongue spoken by the Navaho people) a useful language in creating a code that the Japanese never broke, because Navaho is an intrinsically difficult language to learn and no Japanese knew Navaho.

2. Some languages, which are intrinsically user-friendly, can form the basis of a trade or scientific language in the future if the need arises. A few examples: One, Latin is intrinsically easier to learn for a non-native speaker than English, mainly because English has so many irregular verbs. Two, almost any Philippine language is intrinsically easier to learn for a non-native speaker than any Chinese language because of the tonal characteristic of Chinese languages, wherein differences in pitch distinguishes different meanings in what are otherwise the same words. Three, some Philippine languages are more user-friendly than the ‘national language’. For example, the simple conjugation pattern of the Negros dialect of Hiligaynon [almost all verbs being conjugated by ‘nag’, ‘naga’, ‘mag(a)’ and ‘gin’, ‘gina’, ‘un’ in order to denote past, present, and future tense] makes it much easier for an outsider to learn than ‘Filipino’.

3. Some languages have intrinsic value as a tourist attraction because of the attractive melodious quality of their intonation. For example, many people like to hear French, Spanish, and Italian because of the musical quality of their intonation. Among Philippine languages, almost every outsider gets enchanted by the singsong characteristic of the Ilonggo-Capiceno dialects. One of these dialects (Ajuy) may be a candidate for the sweetest sounding tongue in the world (yet it is unrecorded and unprotected, spoken only in a small area, and liable to go extinct anytime).

2.   Tagalogs vs. Tagalistas

The Tagalogs are an ethnolinguistic people, who have the right to preserve and develop their language. In the same context, so are the other ethnolinguistic peoples in the world. For example, the Kapampangans are also an ethnolinguistic people, who have the right to preserve and develop their language. Tagalogs and Kapampangans are equal, and are equal to the other Philippine ethnolinguistic peoples. The State should not institute laws and practices that will make one of them in social majority over the rest, as this will mean that the rest will become social minorities and second class citizens. More seriously, such a discriminatory policy eventually pushes the neglected languages into extinction.

Thus we are not against Tagalogs as an ethnolinguistic people. If by a twist of history, the Tagalog language becomes endangered sometime in the far future, the successors of SOLFED will surely come to their succor. On the other hand, Tagalistas are different. Tagalistas desire to spread the ideology of Tagalog nationalism, unity in the uniformity of the Tagalog language. Tagalistas do not have to be Tagalogs themselves; there are many Visayan Tagalistas for example, native Visayans who adhere to Tagalog nationalism.

 

IDEOLOGICAL

 

Tagalistas are our ideological enemies who do not respect the language rights of the peoples of the Philippines and who, if they have their way, will kill off all the other ethnolinguistic peoples of the Philippines in the name of their perverted sense of nationalism.

3. Language vs. Dialect. Is Filipino a separate language?

Dialects are mutually intelligible versions of a language and cannot exist outside the context of a language. For example, Batangueno and Bulaceno are mutually intelligible tongues, and thus are dialects or versions of the same language, which we call Tagalog.

Similarly, Cebuano exists as several dialects. Thus Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are clearly different in accent, vocabulary, and idioms, but are mutually intelligible, meaning their speakers can understand each other without previous language lessons. Thus, Cagayan Cebuano and Boholano are dialects of the same language, which is called by linguists as Cebuano.

On the other hand, no Tagalog dialect is mutually intelligible with any dialect of Cebuano. Thus Tagalog and Cebuano are two separate languages, and co-equal to each other.

All international linguists (including the linguists of the highly regarded Summer Institute of Linguistics in the Philippines ), adhering to international standards, agree that Filipino is a Tagalog dialect. Filipino is mutually intelligible with all Tagalog dialects and mutually unintelligible with all non-Tagalog languages. Given the differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, idioms, conjugation patterns, and even accent and intonation that make each language unique, it is impossible to create a Filipino from all the Philippine languages without retaining each component language’s unique identity. Unity in diversity means giving freedom to the peoples that these languages define to preserve and develop their own languages. Unity in uniformity means killing all of them except one, whether that language is an existing one or an artificial one.

 

DYING?

 

4.  Are our languages really dying? Yes.

One, there is a dearth of literature and official use of the provincial Philippine languages. Many of these languages do not even have a written literature, and are not used in government and schools in their own territories. Residents can hardly read and write in their own language. New songs, movies, TV shows, essays, poems and books are not being composed in the provincial languages, and the few that are being made, because of the minority status attached to them by state policies, are not being patronized by most of their own speakers.

Two, National Statistics Office surveys shows that every Philippine ethnolinguisitic people is decreasing in percentage of the Philippine population, except the one that speaks ‘Filipino’ as its native tongue. When the natural birth rate of these peoples finally approaches zero, as is the trend at present, their absolute numbers will also decrease, eventually to extinction if we do nothing now.

Three, related to the theme above, when the center’s ethnolinguistic group reaches half of the Philippine population, which is fast becoming a reality, it will be very difficult to change the Constitution into one that protects the languages of the minorities because they will simply tend to get outvoted.

Four, minority peoples are losing territory fast to the center’s ethnolinguistic group. For example, Puerto Princessa in Palawan, which used to speak Cuyonon, no longer does, and the Cuyonons (a Western Visayan people) are being confined to a small group of islands off Palawan and will inevitably die out should we do nothing. Likewise, the rich array of native languages of Romblon (including Romblomanon, Unhan, Asi, Odiongon) are dying out. There are numerous other examples.

 

BANALITIES

 

5. Banalities and bogeys of Tagalistas.

A. Filipino is not a Tagalog dialect. Wrong. It is. This had been answered above. Tagalistas often use this bogey, honey-coating one Philippine language (Tagalog) as ‘Filipino’, in order to justify imposing monolinguistic uniformity in a way that avoids hostile reaction among the non-Tagalog peoples.

B. We need ‘Filipino’ as a national language because we are one nation. There are three models that refute this banality.

One: It is an empirical fact that the USA does not have a national language (because any national language in the minds of the founding fathers of the USA infringes on an even more fundamental freedom, that of the freedom of speech and expression), and each local State is free to choose its official languages, or none at all. Thus there is no legal barrier to, say, the teaching of Spanish or a Native American language like Navaho. Many such native languages in the northern American continent, and also in the State of Hawaii , are now being taught in the schools, and as a result their native speakers are fast increasing in numbers. This clear-cut teaching of the minority languages in American schools has saved their peoples from extinction.

Two: Many countries with a keener sense of justice have multiple official languages, in recognizance of their native peoples. For example, India has almost 20. Switzerland has 4. Etc… Why can’t we?

Three: Many areas of the world, including pre-WW II Philippines , use a neutral language as a common means of communication for its leveling effect. (A neutral language is an outside language that is not spoken as a native language by any of the ethnolinguistic peoples in a common area.) Tagalistas always insist that we need one common national language in order to communicate with each other, and this is simply false. It is an empirical fact that the peoples of the Philippines have been communicating with each other for more than 300 years before there was a national language. How did 20th century Filipinos communicate before WWII? (It was ironically the Japanese who actually popularized ‘Filipino’ in Philippine schools in an effort to wean us off from English; and not surprisingly, Tagalog nationalists like Laurel and Recto were accused of being Japanese collaborators.) We used English, which happened to be the language of the American colonizers but which also fortunately happened to be the international language of Science and Trade, and multiple Philippine languages. If you were an Ilocano and went to trade in Cebu , you quickly learned Cebuano, and so on. Filipinos, including Tagalogs, respected the local culture of the region that they went into, by learning the native tongue. The usage of a neutral language like English also made for a ‘leveling effect’ among Philippine languages; not one was in social majority over the rest. (Today, in many multilinguistic areas in Africa and Asia, English and French are being used for their leveling effect, thus protecting the status of smaller ethnolinguistic peoples who would otherwise be pushed into oblivion had a neighboring tongue been imposed on them. Because there is no indigenous ethnolinguistic people that speaks English or French in these areas, use of these neutral languages places all of the native peoples in a linguistically equal level, and affords protection for the smaller groups.) Did using English as a common tongue make the Philippines poor? Obviously not; and we were more economically well off at this period. The peoples of the provinces also took pride in their local languages, and thus their ancestral identities, which made it more difficult for the center to step on their economic and political rights.

 

PATRIOTIC

 

C. To learn English is to stop being patriotic. Again, false. English is the international language of Science and Trade. There have been precedents. Before English, Latin was the international language of Science and Trade for perhaps 1500 years. Before Latin, it was Greek. Science classes were often taught in Latin until the early 20th century. The great seminal works of Science, including Newton ’s Principia Mathematica and Linnaeus’ taxonomic naming of various species, and many early medical books were in Latin. Newton was definitely a patriotic Englishman, but in order to communicate to the rest of the Scientific world, he used Latin without a qualm.

D. The ‘Filipino’ that is being rammed into the minds of all Filipino children is easy and convenient to learn, as evidenced by most Filipinos having learned it. This is twisted reasoning. Everyone who has gone under the Philippine’s Educational system knows ‘Filipino’ not because it is easy and convenient to learn, but precisely because it is being taught in the Educational system. Any language taught to elementary and high school children as an academic subject will be learned by them. Furthermore, the reason why the national media is in ‘Filipino’ is because everyone has been forced to learn it by an Educational system that flunks you if you don’t. Going to the role of Devil’s Advocate, even if we accept Unity in Uniformity, and ease of teaching is the basis for teaching a national language, the present ‘Filipino’, which is a Tagalog dialect, should not be the language being taught in schools, because there are other Philippine languages that are more user-friendly and easier to teach and learn.