IntroductionWithout a sense of the past there is no memory, conscience and responsibility If we seek to understand the cognitive environment of the ancient world, we must strive to understand how people thought about the past. How people understand the past provides a key to acting in the present. This research topic is divided into two sections: the first deals with the origins and the human being and the second deals with the role of the human being in the cosmos (world). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The bone of my thesis is the question of the theory of evolution (man develops from a simple to a complex animal) Ethics that in the 20th century, EE was Supported by J. Huxley, C Waddington (Great Britain ), E. Holt R. Gerard (USA) teilhard de Chardin (France) and others. EE considers man's moral behaviors as functions of his adaptation to the environment. The criterion of morality is the process of development that encompasses the entire living world. Everything that promoted it is good; everything that hinders him is evil. Man develops ideas and moral concepts to orient himself in natural and social phenomena. Society is nothing but the highest form of the natural association of living beings of the same species. In this regard, the researcher will want to refute the theory of evolution by profiling the facts on human origins from a historical point of view. Accounts or allusions to human origins are found in Akkadian and Egyptian Sumerian texts. Most accounts are short (a couple of lines) with the longest (Enki and Ninmah and Atrahasis) spanning several dozen lines. Song of the HoeHymn to E-enguraEnki and NinmahAkkadianAtrahasisEnuma FishEgyptianPyramid Texts 445, 522 (Khnum on Potter's Wheel)Coffin TextsCoffin Texts Spell 1130Merikare's InstructionsNeither Egyptian nor Sumerian accounts place human origins in the context of conflict between the gods as they do the Akkadian accounts, although two Sumerian accounts indicate that people are taking over the work of the gods. Accounts typically focus on the process and materials of creation and the rules or functions of humankind. Ancient Near Eastern texts typically speak of human origins in collective terms (polygenesis). There is no indication of an original human couple who became the progenitors of the entire human race (monogenesis), this is one of the hallmarks of the Genesis account. The only text where it is suspected to represent the original human pair is KAR4. This peculiar text has both Akkadian and Sumerian versions, with the main example of Ashur dated around 1100 BC the most important line (19-49) describes all the intended functions for humans that the gods are planning to create line 39 says : "they will be called Ullegarra and Annegarra" the problem is that these names, which appear to be the names of the first human being in the context, are preceded by the divine determinate, which suggests that they belong to the divine kingdom. This text still presents many uncertainties related to its reading and interpretation. The following one then sees people multiplying and anticipates that «a learned person after a learned person, a learned person after a non-learned person, will sprout like wheat, sprouting without being born. This is still far from the Israelites' view of Adam (or Noah for that matter) as the progenitor of the race. They have little knowledge of human origin but fail to have a broader understanding of who the creator is because they mention gods instead of God. , The creator of heaven and earth and of all creative living beings including man (human beings). What are humans made of? ? Although there are numerous common motifs, in the Near Eastancient there is no awareness of what human beings are made of. Two Sumerian accounts depict people emerging from the earth (Song of the Hoe, Innoa E-engura). Clay alone is used in the Egyptian Pyramid Text (Using a Potter's Wheel) and in a Sumerian tale (Enki and Ninmah). Some Egyptian accounts use a product of the living creator deity, while Akkadian accounts are products of a slain rebellious deity. In Atrahasis both flesh and blood are used, while in Enuma Elish and KAR4 only blood is mentioned. Only in Atrahasis is there a combination of common and divine materials. Divine infusion can be represented through the mother goddess giving birth to humans (Enki and Ninmah) or through divine breath (instructions from the merikare coffin texts). Thus in the Coffin Texts the divinity states: “I will guide them and animate them, through my mouth which is life in their nostrils. I will carry my breath into their threats” (refers to all creatures, not just humans). In the Israelite story the elements are dust and the breath of the Divinity; these have a ring of familiarity but have some important distinctions. As in the Ancient Near Eastern tale number, there is no physical element provided by the Deity (tears, blood, or flesh), breath, as in Egyptian accounts it is not a part of the Deity, although it indicates that the Deity is the source of life. . In both Egypt and Israel, this indicates that the breath of Divinity characterizes all sentient life, not Jesus' humans. The ingredients used in human creation offer an archetypal insight into what the belief about the nature of humanity was from part of those who preserved these accounts. The difference between polyganism and monoganism indicates, among other things, a fundamental difference in the role played by the archetype and how humanity is subsequently viewed. Archetypal humanity is represented in Mesopotamian texts in at least two identifiable ways. The first and most common is in its corporate and collective representation. This corporate identity makes it clear that the account of human origins, characterized by discussions of role and ingredients, extends to all of humanity. The second depiction is in Enki and Ninma, in which the mother goddess, Ninmah, accepts the challenge of creating archetypes of certain classes of handicapped or defective human beings for which Enki, the god of wisdom, must find a role. The discussion of archetypes by definition focuses on connection and relationship because archetypes offer a paradigm or example. Archetypes establish a pattern and present themselves as representative of a specific class. Connectivity and relationship are vital in trying to understand the ancient sense of personal and corporate identity. One aspect of this can be seen in an Akkadian pun linking the term “man” (awilu) with the term for god (ilu). The Hebrew also offers puns that connect the archetypal nature indicating that the term “Adam” is appropriate as it comes from Adamah (earth) and Issah (woman) takes from him (man) offering an understanding of how things fit together between these puns. reflected a sense of order, in the ancient world several associations of archetypal relationships are addressed: from man to divinity, from male to female, from man to the created world, from man to previous and future generations. Even modern theologians debate whether the human person is best understood by the trichotomy of body, soul and spirit: body and soul/spirit dichotomy. The ancient world shared some of the concern for understanding the human person, but it saw it very differently than we do. Egyptian and Israelite literatures portray divinity giving the breath of life to invigorating worldly materials.