Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[outhouse]

Noah and his family were eyewitnesses to the Flood.

who stated that?


All credible historians will state Noah never existed as written, let alone witness anything

 

[rusra02]

Moses write no such thing according to all credible historians

as a matter of fact, there is ZERO evidence moses ever existed outside of mythology.


it is also a fact Israel did not exist before 1200 BC, nor any of its forfathers or founders.

A common refrain from Bible critics is that the people and places mentioned in the Scriptures never existed. Time and time again, the critics have been proven wrong and the Bible proved true. Half the world's population belong to religions that claim to believe in Abraham.
As to Moses, it is not surprising that the Egyptians would not preserve evidence of this man instrumental in humiliating Egypt and it's Gods. Pharaohs often hid or changed history to suit their vanity. Your statement that Israel did not exist before 1200 BC is simply your unfounded opinion.

 

[rusra02]

Several generations of scholars, many of whose names I am sure you know. Few if any scholars still attribute authorship to Moses, and almost all agree it was redacted from a number of sources over several centuries. I'm not in the habit of citing Wikipedia, but this article summarises current thinking well.

Are these the same scholars who claimed that Belshazzar never existed? Or that Pontius Pilate and Jesus never existed?

 

[rusra02]

false

and you have provided ZERO evidence of such.

Its a known fact Israelites used the Mesopotamian version that came before the israelite version that has copied it word for word in some places.

And the Mesopotamian version was copied from the Sumerian versions from a real attested river flood in 2900BC when the Euphrates overflowed

exactly WHERE the bible states noahs legend came from


try again with more dishonesty, and you will get called on it.

You are wrong, of course. While the Gilgamesh account is similar in some ways to the Flood account in the Bible, it differs dramatically in other ways, as do other Flood myths. The Bible is specific as to time and place, unlike the Mesopotamian myths.
And it seems the atheist's refrain is to insult anyone who dares disagree with them, by accusing them of dishonesty. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[rusra02]

How does one assess the veracity of revealed texts, Rusra?
I could go into a mental hospital and find a dozen 'inspired' individuals recording various revelations from God. What makes these less authoritative than the 'inspired revelations' of the ancients?

At least the inmate's scriptures are unitary, first-hand accounts of known authors.

The Bible encourages all of us to "make sure of all things. Hold fast to what is fine." I believe the marks of divine authorship can be found in the Bible. Historical and scientific accuracy, fulfilled prophecy, unmatched wisdom, the frank candor of it's human secretaries, all lend credence to what the Bible claims to be: "The word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13) Millions who have made such a careful examination have come to that conclusion. The Book A Lawyer Examines the Bible made this comment: "While romances, legends and false testimony are careful to place the events related in some distant place and some indefinite time, thereby violating the first rules we lawyers learn of good pleading, that 'the declaration must give time and place,' the Bible narratives give us the date and place of the things related with the utmost precision."

​

​

 

[camanintx]

Has anyone even tried to explain the presense of fossilized charcoal layers within the geologic columns supposedly desposited during the flood? How do you explain massive wildfires when the Earth was supposedly covered in water?

Anyone going to try to answer this?

 

[outhouse]

A common refrain from Bible critics is that the people and places mentioned in the Scriptures never existed. Time and time again, the critics have been proven wrong and the Bible proved true. Half the world's population belong to religions that claim to believe in Abraham.
As to Moses, it is not surprising that the Egyptians would not preserve evidence of this man instrumental in humiliating Egypt and it's Gods. Pharaohs often hid or changed history to suit their vanity. Your statement that Israel did not exist before 1200 BC is simply your unfounded opinion.

False your being intellectually dishonest, and you have been noted as repeating this pattern.

there is not one credible historian that places Israelites before 1200 BC

it is a founded position held by all credible scholars

 

[outhouse]

You are wrong, of course. While the Gilgamesh account is similar in some ways to the Flood account in the Bible, it differs dramatically in other ways, as do other Flood myths. The Bible is specific as to time and place, unlike the Mesopotamian myths.
And it seems the atheist's refrain is to insult anyone who dares disagree with them, by accusing them of dishonesty. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You should be ashamed at creating your own personal history through mythology.

you didnt say a word that discredits my statement.

while the mythology does differ, that is to be expected that another culture would not copy mythology 100% perfect, as the legend was retold so Israelites could teach their own morals and allegory.

 

[gnostic]

Review of historical records and divine inspiration are not mutually exclusive.
It is possible that Moses received information from historical records available to him. Since the Bible does not say, it is pointless to speculate.

But there lie the problem, rusra02.

What historical records?

Unless you can share these historical records with us about the events that "supposedly happened in the Genesis, it is pretty much pointless.

According to Genesis 10 about the Table of Nation, Nimrod was responsible for founding and building a number of cities in the Mesopotamia: Nineveh, Uruk, Babylon, Kalneh and Akkad.

Now I know next to nothing about Kalneh, so I can't argue anything about Kalneh.

And the location of Akkad is currently unknown, but historically and traditionally, Akkad was founded by Sargon the Great (or Sargon I), founder of the Akkadian empire and of Akkad, as well as the Akkadian dynasty. Akkadian, an Eastern Semitic language, where the Babylonian and Assyrian languages were derived from.

So unless Sargon and Nimrod are the same person, Nimrod is mythological figure, while Sargon is both historical and legendary figure. There are both historical and archaeological evidences to support Sargon's existence, but not that of Nimrod.

But we'll move on, and look at the other cities.

Babylon has been around since 3000 BCE, centuries before Akkad. Babylon was however a minor town in the 3rd millennium BCE, and didn't become prominent in the early 2nd millennium BCE.

So this Nimrod could not have possibly founded these 2 cities, when archaeologically they are centuries apart.

And we have the same problem with the Assyrian city, Nineveh. Nineveh have been inhabited as far back as 6000 BCE, but didn't become important until 3000 BCE. Ruined foundation of the 1st temple of Ishtar have been dated to about 3000 BCE. So once again, Nimrod could not have found Nineveh, if he built Akkad.

And can you guess about Uruk (which some people translated as Erech)?

Ding-ding-ding.

Yep, Uruk has been around far longer than Akkad. Uruk has been around since the Eridu period, which is about 5000 BCE. Of all the cities in Mesopotamia, Uruk flourished for nearly 2000 years before the Sumerian civilisation existed.

And according to this same chapter, Egypt didn't exist until Ham fathered Egypt, which is clearly ridiculous, since Egyptian culture haven't changed at any time from the 1st dynasty to the end of the Bronze Age.

 

[johnhanks]

Are these the same scholars who claimed that Belshazzar never existed? Or that Pontius Pilate and Jesus never existed?

Probably not. I don't think the historicity of Belshazzar or Pontius has been seriously questioned for some time: there is archaeological evidence for their existence, and evidence is what counts with serious scholars.

Be that as it may, as dishonest and fallacious debating tactics go, this:

Me: "Most scholars think Genesis had multiple authors."
Rusra: "Ah, but other scholars have sometimes been wrong about stuff, so yours must be too."

is one of the feeblest.

 

[rusra02]

But there lie the problem, rusra02.

What historical records?

Unless you can share these historical records with us about the events that "supposedly happened in the Genesis, it is pretty much pointless.

According to Genesis 10 about the Table of Nation, Nimrod was responsible for founding and building a number of cities in the Mesopotamia: Nineveh, Uruk, Babylon, Kalneh and Akkad.

Now I know next to nothing about Kalneh, so I can't argue anything about Kalneh.

And the location of Akkad is currently unknown, but historically and traditionally, Akkad was founded by Sargon the Great (or Sargon I), founder of the Akkadian empire and of Akkad, as well as the Akkadian dynasty. Akkadian, an Eastern Semitic language, where the Babylonian and Assyrian languages were derived from.

So unless Sargon and Nimrod are the same person, Nimrod is mythological figure, while Sargon is both historical and legendary figure. There are both historical and archaeological evidences to support Sargon's existence, but not that of Nimrod.

But we'll move on, and look at the other cities.

Babylon has been around since 3000 BCE, centuries before Akkad. Babylon was however a minor town in the 3rd millennium BCE, and didn't become prominent in the early 2nd millennium BCE.

So this Nimrod could not have possibly founded these 2 cities, when archaeologically they are centuries apart.

And we have the same problem with the Assyrian city, Nineveh. Nineveh have been inhabited as far back as 6000 BCE, but didn't become important until 3000 BCE. Ruined foundation of the 1st temple of Ishtar have been dated to about 3000 BCE. So once again, Nimrod could not have found Nineveh, if he built Akkad.

And can you guess about Uruk (which some people translated as Erech)?

Ding-ding-ding.

Yep, Uruk has been around far longer than Akkad. Uruk has been around since the Eridu period, which is about 5000 BCE. Of all the cities in Mesopotamia, Uruk flourished for nearly 2000 years before the Sumerian civilisation existed.

And according to this same chapter, Egypt didn't exist until Ham fathered Egypt, which is clearly ridiculous, since Egyptian culture haven't changed at any time from the 1st dynasty to the end of the Bronze Age.

Your assumed dates for when this city or that city first existed are only as good as the assumptions on which such dates are based. You would first need proof that your dates are accurate, and that the dating methods are sound and unimpeachible. Otherwise, such dating is simply guessing. I can't count the number of times critics have claimed the Bible is wrong, only to be proven wrong themselves.

 

[rusra02]

who stated that?


All credible historians will state Noah never existed as written, let alone witness anything

Credible to whom? And based on what?

 

[rusra02]

Probably not. I don't think the historicity of Belshazzar or Pontius has been seriously questioned for some time: there is archaeological evidence for their existence, and evidence is what counts with serious scholars.

Be that as it may, as dishonest and fallacious debating tactics go, this:

Me: "Most scholars think Genesis had multiple authors."
Rusra: "Ah, but other scholars have sometimes been wrong about stuff, so yours must be too."

is one of the feeblest.

You: If we don't have archeological evidence someone or something mentioned in the Bible existed, it didn't exist.
Me: That is what the Bible critics said about Belshazzar and Pontius Pilate, among many others, until evidence was found they did exist. The Bible is not proven wrong because archeology cannot prove it right in toto.

 

[johnhanks]

You: If we don't have archeological evidence someone or something mentioned in the Bible existed, it didn't exist.
Me: That is what the Bible critics said about Belshazzar and Pontius Pilate, among many others, until evidence was found they did exist. The Bible is not proven wrong because archeology cannot prove it right in toto.

A very weak straw man.

If you'll recall, this started with argument not about archaeological evidence for Belshazzar but about the authorship of Genesis. There is powerful linguistic and historical evidence for multiple authorship.

 

[Looncall]

Your assumed dates for when this city or that city first existed are only as good as the assumptions on which such dates are based. You would first need proof that your dates are accurate, and that the dating methods are sound and unimpeachible. Otherwise, such dating is simply guessing. I can't count the number of times critics have claimed the Bible is wrong, only to be proven wrong themselves.

The dating methods have been well validated. Your insinuations are just another kind of "lying for jebus".

 

[rusra02]

The dating methods have been well validated. Your insinuations are just another kind of "lying for jebus".

Your personal insults are beneath contempt, and I won't respond further to them.
Despite the loud claims that such dating is accurate, we find accounts like the South African woman, Joan Ahrens who painted rocks. One of her creations was found in the veld and made it's way to Oxford university. Using it's radio carbon accelerator unit, the university estimated the painting was 1,200 years old. Your bold claim to the contrary that "dating methods have been well validated", anyone can google the facts for themselves simply by searching "problems with carbon dating."

 

[dust1n]

Fallacy of the implied Google search.

or Appeal to Authority, as it is most commonly called.

 

[outhouse]

Your personal insults are beneath contempt, and I won't respond further to them.

because you cannot refute them, you run away from what you cannot answer.

Joan Ahrens who painted rocks

is a creationist fairytale

after testing the lab told the people without verification of the material the dates were not valid.

creationist posted the dates anyway

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Despite the loud claims that such dating is accurate, we find accounts like the South African woman, Joan Ahrens who painted rocks. One of her creations was found in the veld and made it's way to Oxford university. Using it's radio carbon accelerator unit, the university estimated the painting was 1,200 years old. Your bold claim to the contrary that "dating methods have been well validated", anyone can google the facts for themselves simply by searching "problems with carbon dating."

It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Since this incident is not listed publicly by the University itself nor do any of the creationist sources that I've looked at cite any references at all I have to wonder how you could feel comfortable quoting this as fact without any sort of official source?

 

[camanintx]

Has anyone even tried to explain the presense of fossilized charcoal layers within the geologic columns supposedly desposited during the flood? How do you explain massive wildfires when the Earth was supposedly covered in water?

Still not going to touch this one rusra02?