Ancient flood stories from many parts of the world

[Thief]

The long and the short of it — no pun intended — is that there's no precedent for a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark being seaworthy, and plenty of naval engineering experience telling us that it wouldn't be expected to work. Even if pumps had been installed and all hands worked round the clock pumping, the Ark certainly would have leaked catastrophically, filled with water, and capsized."
source and MORE
​

Granted...a fantastic story.

But the ark was intended as a 'floater'.

Many constructions of ancient times defy current engineering......

So what if one of them failed to leave tangible evidence?

 

[outhouse]

Granted...a fantastic story.

But the ark was intended as a 'floater'.

Many constructions of ancient times defy current engineering......

So what if one of them failed to leave tangible evidence?

Exercise in trying to apply faith to reality on many different levels.


There is no mystery here at all, given the first legends in the levant included a real attested flood.

 

[fallingblood]

False, were talking about scripture in place. yes oral traditions were part of it though. We are also dealing with other cultures written reocord. Not just campfire stories.

One can not deal with scripture though unless one deals with oral tradition, as the Bible is built on oral traditions. If we look at the flood stories, they are all based on oral traditions, that were not put into written form until long after the events. Even if we look at the Sumerian version, it wasn't written until long after the event. Really, the Sumerian writings we have are from the end of their reign, when they are looking back on the events.

Also, oral tradition is not campfire stories. I'm not sure if you are equating the two, but it does appear that way.

False again.

Please study up a little before you post if you want to contribute. We have dating to specific legends that paint a clear picture of evolution of these legends turned mythology. Its obvious which ones are prior to others.

To a point that is true. However, we don't have the original stories. We only have the legends and epics that had been evolving in to mythological stories that were only written quite some time later. So it isn't a clear picture at all, but one that is quite messy.
-quote]
False again, these were not all nomadic settlers to the highlands around 1200 BC. They were factually displaces Canaanites, but not soley Cannanites.
[/quote] Many were nomadic settlers though. Yes, there are some Canaanites there; however, there are also a number of other groups as well. Many scholars think that the Abraham story relates more to waves of people moving from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and that this in fact did help build up the Hebrews. There was probably migration from Egypt as well. Not to mention that many in Canaan were also nomadic or semi-nomadic.

The first legend starts after a Sumerian ATTESTED flood on the Euphrates in 2900 BC after a 6 day thunderstorm overflowed the already swollen banks of the river. This was recorded in Cuneiform by the Sumerians and the flood real. Ziusudra was also a real man found on their kings list in Cuneiform.

There was factually a river flood that completely devistated the area in Mesopotamia, exactly where Noahs legend is said to originate from. The OT authors flat tell us where the flood originates. This isnt rocket science.

You're taking the Sumerian story too literally though. A 6 day thunderstorm is not attested to in any place besides the mythological story. Most likely, seeing that the number 6 was a symbolic number, the actual number of days of the storm are probably quite different.

Also, there are new suggestions that the flood that inspired Noah's story is actually from the Black Sea. The information regarding this is just amazing as there was a horrendous flood there. If this is the flood, then it does change some of the ideas.

As for the recorded story, it was written long after the fact, and it was not meant to be history. Yes, it mentions historical figures, but it does not try to portray history. Instead, it used a remembered event, that had happened long ago, as well as a remembered person, and created an epic. To read it as actual history is completely misinterpreting the story, and really loosing everything that it actually says. Really, it is no better than reading the story of Noah as factual.

 

[outhouse]

One can not deal with scripture though unless one deals with oral tradition, as the Bible is built on oral traditions. If we look at the flood stories, they are all based on oral traditions, that were not put into written form until long after the events. Even if we look at the Sumerian version, it wasn't written until long after the event. Really, the Sumerian writings we have are from the end of their reign, when they are looking back on the events.

Also, oral tradition is not campfire stories. I'm not sure if you are equating the two, but it does appear that way.
To a point that is true. However, we don't have the original stories. We only have the legends and epics that had been evolving in to mythological stories that were only written quite some time later. So it isn't a clear picture at all, but one that is quite messy.

I can agree with all that.


When it comes down to it as Jay pointed out, Ziusudra doesnt have 100% historicity. He is a part of mythology that may have a historical core though.



The flood however is attested, and it lines up directly to the legend and time period in question.

A real flood probably spawned the many flood myths in the levant. To a point I do not have a doubt in my mind.




The BSD has not only no historicity or dating, it doesnt have a big following. It raises to many question that no answers have or can be provided.

 

[Desert Snake]

I can agree with all that.


When it comes down to it as Jay pointed out, Ziusudra doesnt have 100% historicity. He is a part of mythology that may have a historical core though.



The flood however is attested, and it lines up directly to the legend and time period in question.

A real flood probably spawned the many flood myths in the levant. To a point I do not have a doubt in my mind.




The BSD has not only no historicity or dating, it doesnt have a big following. It raises to many question that no answers have or can be provided.

you disagreed with basically the same assertion earlier, did you change your mind or it just depends on the wording etc.
very contradictory.

 

[Desert Snake]

We're talking about oral histories here, you don't actually know which 'version' (if they are even the same/different whatever) came first. Keep in mind that these were not settled people until they were in Israel, so you really don't even know the geographic perspective of the original narrative.

I said this...

 

[Desert Snake]

Stop please. Your not contriburing to the post with negative opinion attacking the poster.

Do you have any sources they were only oral, when they began, when they were compiled, redacted? Anything at all to contribute?

Now to deal with your post.



False, were talking about scripture in place. yes oral traditions were part of it though. We are also dealing with other cultures written reocord. Not just campfire stories.



False again.

Please study up a little before you post if you want to contribute. We have dating to specific legends that paint a clear picture of evolution of these legends turned mythology. Its obvious which ones are prior to others.




False again, these were not all nomadic settlers to the highlands around 1200 BC. They were factually displaces Canaanites, but not soley Cannanites.

without attacking your knowledge or lack of, do you even have the slightest idea how Israelites formed and evolved prior to 600 BC?




False again.

Stop, your not a mind reader and thus have no credible opinion about my knowledge on this subject I have intensely studied.


The first legend starts after a Sumerian ATTESTED flood on the Euphrates in 2900 BC after a 6 day thunderstorm overflowed the already swollen banks of the river. This was recorded in Cuneiform by the Sumerians and the flood real. Ziusudra was also a real man found on their kings list in Cuneiform.

There was factually a river flood that completely devistated the area in Mesopotamia, exactly where Noahs legend is said to originate from. The OT authors flat tell us where the flood originates. This isnt rocket science.

And you said this.

Are you going to pick an opinion?

 

[fantome profane]

Many constructions of ancient times defy current engineering......

The certainly don't defy the laws of physics.

 

[gnostic]

Also, there are new suggestions that the flood that inspired Noah's story is actually from the Black Sea.

If you are referring to the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis, which supposedly took place around 5600 BCE, I am afraid it still under the realm of hypothesis. It is a good logical hypothesis, but we don't have enough to support this BSD ever taking place at this time.

More current dating of the region, now put it further back in time.

In either cases (whether it be 5600 BCE of the original hypothesis or 7400 BCE), they are both too far back in time for it to be linked to Noah's flood, which supposedly took place in the later half of 3rd millennium BCE.

I seriously doubt that Neolithic oral tradition could survive from any date of BSD, to the late Bronze Age or Iron Age.

 

[gnostic]

Many constructions of ancient times defy current engineering......

So what if one of them failed to leave tangible evidence?

Sorry, but what constructions were you referring to?

A lot of the ancient constructions (and even Neolithic constructions) were quite feasible, even if we haven't determine how they constructed some of them yet.

If they weren't feasible then they would be there, today.

But as to the construction of the Ark, I don't think any vessel of that size is possible with what little detail we are given, as being "sea-worthy" enough to stay afloat for a whole year, let alone landing on top of Mount Ararat.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, but what constructions were you referring to?

A lot of the ancient constructions (and even Neolithic constructions) were quite feasible, even if we haven't determine how they constructed some of them yet.

If they weren't feasible then they would be there, today.

But as to the construction of the Ark, I don't think any vessel of that size is possible with what little detail we are given, as being "sea-worthy" enough to stay afloat for a whole year, let alone landing on top of Mount Ararat.

Really?
I have no count the number of hours of science documentaries about ancient construction.
On each occasion the scientists go on at length the mystery of how it was done.

So a story of a wooden vessal of size is outrageous?

I think not.

 

[shawn001]

Atacama desert

7 minutes into the video.

[youtube]sWsF6NgSuqM[/youtube]
How the Earth Was Made Complete Season 1 06of13 Driest Place On Earth XviD AC3 MVGroup org - YouTube

There was NO GLOBAL FLOOD and that is a fact!!!

Explain this gyspsum rock formation surviving for millions of years if there was a global flood?

gyspsum dissolves in water!

 

[johnhanks]

I have no count the number of hours of science documentaries about ancient construction.
On each occasion the scientists go on at length the mystery of how it was done...

... because TV documentaries that present their subject matter as mysterious and unexplained are far more likely to get aired than those that present the dull quotidian facts.

Either way, basing your argument on TV programmes you've seen is hardly convincing.

 

[Thief]

... because TV documentaries that present their subject matter as mysterious and unexplained are far more likely to get aired than those that present the dull quotidian facts.

Either way, basing your argument on TV programmes you've seen is hardly convincing.

So you've got info about Easter Island....the pyrimads....stonehenge...etc....
How the ancestors did all that carving and hoisting.....

And in comparison a wooden ship of size is impossible?

 

[fantome profane]

So you've got info about Easter Island....the pyrimads....stonehenge...etc....
How the ancestors did all that carving and hoisting.....

Impressive feats of design and engineering, but they don't violate the laws of physics.

And in comparison a wooden ship of size is impossible?

Yes, a wooden ship of that size is impossible according to the laws of physics.

 

[Thief]

Impressive feats of design and engineering, but they don't violate the laws of physics.

Yes, a wooden ship of that size is impossible according to the laws of physics.

And you're sure of your engineering prowess?

Current explorers are more than puzzled about ancient construction.
And though the event seems unlikely....
A ship of size is not beyond working possiblity.

Compared to current constructions the Ark was a small item.

 

[fantome profane]

And you're sure of your engineering prowess?

Yes.

A ship of size is not beyond working possiblity.

Compared to current constructions the Ark was a small item.

Are you sure about that? Are you sure of your engineering prowess?

 

[outhouse]

And you're sure of your engineering prowess?

Current explorers are more than puzzled about ancient construction.
And though the event seems unlikely....
A ship of size is not beyond working possiblity.

Compared to current constructions the Ark was a small item.

I can raise a 20 ton block over 6' in the air, by myself in a single afternoon, with nothing more then a pry bar, and wooden blocks/cribbing

 

[Thief]

I can raise a 20 ton block over 6' in the air, by myself in a single afternoon, with nothing more then a pry bar, and wooden blocks/cribbing

Well there you go.

What further proof do we need?

 

[outhouse]

Well there you go.

What further proof do we need?

Hopw about pictures the Egyptians left us of how they did it, or their written records, or the workers camps left behind.

No mystery there.