Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Clarity]

Being elaborate doesn't mean that you are extremely lengthy does it? I'm not saying that it is as long as the epic, but it is still rather elaborate in explanation and detail. The size of the ark, the reason for why God was angry, the story doesn't just stop after the water recedes but continues to the promise and offering of sacrifices as well. I'm sure the following epics that incorporate the flood are even more "elaborate" but that does not mean that the story of the Flood is not also rather Elaborate. Probably more so than when it was just an oral tradition.

You should reread my answer.

I gave examples of elaboration that are absent in Genesis. After studying the progression of literature over the 800 years from 2400 to 1600 BC, the differences begin to stand out like a giant purple gorilla.

(And the reasons have nothing to do with what people want to write. They're related to grammatology and the tools used to write.)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You should reread my answer.

I gave examples of elaboration that are absent in Genesis.

Yes they are missing and I am not making the claim that the other epics did not borrow from Genesis. However given that things were passed along through oral traditions it is possible that when it was written that for Genesis it was made even more elaborate.

Adding in the story of the Nephilim (note the portion that mentions tales of heroes of old --I always wondered what that was alluding too), the bringing of the animals as you mention do show two stories brought together, so where are those original stories? Which one was added first? The second part that mentions the clean animals may have been a later addition right? Given that it matches with the dietary ideas found in later Biblical books, I believe Leviticus goes into more details. The usage of the dove versus the Raven, maybe what is in Genesis is the earliest example of a written version of the flood story, but it may not be the closest to the original

 

[Clarity]

Yes they are missing and I am not making the claim that the other epics did not borrow from Genesis. However given that things were passed along through oral traditions it is possible that when it was written that for Genesis it was made even more elaborate.

Adding in the story of the Nephilim (note the portion that mentions tales of heroes of old --I always wondered what that was alluding too), the bringing of the animals as you mention do show two stories brought together, so where are those original stories? Which one was added first? The second part that mentions the clean animals may have been a later addition right? Given that it matches with the dietary ideas found in later Biblical books, I believe Leviticus goes into more details. The usage of the dove versus the Raven, maybe what is in Genesis is the earliest example of a written version of the flood story, but it may not be the closest to the original

Oral traditions only existed in significant measure before 2400 BC. After that point, Sumerians and Akkadians (both literate by this time), wasted no time putting their festivals and myths into writing to preserve them.

At that point, the skills of oral tradition had to have diminished, and that would contribute to the loss of older culture.

I'm not sure what your motivation is to make Genesis out to be something other than what it claims to be but there's a serious deficiency in your thinking: you don't have that authority.

Your belief is your business, but altering history is beyond your reach. The flood story is part of history. The event happened. We have too many sources outside the Bible confirming it to think otherwise. It's only reasonable to assume that the event would be preserved in writing. (Most people doubt a global flood and have good reason. Both the Bible and the sources I refer to talk of a local flood that affected the southern half of Iraq only. I don't believe the writer of the Genesis flood knew what a planet was nor could he have written about it sufficiently to tell of a global flood, and I'm not willing to put words in his mouth.)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Oral traditions only existed in significant measure before 2400 BC. After that point, Sumerians and Akkadians (both literate by this time), wasted no time putting their festivals and myths into writing to preserve them.

At that point, the skills of oral tradition had to have diminished, and that would contribute to the loss of older culture.

I'm not sure what your motivation is to make Genesis out to be something other than what it claims to be but there's a serious deficiency in your thinking: you don't have that authority.

Your belief is your business, but altering history is beyond your reach. The flood story is part of history. The event happened. We have too many sources outside the Bible confirming it to think otherwise. It's only reasonable to assume that the event would be preserved in writing. (Most people doubt a global flood and have good reason. Both the Bible and the sources I refer to talk of a local flood that affected the southern half of Iraq only. I don't believe the writer of the Genesis flood knew what a planet was nor could he have written about it sufficiently to tell of a global flood, and I'm not willing to put words in his mouth.)

I'm not claiming authority, If you have noticed I frame my responses in a questioning matter because I do not have the authority to claim what is X and what is Y. I am offering realms of possibilities. I am not even denying that a flood happened in that particular region of the world. What I wonder is when you say "that event happen" Are you saying that Noah built an Ark, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights until it came to rest on top of a mountain and all life on earth was wiped out and it is Noah and his family that would begin the new line of people?

 

[Clarity]

I'm not claiming authority, If you have noticed I frame my responses in a questioning matter because I do not have the authority to claim what is X and what is Y. I am offering realms of possibilities. I am not even denying that a flood happened in that particular region of the world. What I wonder is when you say "that event happen" Are you saying that Noah built an Ark, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights until it came to rest on top of a mountain and all life on earth was wiped out and it is Noah and his family that would begin the new line of people?

That may be true, but I've been studying the Bible (and claims about the Bible) for so many years that I can almost guess your sources.

People are taught that the Bible is wrong until proven correct, and this is in itself a dysfunctional way of thinking caused entirely by bias.

My discipline is to treat all historical documents equally: they are correct until proven otherwise. If we treated any of them otherwise, we would be forced to reject history itself and write our own entertainment.

The only way to read the past is to let it speak for itself in its own way in its own context, without segregating the sources you don't particularly like.

 

[outhouse]

That may be true, but I've been studying the Bible (and claims about the Bible) for so many years that I can almost guess your sources.

.

You must be used to rejection.

People are taught that the Bible is wrong until proven correct

Simple not true.

My discipline is to treat all historical documents equally: they are correct until proven otherwise. If we treated any of them otherwise, we would be forced to reject history itself and write our own entertainment.

Nonsense.

Critical examination is done of text, with no bias. YOur view is unsubstantiated guesses that it is correct

 

[Clarity]

What I wonder is when you say "that event happen" Are you saying that Noah built an Ark, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights until it came to rest on top of a mountain and all life on earth was wiped out and it is Noah and his family that would begin the new line of people?

Yes, Noah built an ark. We have this from three independent sources that agree.

Yes, it rained 40 days. (I don't get how this is a hard thing to believe.)

No, all life on earth did not end. As Genesis states, all life in "the land" perished. "The Land" was a euphemism that Sumerians used to refer to the land of Sumer (southern Iraq). In our Hebrew copies, the story reads "ha-eretz", exactly translated, "the land" or "the earth" or "the world", the first being the most likely. Again, this agrees with the Sumerian version.

Yes, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Not Mt. Ararat but "the Mountains of Aratta", a land mentioned in countless Sumerian tablets and spelled exactly the same in Hebrew as Mt. Ararat (hay raysh raysh tav). You could make a case that if the original Hebrew were referring to Mt. Ararat, there would have to be a third raysh for har Ararat, three "r's".

Another reason I believe this is the case is because in a local flood, with the ark build in southern Iraq, downstream is southeast, leading directly word the Mountains of Aratta (the Zagros) a few hundred miles south, rather than upstream to the north (Mt. Ararat).

And yes, Noah began a new family. To what extent you want to make of that is your own business, but its only natural (and easy) for four couples to repopulate the local area.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That may be true, but I've been studying the Bible (and claims about the Bible) for so many years that I can almost guess your sources.

People are taught that the Bible is wrong until proven correct, and this is in itself a dysfunctional way of thinking caused entirely by bias.

My discipline is to treat all historical documents equally: they are correct until proven otherwise. If we treated any of them otherwise, we would be forced to reject history itself and write our own entertainment.

The only way to read the past is to let it speak for itself in its own way in its own context, without segregating the sources you don't particularly like.

I was raised in the environment that the bible is inerrant and infallible. I have always been rather skeptical about such claims for anything (when it comes to other historical claims I usually rely on outside cases to help solidify that they actually occur). I believe the bible is historical (the events of war that it mentions, the individuals, the politics) those I believe are real, however I also believe that it is a political book the writings of the Prophets have various social and political undertones and overtones to them that add a touch of propaganda (which is not necessarily negative) it is also poetic and theological waxing and waning philosophically about the nature of man and mans role in the cosmos (a bunch of flowery words on my part I apologize).

So I do not usually question the historical backdrop I do at times will question the motive for the stories and where they are drawn from.

Which is why I ask when you say that you find the the books of the bible Historical in what context do you mean. That what it says happened happened in its entirety or that it using real events to frame its compositions.

 

[Clarity]

Critical examination is done of text, with no bias. YOur view is unsubstantiated guesses that it is correct

You have yet to provide critical examination of any kind.

You offer nothing but denial of my posts without alternatives based credible sources.

 

[outhouse]

You have yet to provide critical examination of any kind.

You offer nothing but denial of my posts without alternatives based credible sources.

You have already denounced all scholaships on these subjects.

The only thing your claiming as credible is the bible which contains known mythology.

 

[Clarity]

I was raised in the environment that the bible is inerrant and infallible.

Which is why I ask when you say that you find the the books of the bible Historical in what context do you mean. That what it says happened happened in its entirety or that it using real events to frame its compositions.

I was raised the same way, and at an early age I rejected the doctrine outright as useless. The Bible doesn't need god-like status, and that would constitute idolatry, a replacement of God. (However, I don't believe that's really what people are doing. They just express the importance of the Bible in extravagant terms.)

I'm not a religious Christian. I'm a secular Christian. I believe based on evidence, not doctrine. When I say the Bible is historically accurate, it's because I've accumulated the evidence demonstrating that it is.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, Noah built an ark. We have this from three independent sources that agree.

Yes, it rained 40 days. (I don't get how this is a hard thing to believe.)

No, all life on earth did not end. As Genesis states, all life in "the land" perished. "The Land" was a euphemism that Sumerians used to refer to the land of Sumer (southern Iraq). In our Hebrew copies, the story reads "ha-eretz", exactly translated, "the land" or "the earth" or "the world", the first being the most likely. Again, this agrees with the Sumerian version.

Yes, the ark came to rest on a mountain. Not Mt. Ararat but "the Mountains of Aratta", a land mentioned in countless Sumerian tablets and spelled exactly the same in Hebrew as Mt. Ararat (hay raysh raysh tav). You could make a case that if the original Hebrew were referring to Mt. Ararat, there would have to be a third raysh for har Ararat, three "r's".

Another reason I believe this is the case is because in a local flood, with the ark build in southern Iraq, downstream is southeast, leading directly word the Mountains of Ararat a few hundred miles south.

And yes, Noah began a new family. To what extent you want to make of that is your own business, but its only natural (and easy) for four couples to repopulate the local area.

This is what I am trying to understand are you saying that Noah actually existed in complete entirety as he was? That he was 600 some years old when he entered the Arc? That he had brought two of every kind of animal? (I'm not a linguist so maybe every is translated differently than the common english usage). You are right it is possible for couples to repopulate the land afterwards depending on the size of the land, they would of course need to bring in new people to help with genetic variety biologically it wouldn't work that well if they remained isolated.

 

[Clarity]

You have already denounced all scholaships on these subjects.

The only thing your claiming as credible is the bible which contains known mythology.

Now you're just being stupid.

I posted "scholarships" for your use and YOU rejected them. I have yet to post the dozens of other universities I draw from.

What I reject is theory when its nothing more than someone's unfounded opinion.

 

[outhouse]

.

I posted "scholarships" for your use and YOU rejected them. I have yet to post the dozens of other universities I draw from.

.

No you did not, you posted nothing at all to back your view.

Saying "it is in this book" doesnt cut it.


Stop being vague.

 

[Clarity]

This is what I am trying to understand are you saying that Noah actually existed in complete entirety as he was? That he was 600 some years old when he entered the Arc? That he had brought two of every kind of animal? (I'm not a linguist so maybe every is translated differently than the common english usage). You are right it is possible for couples to repopulate the land afterwards depending on the size of the land, they would of course need to bring in new people to help with genetic variety biologically it wouldn't work that well if they remained isolated.

My policy is to believe all historical documents as accurate until I have a valid source telling me otherwise.

So far, all accounts of the flood, all geological surveys of the area, and all peripheral historical documents at that time agree with various details of Genesis and none of them contradict.

The age of Noah is included.

In a document called "Rulers of Lagash", the writer states in words, not in numbers, that men used to live beyond 200 years. The document was likely written about 1850 or 1900 BC and in the context of the rest of the document was referring to a period several centuries before himself.

I also have evidence that, when the Babylonians tried to unify ancient numbering systems, they screwed the pooch and misstated the ages of kings in their own Sumerian Kings list. The numbers, as they come down to us, are all over the board. One city had people living up to 9000 years, while at the same time the city 30 miles south had people living 90 years. There is an obvious problem with they way they translated the numbers of the individual cities. In addition, all of the men who lived before the flood (when translated into a base-60 system) lived hundreds of thousands of years, all of them perfectly divisible by 3600. That, too, seems like an obvious indicator of mistranslation.

It's possible that the same thing happened when translating Genesis 5. If I'm right, it indicates that Genesis 5 is not just wrong in the area of longevity. It also indicates that the sources for Genesis 5 predate Babylonian conversion of number systems.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I reject is theory when its nothing more than someone's unfounded opinion.

Unless, of course, it's your unfounded opinion.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

My policy is to believe all historical documents as accurate until I have a valid source telling me otherwise.

So far, all accounts of the flood, all geological surveys of the area, and all peripheral historical documents at that time agree with various details of Genesis and none of them contradict.

The age of Noah is included.

In a document called "Rulers of Lagash", the writer states in words, not in numbers, that men used to live beyond 200 years. The document was likely written about 1850 or 1900 BC and in the context of the rest of the document was referring to a period several centuries before himself.

I also have evidence that, when the Babylonians tried to unify ancient numbering systems, they screwed the pooch and misstated the ages of kings in their own Sumerian Kings list. The numbers, as they come down to us, are all over the board. One city had people living up to 9000 years, while at the same time the city 30 miles south had people living 90 years. There is an obvious problem with they way they translated the numbers of the individual cities. In addition, all of the men who lived before the flood (when translated into a base-60 system) lived hundreds of thousands of years, all of them perfectly divisible by 3600. That, too, seems like an obvious indicator of mistranslation.

It's possible that the same thing happened when translating Genesis 5. If I'm right, it indicates that Genesis 5 is not just wrong in the area of longevity. It also indicates that the sources for Genesis 5 predate Babylonian conversion of number systems.

Hmm okay thank you

 

[Clarity]

No you did not, you posted nothing at all to back your view.

Saying "it is in this book" doesnt cut it.


Stop being vague.

(I'm sorry, I thought you knew what UCLA and Oxford were. They're called "universities", and they employ "scholarships" of various sorts.)

 

[Clarity]

Unless, of course, it's your unfounded opinion.

I always indicate when my opinions are unfounded.

Please post where I've done otherwise.

 

[Clarity]

This is what I am trying to understand are you saying that Noah actually existed in complete entirety as he was? That he was 600 some years old when he entered the Arc? That he had brought two of every kind of animal? (I'm not a linguist so maybe every is translated differently than the common english usage). You are right it is possible for couples to repopulate the land afterwards depending on the size of the land, they would of course need to bring in new people to help with genetic variety biologically it wouldn't work that well if they remained isolated.

The Sumerian myth "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" suggests that I'm on the right track in naming Aratta as the landing place of the ark.

The myth is mostly historical in nature but diverts to some rather esoteric claims, hence it's called a myth.

The King of Sumer (Enmerkar) gets into a long-distance shouting match with the King of Aratta via couriers carrying clay tablets. Enmerkar claims to be the son of the the goddess Inanna, but the king of Aratta claims to be her "protégé", implying that his land was her original home. The claim seems to suggest that Aratta was the point of repopulation.

Sumerians follow up with a legend "How grain came to Sumer", a story of how men migrated "from the east" into Sumer (from the Zagros Mountains). Genesis 11:1 is the Bible's version of this story.