Deucalion, the Greek Equivalent of Noah and the Great Flood

[Subduction Zone]

Was that the one where Joel Olsteen closed his mega-church to storm refugees?

I was not sure so I had to check, and yes, that was the one. Hurricane Harvey. A years worth of rain in just a few days. Most of it within just a few hours.

 

[sun rise]

I have a suspicion that these worldwide flood myths go back to the huge glacial lake outbursts (waters above) and the subglacial lake outbursts (Jökulhlaup-waters below) that occurred at the end of the last Quaternary glaciations as a result of the melting of these glaciers. (Not to mention the 400 ft rise in sea level that went along with it.)

That's certainly one reasonable theory.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a suspicion that these worldwide flood myths go back to the huge glacial lake outbursts (waters above) and the subglacial lake outbursts (Jökulhlaup-waters below) that occurred at the end of the last Quaternary glaciations as a result of the melting of these glaciers.

That's certainly one reasonable theory.

First:

The Earth is currently in such an interglacial period of the Quaternary glaciation, with the last glacial period of the Quaternary having ended approximately 11,700 years ago. [source]

Talk about flood myths flowing [pun intended] from a period ending some 12 millennia ago strikes me as underwhelming at best. Primitive society was dependent upon fresh water sources, many if not all subject to historic flooding events. Aberrant natural disasters cried out for explanation. Inferring agency was likely a universal response.

 

[dybmh]

But but oral tradition

Naturally

I feel like I'm pretty fair on this issue. I don't outright deny that the direction of influence could have been in either direction. But it seems like all the other cultures have a history of changing their stories throughout time, but the Jews don't. People try to imagine there's a theological change in Judaism. But, on investigation, those claims always fall flat. However, when looking at the others, it's clear. The akkadian flood myth, has mutliple versions, each one as time goes on, is getting closer and closer to the Genesis version. Same with this silly "Attis" myth that @Sgt. Pepper posted about. It's getting closer to matching the bible as time goes on.

So there's evidence showing a direction of influence for those two groups at least. And not only is there no motive for the Jews to adopt other myths, there is negative pressure to do so. Borrowing from the others validates the other religions. Polytheism adopts and borrows and grows. Judaism rejects that.

And then, if one actually reads the links Sgt Pepper posted, nobody probably did because they just accept the rumors, they'll see they're including buddah and krishnah as Christ-like. That actually undermines the argument that the Christ-idea was stolen. It shows that the same archetype can be produced by geographically distant populations.

But when it comes to the dates, the critic never seems to really care about the details. They reduce precision to force a conclusion that pleases them. And that's why it's most important to start there. What version of this story are we talking about? Is it, as Sgt. Pepper falsely claims, 1250BCE. Or is it actually 600CE. That makes a huge difference. And I think people should get into the habit of checking these dates as a first step.

 

[danieldemol]

Naturally

I feel like I'm pretty fair on this issue. I don't outright deny that the direction of influence could have been in either direction.

"Outright" being key qualifier.

But it seems like all the other cultures have a history of changing their stories throughout time, but the Jews don't.

According to the apologist that is.
Others recognise that there were changes in the written stories until they became settled traditions, and even then the stories change every time they are reinterpreted to suit an apologetic agenda.

So there's evidence showing a direction of influence for those two groups at least. And not only is there no motive for the Jews to adopt other myths, there is negative pressure to do so. Borrowing from the others validates the other religions. Polytheism adopts and borrows and grows. Judaism rejects that.

There is evidence that Judaism grew out of a polytheistic religion as far as I'm aware.

But when it comes to the dates, the critic never seems to really care about the details.

Hasty generalisation.

And I think people should get into the habit of checking these dates as a first step.

Agreed.

 

[dybmh]

"Outright" being key qualifier.

What is unfair about my position?

According to the apologist that is.

That's just name-calling. It's not an argument.

Others recognise that there were changes in the written stories until they became settled traditions,

But I have never seen actual evidence for this. Everytime they are investigated it's bogus. Everytime.

It's completely circular.

Monotheism is a late addition <----because----> Deuteronomy is late <----because----> Monotheism is a late addition.

That's seriously the logic.

But... at the same time critics/scholars/whomever will claim that The Jews borrowed from pagans because they believe that one of the theoretically oldest chapters in Deut is pagan. But... guess what's in there? One of the strongest statements of monotheism in the 5 books of Moses.

So, it defeats itself. If a person wants to say parts of Deut were borrowed, then, monotheism is old, pre-persian.
If they want to say that monotheism was adopted late, then they can't say that Deut was borowed from the pagans.

But the critics and the "scholars" say both simultaneously. It cant be both. But people believe both. Because they like the idea that Jews are just like everyone else in the region. "Hey Jew, stop being so ... dangit.... Jewish!"

and even then the stories change every time they are reinterpreted to suit an apologetic agenda.

That's different. That is not evidence that the founders borrowed their written scripture. There is no doubt interpretations have been borrowed and influenced. But that doesn't mean a thing about the origin of the myths and what is written.

And it seems like you have a kind of a bigotry thing happening with the word apologist. What's up with that?

There is evidence that Judaism grew out of a polytheistic religion as far as I'm aware.

Well, it depends what you mean. The only evidence that exists is that it rejected polytheism. Which is, in a way, like saying "grew out of". But I think those words shouldn't be used. it's too easy to confuse "grew out of" with "borrowed from" and with "is inherently polythiestic and shifted to monotheism". Neither of those things happened.

If there was influence, Judaism rejected what it saw the others doing. But in order to get this correct a person needs to be very careful to listen to the words scholars use. They might say that the later prophets borrowed a motif. A motif? Like a word or image? so what?

Sometimes they'll notice a similar writting style, again, by the prophets, not in the first five books. OK... so what? The people who lived at that time wrote in the same sort genre? Big deal.

But people don't investigate the details, they'll hear about some of these things happening in the later stories and then assume that they can apply that to the earlier works. Nope. Not the same author, not the same source, not the same things. And none of the evidnec shows thematic, meaningful similarities. They're all shallow fluff.

And before you accuse me of a hasty generalization again, isn't that what you're doing?

Hasty generalisation.

Hee. Nah. I said "seems". The evidence is here in the thread and I brought you that evidence. I suppose if you need me to be clearer. And perhaps I should be very-very precise with you in the future. I should have said,

• critics who show up on RF to make claims about Abrahamic scripture being borrowed from other mythology seem to never pay attention to the actual dates of the versions of the myths they are comparing
• they rarely even read the myths themselves
• I have never known one who knows the Abrahamic stories well enough to know if the source of the rumor they heard is accurate
• I have never known one to fact check the claims they are making
• I have never known one to care when that is pointed out to them, they usually say, "but scholars say..." it's rare to find one who will actually quote a "scholar".
• they accuse the person pointing out the inforamtion of being an apologist and untrustworthy to give credible info

We have a PHD Dr. of History who posts here who is guilty of all of these things repeatedly. So PHD is not a sign of credibilty. Every claim about Judaism needs to be fact checked.

Agreed.

Thank you.

 

[sun rise]

Abrahamic scripture being borrowed from other mythology

Why does it need to be binary? For the sake of argument, why not assume Abrahamic scriptures are not borrowed with a very few exceptions - the flood being one. And we can go further down that road. The flood story was not "borrowed" but Judaism in its early days took the story to illustrate a central principle of Judaism.

 

[dybmh]

Why does it need to be binary? For the sake of argument, why not assume Abrahamic scriptures are not borrowed with a very few exceptions - the flood being one. And we can go further down that road. The flood story was not "borrowed" but Judaism in its early days took the story to illustrate a central principle of Judaism.

Sure. For the flood story, because it's such an old story, who knows where it came from? But it's unlikey to have been from the akkadians.

For the other stories, I simply haven't seen good evidence. And the theme of the stories are so so different. And I like I said, there's negative pressure on the direction influence. Judaism has nothing to gain from borrowing and everything to lose.

Have you read the deucalion? Do you have a good translation you trust? I haven't read it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. For the flood story, because it's such an old story, who knows where it came from? But it's unlikey to have been from the akkadians.

For the other stories, I simply haven't seen good evidence. And the theme of the stories are so so different. And I like I said, there's negative pressure on the direction influence. Judaism has nothing to gain from borrowing and everything to lose.

Have you read the deucalion? Do you have a good translation you trust? I haven't read it.

Why couldn't it have come from the Akkadians? If I remember correctly they develop writing long before the Hebrews did. And where did ou get the idea that they had nothing to gain? They got a cool flood story. Ancient cultures copied from each other regularly. That is one heck of an unjustified assumption on your part.

 

[YoursTrue]

The most important detail not to overlook is the date.

"The fullest accounts were provided in Ovid's Metamorphoses (late 1 BCE to early 1 CE)"

Deucalion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So that is what is being compared.

Also, I just read about a big big massive hole in China with lots of trees growing in that presumably collapsed hole in a mountain range. Gotta wonder...

Giant Sinkhole in China Reveals Massive Ancient Forest

Chinese cave explorers have found a primeval forest filled with 130-foot tall ancient trees in China's Guangxi region

people.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, I just read about a big big massive hole in China with lots of trees growing in that presumably collapsed hole in a mountain range. Gotta wonder...

Giant Sinkhole in China Reveals Massive Ancient Forest

Chinese cave explorers have found a primeval forest filled with 130-foot tall ancient trees in China's Guangxi region

people.com

The collapse would have occurred a long long time ago. The trees date to after the collapse. The rugged terrain and the fact that they are in the bottom of a sinkhole made it so that no one could harvest the timber.

 

[Audie]

Also, I just read about a big big massive hole in China with lots of trees growing in that presumably collapsed hole in a mountain range. Gotta wonder...

Giant Sinkhole in China Reveals Massive Ancient Forest

Chinese cave explorers have found a primeval forest filled with 130-foot tall ancient trees in China's Guangxi region

people.com

Wonder what the words "karst" and " sinkhole"
mean? Try Google!

Ignorance is often chronic but it's seldom incurable

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe

Sure. For the flood story, because it's such an old story, who knows where it came from? But it's unlikey to have been from the akkadians.

For the other stories, I simply haven't seen good evidence. And the theme of the stories are so so different. And I like I said, there's negative pressure on the direction influence. Judaism has nothing to gain from borrowing and everything to lose.

Have you read the deucalion? Do you have a good translation you trust? I haven't read it.

Hi. Maybe there WAS a worldwide flood as written about in the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe

Hi. Maybe there WAS a worldwide flood as written about in the Bible.

No. we have known that to be false since the late 1700's.

Before I explain why here is a simple question:

Does God lie?

 

[dybmh]

Maybe

Hi. Maybe there WAS a worldwide flood as written about in the Bible.

All that needs to said to these nay-sayers is one word, "miracle" followed by the words "have pleasant rest of your day."

I care absolutley nothing about pictures from the grand canyon, and soil samples or any of that trash that critics want to preach about. Why in the world should I? I have perfect faith and it is the one of the most powerful forces in the known universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

All that needs to said to these nay-sayers is one word, "miracle" followed by the words "have pleasant rest of your day."

I care absolutley nothing about pictures from the grand canyon, and soil samples or any of that trash that critics want to preach about. Why in the world should I? I have perfect faith and it is the one of the most powerful forces in the known universe.

I just started a thread about the controversy about the 'effect' of evolution. And science of it. Very interesting. At least some people are honest and open about it. The article is very interesting, not long to read.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/09/15/440501945/a-question-for-you-about-evolution-god-and-death

 

[dybmh]

I just started a thread about the controversy about the 'effect' of evolution. And science of it. Very interesting. At least some people are honest and open about it. The article is very interesting, not long to read.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/09/15/440501945/a-question-for-you-about-evolution-god-and-death

Thanks I'll check it out, I have it in my watch list now.

 

[sun rise]

Have you read the deucalion? Do you have a good translation you trust? I haven't read it.

Sorry, no to both your questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is unfair about my position?



That's just name-calling. It's not an argument.



But I have never seen actual evidence for this. Everytime they are investigated it's bogus. Everytime.

It's completely circular.

Monotheism is a late addition <----because----> Deuteronomy is late <----because----> Monotheism is a late addition.

That's seriously the logic.

But... at the same time critics/scholars/whomever will claim that The Jews borrowed from pagans because they believe that one of the theoretically oldest chapters in Deut is pagan. But... guess what's in there? One of the strongest statements of monotheism in the 5 books of Moses.

So, it defeats itself. If a person wants to say parts of Deut were borrowed, then, monotheism is old, pre-persian.
If they want to say that monotheism was adopted late, then they can't say that Deut was borowed from the pagans.

But the critics and the "scholars" say both simultaneously. It cant be both. But people believe both. Because they like the idea that Jews are just like everyone else in the region. "Hey Jew, stop being so ... dangit.... Jewish!"


That's different. That is not evidence that the founders borrowed their written scripture. There is no doubt interpretations have been borrowed and influenced. But that doesn't mean a thing about the origin of the myths and what is written.

And it seems like you have a kind of a bigotry thing happening with the word apologist. What's up with that?



Well, it depends what you mean. The only evidence that exists is that it rejected polytheism. Which is, in a way, like saying "grew out of". But I think those words shouldn't be used. it's too easy to confuse "grew out of" with "borrowed from" and with "is inherently polythiestic and shifted to monotheism". Neither of those things happened.

If there was influence, Judaism rejected what it saw the others doing. But in order to get this correct a person needs to be very careful to listen to the words scholars use. They might say that the later prophets borrowed a motif. A motif? Like a word or image? so what?

Sometimes they'll notice a similar writting style, again, by the prophets, not in the first five books. OK... so what? The people who lived at that time wrote in the same sort genre? Big deal.

But people don't investigate the details, they'll hear about some of these things happening in the later stories and then assume that they can apply that to the earlier works. Nope. Not the same author, not the same source, not the same things. And none of the evidnec shows thematic, meaningful similarities. They're all shallow fluff.

And before you accuse me of a hasty generalization again, isn't that what you're doing?



Hee. Nah. I said "seems". The evidence is here in the thread and I brought you that evidence. I suppose if you need me to be clearer. And perhaps I should be very-very precise with you in the future. I should have said,

• critics who show up on RF to make claims about Abrahamic scripture being borrowed from other mythology seem to never pay attention to the actual dates of the versions of the myths they are comparing
• they rarely even read the myths themselves
• I have never known one who knows the Abrahamic stories well enough to know if the source of the rumor they heard is accurate
• I have never known one to fact check the claims they are making
• I have never known one to care when that is pointed out to them, they usually say, "but scholars say..." it's rare to find one who will actually quote a "scholar".
• they accuse the person pointing out the inforamtion of being an apologist and untrustworthy to give credible info

We have a PHD Dr. of History who posts here who is guilty of all of these things repeatedly. So PHD is not a sign of credibilty. Every claim about Judaism needs to be fact checked.



Thank you.

I was just reading a couple of chapters in the book of Ezra. Chapters 9, 10. Very interesting, dybmh. Shows how so many men married women from the nations and they must have come with pagan ideas, not to say also practices. I believe this follows the subject because it shows how truthful the Bible is.

 

[danieldemol]

I care absolutley nothing about pictures from the grand canyon, and soil samples or any of that trash that critics want to preach about. Why in the world should I?

Because what you are calling trash is rock solid evidence that a global flood never happened, and if you were interested in truth more than in faith you would care in my view.