How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?

[Left Coast]

As a syncretist, I believe Muslims to be correct in their faith. I believe no religion has a monopoly on absolute truth, rather, they are all a part of it.
Other than that though I get what your saying

And if someone said your syncretism is wrong and their religion does have a monopoly on absolute truth, and used your same reasoning that they will keep believing no matter what the evidence shows, you would say to them...?

 

[blü 2]

People and “scholars” claim that because there is the Mesopotamian flood myth, Noah’s flood story is discredited as being original. They say the Epic of Gilgamesh exposes Noah’s flood as being a derivative story.
As a creationist and biblical literalist, the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh makes perfect sense. The people who created the myth of Gilgamesh were descendants of Noah. The flood event was a truthful event, so it makes sense it was recorded by other peoples and assimilated into their myths.
There are many cultures with flood myths: Noah, India (manu and the fish), flood myth of Hawaii, Aztec, Inca, various North American tribes, Greece, Egypt, and Babylon. These are some of the cultures that have flood myths. For someone who believes that the flood literally happened, it makes sense that it is recorded in other mythologies.

Giglamesh tells a story originating in Sumer in the third millennium BCE. It says the Flood was the work of the Sumerian gods, under their father-god Anu. The wise god Ea tips off Ziusudra (in the Semitic version, Uta-Napishti) who builds the boat.

Yahweh doesn't exist in the third millennium BCE. [He] makes [his] first appearance around 1500 BCE.

Of course you'll already have noticed that the biblical flood can't be a true account, since if the whole world had been under water at some time in, say, the past ten thousand years, then there'd have to be on earth a single geological flood layer dated within that period and found on all continents and island and the ocean floor ─ but there's nothing even vaguely of the kind ─ and a genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal, all of them dating to the one date in that period ─ but again there's nothing even vaguely of the kind ─ and a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth ─ but yet again there's nothing even vaguely of the kind.

 

[firedragon]

The question is did the bible authors borrow the flood narrative from an earlier story, like the Epic of Gilgamesh. The answer is probably yes,

How do you Gilgamesh epic was earlier?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People and “scholars” claim that because there is the Mesopotamian flood myth, Noah’s flood story is discredited as being original. They say the Epic of Gilgamesh exposes Noah’s flood as being a derivative story.

Yes. It's called plagiarism.

As a creationist and biblical literalist, the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh makes perfect sense. The people who created the myth of Gilgamesh were descendants of Noah. The flood event was a truthful event, so it makes sense it was recorded by other peoples and assimilated into their myths.

Especially if you ignore all the cultures that don't have such a myth.

There are many cultures with flood myths: Noah, India (manu and the fish), flood myth of Hawaii, Aztec, Inca, various North American tribes, Greece, Egypt, and Babylon. These are some of the cultures that have flood myths.

And they are all very different from one another, not to mention that they are all from different time periods as well.

And again: ignoring all cultures that don't have such a flood myth, isn't going to make them go away...

For someone who believes that the flood literally happened, it makes sense that it is recorded in other mythologies.

It's called confirmation bias.
This is why you focus on the similarities while completely ignoring all the parts that demonstrate that they aren't talking about the same thing.

Also, ignoring all the actual empirical evidence that demonstrates that none of those ever occurred, isn't helping your case either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1.I believe in a young earth while there is evidence of an old earth, for example

And you consider that wise? To believe one thing while all the evidence points to another thing, which contradicts the thing you believe?

So for the historicity of the flood I’ll probably always believe.

Despite all the evidence showing your belief false.
Yes. This is why such a belief is irrational.

2. Personally, I believe that some of the Mesopotamian myths are alluded to in the book of Genesis.
Genesis 6:4
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
The fallen angels of before the flood had children which were these giant creatures, Nephilim. The fallen angels themselves supposedly taught mankind and were sort of Demi gods to them perhaps. “The heroes of old” I think is a reference to Myth. I suppose that the Nephilim and fallen angels were the inspirations for ancient mythologies. I say Mesopotamia mainly because the Bible teaches that mankind originated from Babylon (after the flood) and also Abraham is called from his Native land of Mesopotamia.
So I think that some pagan texts get their inspiration from the events described by the Bible (and surrounding texts)

Well, you just argued your beliefs into complete irrelevancy.
Why would anyone have to care about what you believe, if right out the gates you admit that your beliefs fly in the face of the evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What has ‘science discovered,’ you think, that would discredit the Flood?

Actually, it's not so much about what science DID discover as it is about what science did NOT discover....
See, the literal biblical flood myth, makes 2 very very testable predictions:

1. there should be a global flood layer in the geological column

2. there should be a MASSIVE genetic bottleneck in ALL species, which dates to the same period as the previously mentioned flood layer in the geological column.


Neither of these exist.

There's no universal bottleneck and there is no global flood layer to be found.

This fact alone refutes the biblical flood myth.
It is demonstrably false because what it predicts, does not check out.

Keep in mind who’s controlling & misleading people. If you wish to go along with the world & ignore it, that’s on you.

But Jesus himself didn’t… Matthew 24:37-39; cf. John 12:31

I don't care what any book says. Objective empirical evidence always trumps mere statements in books.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I’m sorry you feel that way. All I’m saying is that I know my faith in the Bible is unwavering, and wouldn’t change if man presented me something they found claiming the Bible isn’t authentic. If you think that makes conversation with me futile ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Obviously it does.
As it makes you incredibly closed minded and dogmatic.

You don't care about what is actually true. You only care about upholding your a priori religious beliefs. This is intellectual dishonesty to boot.

That is your choice off course...

But indeed, it makes discussion futile. Upfront, you simply state that whenever anyone brings any evidence at all that doesn't agree with your a priori beliefs, your response will be this:

Why should anyone bother going through the trouble to discuss this matter with you, if we know in advance that you'll act like that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know 1 fact that many can’t reconcile with the Flood, and that’s how did the animals get to, say, Australia afterwards?

Just ONE???????




maybe that's the problem.... extreme deep rooted ignorance concerning history of the planet, evidence, physics, climate,...

What does the Biblical account tells us about how the animals got on the Ark? Does it tells us Noah had to get them?

No.

So how?

The account indicates that Jehovah God ‘brought them to Noah.’

If He did that, is it not reasonable to conclude that God brought them back?

"magic" is never a reasonable conclusion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

People and “scholars” claim that because there is the Mesopotamian flood myth, Noah’s flood story is discredited as being original. They say the Epic of Gilgamesh exposes Noah’s flood as being a derivative story.
As a creationist and biblical literalist, the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh makes perfect sense. The people who created the myth of Gilgamesh were descendants of Noah. The flood event was a truthful event, so it makes sense it was recorded by other peoples and assimilated into their myths.
There are many cultures with flood myths: Noah, India (manu and the fish), flood myth of Hawaii, Aztec, Inca, various North American tribes, Greece, Egypt, and Babylon. These are some of the cultures that have flood myths. For someone who believes that the flood literally happened, it makes sense that it is recorded in other mythologies.

The fact that many cultures have flood myths is simply the result of local floods happening all over the world. It does not point to a global flood.

And yes, the earlier version of the flood myth that the Sumerians had does indicate that the Noah story is a legend, rather than historical.

 

[Moonjuice]

How do you Gilgamesh epic was earlier?

Read Blue2's post directly above your question for a good explanation of the timeline. The validity of the story has nothing to do with who wrote down the story first, though it appears the Epic was told well before Noah and his family lived.

 

[firedragon]

Read Blue2's post directly above your question for a good explanation of the timeline. The validity of the story has nothing to do with who wrote down the story first, though it appears the Epic was told well before Noah and his family lived.

No. Thats wrong. If Noahs story is true, it could have happened before the Epic was written. Anyway if you like read post #32

If it didnt happen, it is still possible that both stories are taken from one single source. Just because one similar story predates another book based on the dating of the literature, it doesnt mean one copied from another. It is like some people claiming Darwin copied his tree of life from older Hindu literature. Its an absurd claim, whoever makes it, atheist or theist. Its too shallow, though it is famous apologetics.

You may never know. Even in timeline analyses, if the flood took place some 2300 years BC, the epic of Gilgamesh is dated to at least 100 years after that. I mean at least. It is also dated to around a 1000 years after that. So this is not a very valid claim you are making, said with all due respect.

 

[an anarchist]

And if someone said your syncretism is wrong and their religion does have a monopoly on absolute truth, and used your same reasoning that they will keep believing no matter what the evidence shows, you would say to them...?

This is something I’ve come across in real life as well as on this site. Generally, people who believe that their text is the only correct text, they have simply not read any of the other texts. Those who read various sacred texts tend to have syncretic views, from my experience. It is because they all teach the same message
Of course there are people who have read various texts and still only ascribe to their one belief. I agree to disagree?

 

[Moonjuice]

So this is not a very valid claim you are making, said with all due respect.

What claim am I making? The point I have made is that the Noah's Ark story did not happen at all. To me it is meaningless to dig deep into the timeline research to see which version was borrowed from earlier flood narratives - as a method of deciding which version is more likely to be true or not. I don't think it has any relevance because the biblical version of the story has been proven to be incorrect. The evidence has been gathered, its overwhelming, so the debate should be over. If you want to argue with me about the timeline, who told the story first, I'll again invite you to look at the numerous posts that have already addressed it in this thread and you can argue with them about the claims they are making regarding the timeline.

For me, its a moot point to argue about who told the story of first, if that story is of a supposed worldwide extermination flood that never happened. Being first to tell a fabrication, only makes you the most creative story teller - it says nothing about the validity of the claims made in that story. You know what I mean?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When it comes to science directly opposing my literal beliefs, this is how I handle it. For example, if geologists say they see no evidence of a global flood occurring a few thousand years ago, what do I do? I assume the science is wrong. Science is always updating, right? What we know now is way more than what we knew 100 years ago. In the same way, what we know now will be nothing compared to what we’ll know in a hundred years. How many things will we find out we’ve been doing completely wrong when it comes to science?
That said, I don’t completely disregard what the science says, just my faith will take precedent over what a scientist can present me.
This OP I think is an example of me considering science while retaining my literalistic beliefs.
A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

Hey Xavier, I hope you’re doing well today.
As you can tell, I accept the Bible as God’s Word. The fact that it’s been attacked so much, and misinterpreted & misunderstood in the extreme, is a small part of the reason I accept it as such.

But I’m not a YEC. Not so much because scientific evidence disagrees, but because the Scriptural evidence indicates otherwise.
Have you examined the Biblical evidence supporting the days of creation as not being literal?

“Yom” as day can mean an indeterminate length of time.

If day 6 were literal, why would Adam say “This is now...”, indicating “at last”, or “finally”, when Eve was created?

That evidence alone indicates quite a period of time went by, from Adam”s creation to Eve’s creation.

Gotta go.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When it comes to science directly opposing my literal beliefs, this is how I handle it. For example, if geologists say they see no evidence of a global flood occurring a few thousand years ago, what do I do? I assume the science is wrong. Science is always updating, right? What we know now is way more than what we knew 100 years ago. In the same way, what we know now will be nothing compared to what we’ll know in a hundred years. How many things will we find out we’ve been doing completely wrong when it comes to science?
That said, I don’t completely disregard what the science says, just my faith will take precedent over what a scientist can present me.
This OP I think is an example of me considering science while retaining my literalistic beliefs.
A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

Hey Xavier, I hope you’re doing well today.
As you can tell, I accept the Bible as God’s Word. The fact that it’s been attacked so much, and misinterpreted & misunderstood in the extreme, is a small part of the reason I accept it as such. (I know this sounds like a weird reason, but it should be expected that in this world - this system, which is under the control of the Devil [2 Corinthians 4:4] - alienated from God as it is [and with every advancing year, even more so it seems], anything from God would be maligned and disregarded. We see it with marriage, too. But I’ve digressed…)

But I’m not a YEC. Not so much because scientific evidence disagrees, but because the Scriptural evidence indicates otherwise.
Have you examined the Biblical evidence supporting the days of creation as not being literal?

“Yom” translated as day here can mean an indeterminate length of time.

If day 6 were literal, why would Adam say “This is now...”, indicating “at last”, or “finally”, when Eve was created?

That evidence alone indicates quite a period of time went by, from Adam”s creation to Eve’s creation.

From this and other Biblical contexts (which I can provide more of later), the creative days of Genesis 1 can be understood as indeterminate lengths of time, which IMO is what the author intended.

Gotta go.

 

[firedragon]

What claim am I making? The point I have made is that the Noah's Ark story did not happen at all. To me it is meaningless to dig deep into the timeline research to see which version was borrowed from earlier flood narratives - as a method of deciding which version is more likely to be true or not. I don't think it has any relevance because the biblical version of the story has been proven to be incorrect. The evidence has been gathered, its overwhelming, so the debate should be over. If you want to argue with me about the timeline, who told the story first, I'll again invite you to look at the numerous posts that have already addressed it in this thread and you can argue with them about the claims they are making regarding the timeline.

For me, its a moot point to argue about who told the story of first, if that story is of a supposed worldwide extermination flood that never happened. Being first to tell a fabrication, only makes you the most creative story teller - it says nothing about the validity of the claims made in that story. You know what I mean?

Its not relevant then. This thread is not relevant you, and your thesis is not relevant to this thread.

Cheers.

 

[Moonjuice]

Its not relevant then. This thread is not relevant you, and your thesis is not relevant to this thread.

Cheers.

I accept your resignation from the conversation. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

I accept your resignation from the conversation. Cheers.

Im used to people who like to feel better by making up something that helps them.

Its still irrelevant.

 

[Moonjuice]

Im used to people who like to feel better by making up something that helps them.

Its still irrelevant.

What are you talking about?

 

[Colt]

People and “scholars” claim that because there is the Mesopotamian flood myth, Noah’s flood story is discredited as being original. They say the Epic of Gilgamesh exposes Noah’s flood as being a derivative story.
As a creationist and biblical literalist, the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh makes perfect sense. The people who created the myth of Gilgamesh were descendants of Noah. The flood event was a truthful event, so it makes sense it was recorded by other peoples and assimilated into their myths.
There are many cultures with flood myths: Noah, India (manu and the fish), flood myth of Hawaii, Aztec, Inca, various North American tribes, Greece, Egypt, and Babylon. These are some of the cultures that have flood myths. For someone who believes that the flood literally happened, it makes sense that it is recorded in other mythologies.

If the Israelites flood myth were true, those other cultures with flood myths would have been drown by Noah's flood. Its funny, the only people who remembered the flood myth are the descendants of Noah who invented the story!

The reason that the flood is in the genealogy of the Israelites is because tthe priest class couldn't trace their authoritative line of descent all the way back to Adam. So they decided to drown the whole world in it's own wickedness to fill the gap!