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

[Hockeycowboy]

I guess I need to post this again:


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

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess I need to post this again:


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

Sorry, your link had no "evidences". By the way, you might want to look up the word "evidence" and see what the plural of evidence is.

Once again, we need to go over the concept of evidence. You have not shown any yet.

 

[joelr]

I guess I need to post this again:


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

As this ex-JW points out the majority of the flood legends are found in people who live near large bodies of water. Of those who do not most were descendants from cultures who had ancestors who did.

4:33

Also half of the ancient flood myths had no God involved. Not likely if there were one event they would have missed that. Then every nation got the names wrong, names of the God, multiple Gods until the Israelites who finally wrote the correct version. Ridiculous.

The logic that because we see flood myths often one must be true is absurd.
If so then other common themes found in many myths should also be true,

Mankind created from clay - The creation of man from clay is a theme that recurs throughout numerous world religions and mythologies.

First humans - didn't happen that way

Dying God - Many myths feature a god who dies and often returns to life, wait you believe that one too

Axis Mundi - a center of the world where supernatural realms meet. Fiction

Titamonachy - a race of older Gods died fighting younger Gods who then created order in the universe

Epic battles against a dragon
Oroboros, giant snake eating it's own tail

all cross culture myths

Calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz at the same time. Humans tend to think alike and create similar fiction.

It is believed that a local flood near Sumer was possibly the reason for those versions which includes Gilamesh. Many exact details are copied into the Noah version demonstrating it is a re-working. But the 2 creation stories also mirror 2 Mesopotamian creation stories. Scholars know GEnesis was not written to be history but used myths and lore that was popular at the time.
Exodus is considered a national foundation myth and not at all how the culture started. Job has a Babylonian counterpart, Yahweh was a typical warrior God and then during 2nd temple Judaism the Hellenistic and Pagan myths were absorbed, world saviors, messianism, apoctalyiptic tales, God vs Satan, world ends people get resurrected in heaven (another Greek concept not in Judaism). Christianity is just a Pagan/Hellenized Judaism.
All of the middle easter religions blended with Hellenism at this time and got themselves savior demigods who salvationed members into their heaven.
Scholar Petrra Pakken has a good book about this The Hellenization of early Religion, 1996.

 

[Brian2]

Because they didn't need one. I read the book, and the Black Seas rose slowly. However over time it covered their settlements and a nascent civilization was scattered to the winds.

That's really replacing the scriptures and saying they are false because of a theory of a particular flood.
I guess people also do that sort of thing when it comes to the Exodus and conquest of Canaan. People are willing to say the scriptures are false and that Moses was a mythological figure because of the ideas of some historians.
These days people also are willing to write off the miracles and resurrection of Jesus because of modern ideas.
In all of this I am talking about Christians.
But it does show a particular attitude to the scriptures which I don't like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's really replacing the scriptures and saying they are false because of a theory of a particular flood.
I guess people also do that sort of thing when it comes to the Exodus and conquest of Canaan. People are willing to say the scriptures are false and that Moses was a mythological figure because of the ideas of some historians.
These days people also are willing to write off the miracles and resurrection of Jesus because of modern ideas.
In all of this I am talking about Christians.
But it does show a particular attitude to the scriptures which I don't like.

That is more than a bit of a strawman. The reasons that Moses is thought to be a fictional character is far more involved than the failure of the flood myth. And the failure of the flood myth is based upon all of the endless evidence that contradicts it. And not just scientific evidence, historical, archaeological, even mythological 'evidence' refute the story.

What should bother you is people that abuse scripture by insisting that it is literally true.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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 you're a Biblical literalist, how do you account for the Gilgamesh version (the earlier version) being different from the Noah version? I can accept the Noah story is derived from the same event as the Gilgamesh story (personally I like the Black Sea Innundation Event theory as the source event of both stories) but if your claim is that the Noah version comes from the Gilgamesh version, AND you claim to be a Biblical literalist, how do you account for the literal differences between the two versions? Have you actually read both versions?

If you'd ever care to discuss the many, many internal contradictions that make Biblical "literalism" unworkable, I'd be happy to have that discussion, too.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That is more than a bit of a strawman. The reasons that Moses is thought to be a fictional character is far more involved than the failure of the flood myth. And the failure of the flood myth is based upon all of the endless evidence that contradicts it. And not just scientific evidence, historical, archaeological, even mythological 'evidence' refute the story.

What should bother you is people that abuse scripture by insisting that it is literally true.

IMPE most people who claim to be "Biblical Literalists" aren't actually that familiar with scripture. Personally I suspect Biblical Literalism is a crutch for people without particularly strong faith, who can only "believe" if they don't have to deal with nuance, context, and actual interpretative effort.

Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong by any self proclaimed "Biblical literalist" who can rationally address the many, MANY internal contradictions within the Bible, but I haven't encountered any yet. Despite asking these questions for a long time now.

And that's before we even attempt to discuss extra-Biblical contradictions from science, archaeology and comparative religions or linguistics.

 

[an anarchist]

If you're a Biblical literalist, how do you account for the Gilgamesh version (the earlier version) being different from the Noah version?

The version recorded by Moses in the Bible is divinely inspired, the belief goes. These other flood myths, Gilgamesh included, are not inspired, hence the differences. I’m not claiming that the Noah version comes from the Gilgamesh version, the OP intends to disagree with that assumption.

If you'd ever care to discuss the many, many internal contradictions that make Biblical "literalism" unworkable, I'd be happy to have that discussion, too.

I am curious of contradictions, I’ve read through the Bible and nothing has ever seemed contradictory to me when I do so. It seems to present itself as a matter of fact straight forward account, in my opinion. It appears to me that it is intended to be taken literally, and faith is required to do so because of the fantastical stories in there, like the flood.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The version recorded by Moses in the Bible is divinely inspired, the belief goes. These other flood myths, Gilgamesh included, are not inspired, hence the differences. I’m not claiming that the Noah version comes from the Gilgamesh version, the OP intends to disagree with that assumption.

fair enough, I suppose. I don't really like argumentsthat rest on special pleading, but at least it has a certain logic to it, if an unfalsifiable one.

I am curious of contradictions, I’ve read through the Bible and nothing has ever seemed contradictory to me when I do so. It seems to present itself as a matter of fact straight forward account, in my opinion. It appears to me that it is intended to be taken literally, and faith is required to do so because of the fantastical stories in there, like the flood.

the fantastical stories aren't the issue. "God did it" as an explanation for fantastic stuff is fine by me. That's part and parcel of belief in miraculous divine interventions. No, the problem with Biblicnal literalism is the stuff like Romans 4:2 contradicting James 2:21. Yes, sure, there are explanations for most of the contradictions of a "well what he REALLY meant..." variety, but the point is as soon as you do that, it's not literal anymore.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Amalekites. Who killed 'em all? Saul, David or were some left alive, or was it Samuel? Or did some escape? Or did one of them kill Saul? The Bible says all these things happened, but they can't all be LITERALLY true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMPE most people who claim to be "Biblical Literalists" aren't actually that familiar with scripture. Personally I suspect Biblical Literalism is a crutch for people without particularly strong faith, who can only "believe" if they don't have to deal with nuance, context, and actual interpretative effort.

Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong by any self proclaimed "Biblical literalist" who can rationally address the many, MANY internal contradictions within the Bible, but I haven't encountered any yet. Despite asking these questions for a long time now.

And that's before we even attempt to discuss extra-Biblical contradictions from science, archaeology and comparative religions or linguistics.

Of course when I say "Biblical literalist" I call them that based upon their own description of themselves. And I agree, their understanding of the Bible is quite often inferior due to the shallow way that they treat the book. That shallow approach also allows them to pick and choose verses that support their own personal prejudices. Of course I love to play that game too, though I honestly tell people that I am abusing the Bible first. It is too bad that they do not admit that they are abusing the Bible themselves.

 

[firedragon]

As this ex-JW points out the majority of the flood legends are found in people who live near large bodies of water. Of those who do not most were descendants from cultures who had ancestors who did.

4:33

Also half of the ancient flood myths had no God involved. Not likely if there were one event they would have missed that. Then every nation got the names wrong, names of the God, multiple Gods until the Israelites who finally wrote the correct version. Ridiculous.

The logic that because we see flood myths often one must be true is absurd.
If so then other common themes found in many myths should also be true,

Mankind created from clay - The creation of man from clay is a theme that recurs throughout numerous world religions and mythologies.

First humans - didn't happen that way

Dying God - Many myths feature a god who dies and often returns to life, wait you believe that one too

Axis Mundi - a center of the world where supernatural realms meet. Fiction

Titamonachy - a race of older Gods died fighting younger Gods who then created order in the universe

Epic battles against a dragon
Oroboros, giant snake eating it's own tail

all cross culture myths

Calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz at the same time. Humans tend to think alike and create similar fiction.

It is believed that a local flood near Sumer was possibly the reason for those versions which includes Gilamesh. Many exact details are copied into the Noah version demonstrating it is a re-working. But the 2 creation stories also mirror 2 Mesopotamian creation stories. Scholars know GEnesis was not written to be history but used myths and lore that was popular at the time.
Exodus is considered a national foundation myth and not at all how the culture started. Job has a Babylonian counterpart, Yahweh was a typical warrior God and then during 2nd temple Judaism the Hellenistic and Pagan myths were absorbed, world saviors, messianism, apoctalyiptic tales, God vs Satan, world ends people get resurrected in heaven (another Greek concept not in Judaism). Christianity is just a Pagan/Hellenized Judaism.
All of the middle easter religions blended with Hellenism at this time and got themselves savior demigods who salvationed members into their heaven.
Scholar Petrra Pakken has a good book about this The Hellenization of early Religion, 1996.

It is also possible that both flood episodes had an older source and both are copied from that, said since we are making assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is also possible that both flood episodes had an older source and both are copied from that, said since we are making assumptions.

What "assumptions"?

 

[firedragon]

What "assumptions"?

Read the post that I responded to SZ, and I am addressing all the assumptions in it.

Anyway, if one is to make an assumption that the author of the Noah account copied the flood episode from the epic of Gilgamesh, maybe Gilgamesh is copied from an older source, which could be the source for the Bible also. Thats an assumption, as same as the other assumption. Both are assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the post that I responded to SZ, and I am addressing all the assumptions in it.

Anyway, if one is to make an assumption that the author of the Noah account copied the flood episode from the epic of Gilgamesh, maybe Gilgamesh is copied from an older source, which could be the source for the Bible also. Thats an assumption, as same as the other assumption. Both are assumptions.

And what in that post do you think is an assumption? And when you claim that something is an assumption you take on a burden of proof. That is why I asked the question. Unless one is ready to demonstrate that a claim is an assumption it is unwise to say that the claim is an assumption.

 

[firedragon]

And what in that post do you think is an assumption?

I just said it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just said it.

In other words you made a claim that you do not appear to be able to support. That would be no different than if I said that Allah is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

 

[firedragon]

In other words you made a claim that you do not appear to be able to support. That would be no different than if I said that Allah is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Let me cut and paste my post so that you can read again. Below:

if one is to make an assumption that the author of the Noah account copied the flood episode from the epic of Gilgamesh, maybe Gilgamesh is copied from an older source, which could be the source for the Bible also. Thats an assumption, as same as the other assumption. Both are assumptions.

 

[CG Didymus]

fair enough, I suppose. I don't really like argumentsthat rest on special pleading, but at least it has a certain logic to it, if an unfalsifiable one.the fantastical stories aren't the issue. "God did it" as an explanation for fantastic stuff is fine by me. That's part and parcel of belief in miraculous divine interventions. No, the problem with Biblicnal literalism is the stuff like Romans 4:2 contradicting James 2:21. Yes, sure, there are explanations for most of the contradictions of a "well what he REALLY meant..." variety, but the point is as soon as you do that, it's not literal anymore.

Unless a Christian handles rattlesnakes, I don't believe they are truly literalists.

Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Okay, I guess it doesn't literally say rattlesnakes, but with a rattlesnake it takes care of handling snakes and the poison verse also. Oh man, it says they got to drink the poison. Oh well, how many Christians literally do all of those things even the way it is written?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me cut and paste my post so that you can read again. Below:

if one is to make an assumption that the author of the Noah account copied the flood episode from the epic of Gilgamesh, maybe Gilgamesh is copied from an older source, which could be the source for the Bible also. Thats an assumption, as same as the other assumption. Both are assumptions.

Actually they are not. At least not for scholars. They have to justify their conclusions. The correct claim is to say that "scholars have determined". As to the Noah's Ark myth the similarities to the clearly older Epic of Gilgamesh is rather clear evidence that is where it came from. There do not appear to be any accounts of Noah's Ark that are older than the time of the Babylonian captivity. The Babylonian records are far older than that. That is why it is not an assumption to conclude that the Noah's story came from Babylon. And if you want to learn how we know that it is a myth there is endless evidence for that and no reliable evidence at all for the flood story.