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

[Hockeycowboy]

I suppose you could argue that Noah's Flood happened before the last Ice Age, but I'm not sure that would fit a literal reading of the Biblical narrative either.

It does. See my post above.

 

[Kooky]

Material evidence?
I think so.
I think the thousands of animals found preserved within the permafrost of the extreme Northern latitudes…. Alaska, Siberia & Canada… is good evidence. The Flood caused dramatic changes in climate (and ushered in an Ice Age), resulting in those animals being submerged in the fresh-water-turned-ice permafrost.

How would a flood create an Ice Age? Is this anything more than total speculation?

The less complex explanation of those thousands of animals preserved within the permafrost is that they lived there.

Another line of evidence are the well-defined features of the World’s Mountain ranges! Just look at them, and you’ll see they all aren’t as eroded as millions of years of weathering would cause. (Psalms 104 states ‘the mountains rose, and valleys fell’ when the floodwaters came.)
Some peaks are eroded, because the explanation is they were already existing before the Flood, for eons.

On what do you base these claims? Is this actually corrobarated by trustworthy figures within modern geology?

BTW, I don’t believe the Bible claims a literal, 24-hr 6-day creation period.

So the rocks of the mountains are not new, geologically speaking; but the features they form, are.

This is all explained in the threads.

I didn't read "the threads" or even know what "threads" you are referring to, sorry.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

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

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?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The less complex explanation of those thousands of animals preserved within the permafrost is that they lived there.

Of course they lived there! I did not say otherwise. But prior to the Deluge they were on top of the ground, not in it!

I didn't read "the threads" or even know what "threads" you are referring to, sorry.

Well, I’m not repeating myself. I'm sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does. See my post above.

Well, that's different.

You don't see an issue with there being a ~100,000-year-long global Ice Age in the middle of the Bible narrative, but nobody in the story noticing?

You don't see an issue with dating Noah and his predecessors around ~115,000 BC?

 

[Left Coast]

1. Well, I’m a hardline Biblical literalist. So I suppose if I’m not convinced by the current evidence that I shouldn’t take my Bible literally, then I probably wouldn’t be convinced with new evidence. I believe in a young earth while there is evidence of an old earth, for example. So for the historicity of the flood I’ll probably always believe.

Well thank you for that level of honesty.

If that's the case, then discussing this subject seems sort of silly, right? You've made up your mind, you don't care what the evidence shows, even if it directly contradicts your beliefs. Of course you aren't convinced by arguments from pagan precursors to the Bible, because you've just told us nothing would ever convince you.

So...what is it you're hoping to learn here?

 

[an anarchist]

So...what is it you're hoping to learn here?

I’m just trying to counter the specific argument that the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh is proof that Noah’s Flood is a derivative story. I have seen that scholars generally make this assertion, and I see people assert that as well.

 

[Left Coast]

I’m just trying to counter the specific argument that the existence of the Epic of Gilgamesh is proof that Noah’s Flood is a derivative story. I have seen that scholars generally make this assertion, and I see people assert that as well.

The thing is, again, you'd find a way to counter any possible argument or evidence anyone could ever present. That's the issue.

Given that geologically we know a global flood has not ever happened, when we see stories like these that have clear shared features, and when we know historically that ancient cultures borrowed and adapted each other's myths, and when we know that the pagan examples of the story precede the Biblical one...this is what leads scholars to conclude that the Bible flood myth is derivative.

 

[an anarchist]

The thing is, again, you'd find a way to counter any possible argument or evidence anyone could ever present. That's the issue.

Given that geologically we know a global flood has not ever happened, when we see stories like these that have clear shared features, and when we know historically that ancient cultures borrowed and adapted each other's myths, and when we know that the pagan examples of the story precede the Biblical one...this is what leads scholars to conclude that the Bible flood myth is derivative.

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

 

[Moonjuice]

See, that's not the point raised in the OP. The OP raises a fantastic point. Its very important to consider what he says but the validity of the story actually taking place in history is also an important topic, but its irrelevant to this particular OP.

Sure, I understand the point of the OP. I don't think my opinion is irrelevant at all to this particular post. 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, if the epic was told before the Genesis account was, but its impossible to know for sure.

My point is, since a literal reading of the biblical flood narrative has clearly been proven scientifically inaccurate, I'm surprised we are discussing it at all. I don't need to know what story came first in order to invalidate the biblical flood narrative. The biblical narrative invalidates itself all by itself, with or without The Epic of Gilgamesh being told first.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

When it comes to science directly opposing my literal beliefs, this is how I handle it. For example, if NASA says they see no evidence of a flat earth, 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.​

Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?

 

[Left Coast]

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.

And again, that's an issue. Because you will continue believing whatever you do regardless of what the evidence says whether it updates or not. All you're saying is that you regard yourself as infallible. Yes, I know. That's the problem.

If you were talking to someone else, a Muslim let's say and they said what you're saying to me about their faith in Islam, how would you reply?

This OP I think is an example of me considering science while retaining my literalistic beliefs.
A proposed solution for Young Earth Creationism

Theists have been making that kind of argument for a very long time, actually. It was once an argument used in favor of geocentrism. "Well yes, the solar system looks like the Earth revolves around the Sun, but God is omnipotent, so he just designed it to look that way!"

The problem is, that argument is unfalsifiable and proves too much. You could apply it to anything you wanted. Well, I know it looks like you're chatting on RF, but actually we're on Facebook right now! It just looks like we aren't!

See the problem?

 

[Moonjuice]

Sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?

Sure does.

 

[Kooky]

Well, I’m not repeating myself. I'm sorry.

No worries. I wasn't going to dig through old forum threads just to get swamped with creationist apologia, anyway.

 

[an anarchist]

If you were talking to someone else, a Muslim let's say and they said what you're saying to me about their faith in Islam, how would you reply?

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

 

[Jose Fly]

No worries. I wasn't going to dig through old forum threads just to get swamped with creationist apologia, anyway.

You'd have seen the same thing over and over anyways.....HC ignoring questions, walking away from discussions, and invoking "God did that part" whenever he's confronted with a problem he can't resolve.

 

[Kooky]

You'd have seen the same thing over and over anyways.....HC ignoring questions, walking away from discussions, and invoking "God did that part" whenever he's confronted with a problem he can't resolve.

There's a reason why I rarely involve myself in these "Science vs. Religion" debates any more.
I find them mostly a tedious rehash of the same handful of arguments over and over.

 

[Kooky]

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

I believe no religion has a monopoly on absolute truth because I think there isn't any to begin with.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's a reason why I rarely involve myself in these "Science vs. Religion" debates any more.
I find them mostly a tedious rehash of the same handful of arguments over and over.

Same here. Stale, tedious, repetitive, hackneyed, done to death....pick a term.

 

[Kooky]

Same here. Stale, tedious, repetitive, hackneyed, done to death....pick a term.

The Wheel of Suffering.