• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Personally I think a large local flood is interpreting it literally even if no other floods happened.
A problem is knowing just when the flood happened.
It has been decided that mega floods did occur at the end of the last ice age and swept across vast areas of land.
It probably should be remembered that the population distribution would have been different at the end of an ice age and also when the sea levels were low.
What floods are you talking about? Please do not conflate the slow, but constant increase of sea level as the ice sheets melted with a catastrophic flood. Even the Black Sea flood was not catastrophic to humans. It was catastrophic to the villages that they lived in.

And once again, what floods? I know of two in the US. Most areas did not have such floods. They tend to leave more than a little evidence. This is not a cartoon where God could have fooled those that he wanted to kill into standing on a giant X.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The truth is not really decided according to a vote. Evidence has been found of Israel in Egypt and of the Conquest.

The consensus is that the Israelites came from Canaanite culture. The idea that a few fundamentalists know the "real truth" doesn't hold.

"Based on the archaeological evidence, according to the modern archaeological account, the Israelites and their culture did not overtake the region by force, but instead branched out of the indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the Southern Levant, Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region[9][10][11] through a gradual evolution of a distinct monolatristic—later cementing as monotheistic—religion centered on Yahweh. The outgrowth of Yahweh-centric monolatrism from Canaanite polytheism started with Yahwism, the belief in the existence of the many gods and goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon but with the consistent worship of only Yahweh. Along with a number of cultic practices, this gave rise to a separate Israelite ethnic group identity. The final transition of their Yahweh-based religion to monotheism and rejection of the existence of the other Canaanite gods set the Israelites apart from their fellow Canaanite brethren.[9][12][13] The Israelites, however, continued to retain various cultural commonalities with other Canaanites, including use of one of the Canaanite dialects, Hebrew, which is today the only living descendant of that language group."

To believe in a creator does not mean that all the creation stories are true. The question of which is true is another question.
Science does not decide if a creator exists. It is not in it's area of study.

Right, there is no evidence there was a creator. This creation subject isn't related to mythology. Even if there was a creator it was not a God from a mythology.

Historians and anthropologists also use the naturalistic methodology and because of that end up with stories of what happened which have to contradict the Bible.
The creation story and the flood story were no doubt passed down in cultures of the day and were corrupted in the journey, that does not mean that the stories in the Bible were borrowed from anywhere.

It certainly doesn't mean they are true? It does provide ridiculously good evidence that the stories were copied. This is another consensus in historicity. It isn't even in question outside of fundamentalism. Both creation stories are taken from Mesopotamian creation stories, Job is Bablylonian, and so on. The apologetics that the flood story was actually Yahweh and corrupted but then in Genesis it was all clear is absurd.

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel
K.L. Sparks (ordained Baptist Pastor, PhD in Hebrew Bible/Ancient Near East)


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It's primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from all sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn "what actually happened" (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp 37-71; Maidman 2003).

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history


The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, eds. C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen
A brief glance at the Flood narrative will illustrate some of these dynamics of form and historical context. In the wider narrative background of Gen 6–9 are the Mesopotamian flood traditions, known from the Old Babylo-nian myth of Atrahasis, the Middle Babylonian Flood tablet at Ugarit, the Flood narrative in the Standard Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic
tablet XI), and other sources.

As scholars have long observed, there are clear continuities between the older Mesopotamian Flood traditions and the biblical traditions.Stories of the Flood arguably traveled from Mesopotamian to Israelite culture via oral and written traditions, mediated by multilingual traders, travelers, and scribes. Once the traditions became native to Israel, the J and P writers independently reshaped the story throug their scribal-literary art. I will briefly sketch two instances of the reshaping of tradition in the J ver-sion..."




As I said the conclusions reached by many historians are based on the assumptions that the Bible is false and that the stories were written hundreds of years after they purport to have been recorded in the Bible.
100% wrong. Please name a historian who did this. The actual historians (not the conspiracy theory versions in apologetics) take extreme care to identify dates, sources and make the most accurate historicity as possible.
I cannot believe you actually just said this?


3Believing in a creator is pretty basic to humanity even if in the past other Gods were assigned the role.
It is those who want to say that chance and time produced all this that are the odd ones out and looking to science to show that you are correct is not in the purview of science.
Belief in a God is common and so common sense and science does not tell us otherwise.

That isn't even apologetics, just a giant fallacy? Should I make a list of common mythology tropes that are definitely not true yet appear in the majority of world myths?
Common sense is not designed to understand reality. It evolved to survive in nature. It doesn't give any indication of a vast amount of physical laws and before the scientific revolution generally led humanity to believe ridiculous things (it still does).
But again, a creator is not related to what we know is obvious mythology. Forget the OT, the NT is so obviously Hellenistic religion combined with Judaism that it's no different than saying the creator must be Zeus.


Producing the raw materials with certain properties and supplying the right conditions would guarantee that the life forms we see would be produced imo,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but only with a designer there to nudge in the right direction and to give life to dead matter.

Is what one might say if there were one planet in the entire universe. We now understand there are billions. You are ignoring obvious facts about nature to protect beliefs.
The research on self replicating compounds that can occur naturally has shown some amazing things. Pre-cursors to a basic RNA is part of nature. Using a gap in current science to invoke a God is so worn out. As if the things that we already see occurring naturally are not amazing enough?
But still, it doesn't further the argument. Then another person says Lord Krishna started life, Or Allah, these are just myths with no evidence. But there is evidence that they are myths. You cannot take a mythic story and then claim this is the correct version and claim it's the God responsible for life? No evidence on any level supports this.

If people want to hold a naturalistic view of the universe that is their prerogative, but there is no evidence for it in science or anywhere else imo.
At least with the Bible there is evidence in fulfilled prophecy.

There is only evidence for naturalism. I can't imagine what the heck you mean by this?
Your saying there is no evidence for naturalism (all there is is nature) but that a re-used myth is real?

At least with the Bible there is evidence in fulfilled prophecy.

Are you serious? First what about unfullfilled prophecy?
There are hundreds of sayings by Yahweh that did not come to pass:
Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes

How many times does Yahweh say the Israelites will rule everything and defeat all enemies? They just kept being invaded?

But you must know by now that all the prophecies are super vague? Or that during the 2nd Temple period when occupied by the Persians (who already had a world messiah, virgin born coming to save humanity, 1600B.C) the Israelites also suddenly started having the same predictions. The NT is a myth combining Judaism with Hellenism, all the religions did this, several before Christianity and the Greek writer used OT predictions to make their own savior. So claiming it's some kind of actual prophecy is not valid.
There is no evidence it's real. The only evidence is that it's a copied story.

are you really not aware tired old apologetics are just not really evidence at all? It's all been debunked.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
It's hard to check out the history of the Bible when there is so much rubbish written about the Bible imo. It is stuff that is written based on the naturalistic methodology and the supernatural elements are seen as lies. (not put that crudely of course).
The anti Bible literature no doubt floods the market and drowns out the other stuff.
This is conspiracy theory level garbage. If you have a supernatural claim then there needs to be evidence. There is no such thing as "anti-Bible literature"? There may be amateur writings in that vein but scholarship is very demanding and aims to report what is the most likely truth. I'm referencing historicity and comparative religion as well as archeology.

You are calling for otherwise intelligent people do just assume stories are real? Then every religion gets to say "no we are real too!" So does all supernatural crank. Then the Law of Attraction people get to do it, alien abductions, Zoroastrians (there are about 100,000 left) and so on. Why would anyone not want a field to actually have standards and attempt to report what is actually most likely true?
The facts are there is no evidence for anything supernatural and all the stories in religions can be traced back to earlier myths.

Some scientists these days do suggest that science needs to rethink it's assumptions.
These days however with science as it is, no scientists suggests in a science journal that there is a need for a God even if those scientists might be theists.

No scientist thinks we need to rethink assumptions in the way that we just believe obvious nonsense. None. That's what science isn't. It's the opposite of science.
What do you mean "with science as it is"? Where do you get these anti-intellectual ideas? The Middle Ages?
"As it is"? You mean completely successful and has radically changed our lives and understanding of the universe? The lack of evidence for Gods is not sciences fault and it is not showing a flaw in science which is what this suggests.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Re 'Flood Myths', no one would need to steal or plagiarize any other peoples' myths, nor would there be anything 'illogical' about the survivors being posited as having built a large ship in order to re-populate 'the Earth', as they knew it, it would just logically follow why there were any survivors and animal survivors as well.
It's very well known that all religions borrow myths when making their own. It's called religious syncretism. This has been studied extensively in the historicity field and it isn't in question at all.
All of the early Biblical stories have extremely similar counterparts in Egyptian and Mesopotamian culture. This isn't known unless you choose to study it because historians and archeologists are hesitant to upset religious people.


Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel
K.L. Sparks (ordained Baptist Pastor, PhD in Hebrew Bible/Ancient Near East)

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It's primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from all sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn "what actually happened" (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp 37-71; Maidman 2003).
As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history.




QUOTE="Oberon12, post: 7342242, member: 73146"]Why would flood myths sort of be a universal cultural story? sea fossils are found way above sea level on mountainsides all over Asia, including up the sides of the Himalayas. Mount Ararat has them far up its sides, hence ancient peoples would naturally assume there was indeed some great flood in the past that 'covered the whole world' as they knew it, and would develop explanations for what they saw with their own eyes. It's very simple and direct, no big giant mystery as to where the stories and allegories developed in that regard.[/QUOTE]


Why would giants, dragons, serpents, humans made from clay, humans stealing fire from Gods and axis mundi (a centerpoint of reality) all be super common myths? Doesn't mean they were real.

Modern flood geology has completely ruled out a world flood. We do not need to posit that seashells might mean a world flood. There already is more than enough evidence to rule it out.
Most Christians today seem to recognize that these stories are myth.

[There is also no requirement that a middle eastern tribe like the Jewish tribes are somehow obligated to have a different historical literature than the rest oft the local tribes or it would make theirs invalid or something, kind of a ridiculous assertion when examined logically; they would all have similar histories and similar origins, of course.

Doesn't make it any more real. Like the surrounding cultures the Israelites combined already established myths and legends with some history. Historians attempt to understand what is actual history among all the mythic stories. Just like the Canaanite Gods were known to be fiction so are the Israelite God. In fact early Yahweh stories had him paired with Ashera a Canaanite Goddess.
Some historians think Moses was 100% fiction and some think there may have been a Leader named Moses who the stories were based on. None think the Gods and serpents and world floods were real.
Most of the Moses story looks copied from Egyptian sources.


So historians have to pick out the myth from actual historic details. Noah is likely complete fiction. There is no more reason to believe that than a Mesopotamian flood story.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Humans answer for humans we are humans.

A psychological teaching common human intelligence using human presence.

Human thinking conditions.

Speaking. Thinking posing thoughts to be questioned as a human to give answers.

Self present human the whole time.

So to define irrational human behaviour the title theist is imposed. Status a belief.

Science says my proof is numbers the answer for everything.

Yet is a human first before he makes the quote.

So how and why are theists today given permission to argue against human belief in stories. I am only a human!

As factually as you are just a human arguing is all you are doing.

What I learnt as a human visionary memories recorded are proven as a human mind condition...
Humans in the past outlawed science as an evil human practice based on all past scientific human advice.

Old machines found buried underground. Old human dwellings.

As digging is involved in civilization.

Evidence against human choice is real.

We even state if no rich man existed then choices against the multitude would not exist either. As the owned motivation to make incorrect human choices owns a Huge list of subjects.

As using rich by status does not make a human choice correct. It enables very bad choices actually.

The teaching equal humans and all human choices should be for and about the equal life. Human.

No status is then defined against being human.

For if science imposes scientific maths data to a human then they are also included in the inference. As if no life but only numbers existed.

Which they ignore as scientists. Reason as they ignore first only being a Human.

If we claim a moment has to be allowed in life to only be honest then what are you arguing about rationally?

We are already human.

We can't not be a human as natural status says we are human.

Which historic was the topic considered before theism in science was against human scientific theisms.

Thinker...I am a human.
Theory ....I am. Human the answer.

That argument has not yet been won.

So we argue against science causes chosen by humans. Theism.

To quantify reason to argue natural history on planet Earth not about being human.

As human life had been abused by humans first not rich. They were scientific.

Humans are asking everyday had humans in science causes in the past caused life catastrophes.

As everyone owning use of human commonsense know no human controls natural disaster or earth changes as cosmic.

You are already informed hence there is no need to quantify disasters as an argument as humans don't control disasters.

The argument is about did science in the past cause disaster activation by science practice.

Human reasons. Water is mass and is the atmosphere near the ground oxygenated.

A human lives mainly as a water body. As bio human.

Any other status is not about humans.

We quoted it was about human science as humans gave science all names and descriptions for human purpose.

We know science biology says every human today came from two pre living humans man and woman. They had sex.

Humans living on earth by humans lived that experience for however long we have lived surviving. As a human.

Basic scientific notification.

To look back in the past first thinking about your owned life.

Quantified science.

Talking about when you never existed is not science at all.

Science gave itself human titles various science practices so that a biological science human answer is the science answer for humans.

Human biology the correct answer only. Biology science it's own status human.

Any other type of science is either for storytelling only about earth changes in natural history or for machine reactions. As science.

What past life humans quantified was intelligent advice.

Hence in the past the bible was a closed book owning a sworn pledged human oath to only tell lawful human truth. As human law.

Ignored.

If science says to science I believe your machine practice is dangerous. It owns a completely different human reason to argue.

As no human by science as a human invented life human by thinking about it.

And it is about time a human organisation said so legally.
 
Top