The Sumerian Flood Story

[darkendless]

I'd much sooner accept something like the Black Sea Theory if we must be literal then accept a global flood.

Local or global flood aside how did he Ark survive?

I've never een this question answered so this should be interesting for those biblical people

 

[gnostic]

For some reason I was thinking 7000BC and it was 7000 years ago But yes I believe that is the flood spoken of in Genesis.

As to the dating? Well it can't be both ways. Myself and many others put no faith in the scholars and we do not accept any dating of our Holy Book. All of the OT stories have truth and some are factual as well.

You're playing loose game, Archer, with time.

If what you said is true, and the Biblical Flood is the very same one as that of the BSD, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David should be living in the Stone Age (Neolithic Period), instead of 2nd millennium Bronze Age. Moses would have led the Exodus, at the time of prehistorical Egypt, when

Heck, even Jesus would be living in the wrong time, he would still living in the (late) Neolithic period, when Rome didn't exist. Also, Luke's genealogy of Jesus, which goes all the way back to Adam and Moses would be wrong, because it is out by hundred or more generations.

There were only 367 years between time of Noah's Flood and Abraham's covenant, not some thousands of years apart.

At least, with the Bible, the dates can be used to at least make estimates of what happen when. But if you mix BSD theory with the Bible, then you will have to throw away the bible, science and history books, because you living in la-la land.

Are you saying that there are 3000-plus years instead of 367 years between Noah and Abraham's covenant?

ps

7000 BCE would mean 9000 years ago. 5000 BCE would mean 7000 years ago.

Simply get a calculator and do the maths.

 

[Archer]

You're playing loose game, Archer, with time.

If what you said is true, and the Biblical Flood is the very same one as that of the BSD, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David should be living in the Stone Age (Neolithic Period), instead of 2nd millennium Bronze Age. Moses would have led the Exodus, at the time of prehistorical Egypt, when

Heck, even Jesus would be living in the wrong time, he would still living in the (late) Neolithic period, when Rome didn't exist. Also, Luke's genealogy of Jesus, which goes all the way back to Adam and Moses would be wrong, because it is out by hundred or more generations.

There were only 367 years between time of Noah's Flood and Abraham's covenant, not some thousands of years apart.

At least, with the Bible, the dates can be used to at least make estimates of what happen when. But if you mix BSD theory with the Bible, then you will have to throw away the bible, science and history books, because you living in la-la land.

Are you saying that there are 3000-plus years instead of 367 years between Noah and Abraham's covenant?

ps

7000 BCE would mean 9000 years ago. 5000 BCE would mean 7000 years ago.

Simply get a calculator and do the maths.

I said there are truths in the Bible and many based on facts. The Bible is a collection of oral histories (First parts of the OT for sure) and to date things or put them in order does not always work.

Unlike many I do not believe the Bible is perfectly accurate with details and it does not matter as long as the message is there.

I do believe the Flood was real and there was a small group of familial survivors. It seems though, that every time someone gets close to proving anything in the Bible a great movement starts and says no you are wrong for one reason or another.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't know about Hindu version. My knowledge is sadly lacking in Hinduism.

How old is the Hindu version? What is the oldest writing in India? When?

Hey thanks for the info!

Ah, the age of Hindu texts. Now that's the big question that nobody seems to be able to agree upon. The general consensus is that the oldest Veda were compiled around 1500 BCE, though orally passed down through the generations prior to that, somewhere along the lines of 10,000 years ago (at least, some people believe more like 15,000 yrs).

As far as the flood story, I don't know the approximate date. The Sumerian version may have come earlier for all I know.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Hey thanks for the info!

Ah, the age of Hindu texts. Now that's the big question that nobody seems to be able to agree upon. The general consensus is that the oldest Veda were compiled around 1500 BCE, though orally passed down through the generations prior to that, somewhere along the lines of 10,000 years ago (at least, some people believe more like 15,000 yrs).

As far as the flood story, I don't know the approximate date. The Summarian version may have come earlier for all I know.

I think all these ancient cultures influenced each other a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if India got influenced too, and not just did the influencing.

 

[Madhuri]

I think all these ancient cultures influenced each other a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if India got influenced too, and not just did the influencing.

It absolutely was influenced, for sure. Especially after the Muslims invaded and then the Christians. Some of our scriptures were changed in parts by who knows, to further resemble the stories and teachings in the Abrahamic texts. Luckily most people now know which ones are corrupted, but it has definitely had an affect on the religions and culture.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

For those who insist on being literal about the Bible's flood story, we have a text older then the Bible called the epic of Gilgamesh, which gives a flood account different to the Bible's. It's older, so if we have to literally believe in a flood, why not that one? I argue there's no reason we shouldn't reject the Bible's flood story and accept the Sumerian one. After all, the epic of Gilgamesh says so, and because it's old and claims it, it must be true.

I can accept the Noachic Flood as being litteral and that calling it a world-wide flood is a wrong interpretation. This allows for both flood accounts to be non-conflicting.

 

[gnostic]

I said there are truths in the Bible and many based on facts. The Bible is a collection of oral histories (First parts of the OT for sure) and to date things or put them in order does not always work.

Unlike many I do not believe the Bible is perfectly accurate with details and it does not matter as long as the message is there.

I do believe the Flood was real and there was a small group of familial survivors. It seems though, that every time someone gets close to proving anything in the Bible a great movement starts and says no you are wrong for one reason or another.

Only traditions say that the Torah (or the 1st 4 books that were attributed to the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE (so around about 1300-1000 BCE). However, traditions are not history, let alone fact.

The only fact you really have to the age of any biblical texts is a small fragment of Numbers, which has been dated to the 6th century BCE. That's the only fact you have, because there are no other surviving (biblical) records beyond this date.

Even the Documentary Hypothesis being very generous with the dating of the biblical composition, it still suggest that none of biblical texts were written before the 1st millennium BCE. At best, the oldest would be Jehovist (J Source, or Yahwist) at mid-10th century BCE, either at the time of Solomon's successors.

But beyond the hypothesis, there are not much evidences whatsoever about any of the truth, which you think are based on facts.

Local floods, and even more widespread and destructive regional flood occur here today, and I am not surprise of the death toll that such natural phenomena. I don't deny that there could have been a great regional flood.

What I do object is to linking Noah's Flood with the Black Sea Deluge. Too many thousands of years have passed before the composition of the Genesis for you to make such link. I am highly doubtful skeptical that oral traditions could survive that long for someone, let alone Moses, to comply into texts.

The real fact of matters is that idea of ark being built, where a man with his family survived the great flood, was all there and existed in the writings of Sumerian and Babylonian, long before Genesis was ever composed.

The other fact is that the Epic of Gilgamesh was so popular, that it was the favorite theme of scribe schools. Young apprentice scribes for centuries have been using Gilgamesh to practice their writing skills. It was so popular that archaeologists have even found fragmented tablets as far west as the former Hittite Empire, in Egypt, and more importantly in Levant regions, like in the city of Ugarit and Megiddo.

Do you understand what this mean?

By the time of Israelite occupation of the Palestine in the late 2nd millennium BCE, the story of Gilgamesh, and more importantly of the ark of Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim and the Flood, was not unknown to the ancient Israelites.

With evidences of these fragments, you can't deny that the Israelites would have known the story of the Ark/Flood, by the East Semitic people (Babylonians of the Bronze Age).

All this indicate that Israelites used the story of the Babylonian epic, changed the name of Atrahasis/Utnapishtim to Noah, and instead of the involvement of 2 chief gods being involved with the Flood, the Hebrew changed into one god. However the original Ark and Flood story came from the Sumerians, which both Babylonians and Hebrews inherited.

My point is that Hebrews/Israelites didn't need oral tradition about the Flood (or invent new ones), when there was already one available for to use and change. That to me, is far more plausible, then your assertion that the Hebrew people kept oral tradition of event from the Black Sea Deluge.

 

[Archer]

Only traditions say that the Torah (or the 1st 4 books that were attributed to the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium BCE (so around about 1300-1000 BCE). However, traditions are not history, let alone fact.

This is a rather broken thought. Care to clarify?

The only fact you really have to the age of any biblical texts is a small fragment of Numbers, which has been dated to the 6th century BCE. That's the only fact you have, because there are no other surviving (biblical) records beyond this date.

I said I don't believe the dating as there is no dating in the Bible so this is moot.

Even the Documentary Hypothesis being very generous with the dating of the biblical composition, it still suggest that none of biblical texts were written before the 1st millennium BCE. At best, the oldest would be Jehovist (J Source, or Yahwist) at mid-10th century BCE, either at the time of Solomon's successors.

I think I said that already.

But beyond the hypothesis, there are not much evidences whatsoever about any of the truth, which you think are based on facts.

Do you know the difference between a truth and a fact? They are not the same. I also said many that does not mean most it means more than a few.

Local floods, and even more widespread and destructive regional flood occur here today, and I am not surprise of the death toll that such natural phenomena. I don't deny that there could have been a great regional flood.

What I do object is to linking Noah's Flood with the Black Sea Deluge. Too many thousands of years have passed before the composition of the Genesis for you to make such link. I am highly doubtful skeptical that oral traditions could survive that long for someone, let alone Moses, to comply into texts.

I am not skeptical at all. Our minds are not what they were.

The real fact of matters is that idea of ark being built, where a man with his family survived the great flood, was all there and existed in the writings of Sumerian and Babylonian, long before Genesis was ever composed.

And your point is?

The other fact is that the Epic of Gilgamesh was so popular, that it was the favorite theme of scribe schools. Young apprentice scribes for centuries have been using Gilgamesh to practice their writing skills. It was so popular that archaeologists have even found fragmented tablets as far west as the former Hittite Empire, in Egypt, and more importantly in Levant regions, like in the city of Ugarit and Megiddo.

Do you understand what this mean? Do you?

By the time of Israelite occupation of the Palestine in the late 2nd millennium BCE, the story of Gilgamesh, and more importantly of the ark of Ziusudra/Atrahasis/Utnapishtim and the Flood, was not unknown to the ancient Israelites.

With evidences of these fragments, you can't deny that the Israelites would have known the story of the Ark/Flood, by the East Semitic people (Babylonians of the Bronze Age).

All this indicate that Israelites used the story of the Babylonian epic, changed the name of Atrahasis/Utnapishtim to Noah, and instead of the involvement of 2 chief gods being involved with the Flood, the Hebrew changed into one god. However the original Ark and Flood story came from the Sumerians, which both Babylonians and Hebrews inherited.

My point is that Hebrews/Israelites didn't need oral tradition about the Flood (or invent new ones), when there was already one available for to use and change. That to me, is far more plausible, then your assertion that the Hebrew people kept oral tradition of event from the Black Sea Deluge.

And how do you know that the sumarian tale did not originate from the Flood of Noah? You don't.

Now what?

 

[Copernicus]

What sustained the Sumerian civilization for over two millennia (starting before 5000 BCE), and that of the Semitic Akkadians who came to replace them, was their control of the flood waters of the Tigris and Euphrates. Similarly, the contemporaneous Harappa culture in the Indus river valley was also adept at irrigation practice. Unfortunately for these cultures, they experienced periodic flooding, and there is archaeological evidence of a truly catastrophic flood that occurred around 2900 BCE. It is conceivable that that event would have worked its way into the folk mythology of the times. The Gilgamesh story was centered around a catastrophic flood in which Utnapishtim (Akkadian version) played the role of "Noah" in the later Hebrew version. Gilgamesh visited Utnapishtim to get the secret of immortality from him. It appears that the gods had stolen that gift from humanity. In the Hebrew Bible, humans are kicked out of paradise by their God, after the serpent corrupted Eve. In the more widely known Gilgamesh epic of those times, the serpent was actually an aid to Gilgamesh in his quest for immortality. The earlier Semitic Akkadians set the stage for later Semitic folk stories, and the Hebrews came up with their own spin on it.

Sumerians existed in roughly the same time frame as the Harappans. This was well before the Indo-European "Aryan" tribes came to occupy northern India. Hence, it is not likely that the Hindu references were developed earlier. Flooding was one of the most catastrophic events that could have befallen the agricultural economies of those times, so it is no surprise that they developed horror stories surrounding such an event.

 

[outhouse]

I love real history like gnostic and Copernicus have pointed out.

No matter if you held there christian hands and showed them visible facts none of the christians want to believe there whole faith is a myth with stolen or borrowed fiction.

you have explained it very very clearly and they just want to fight depite the obvious fantasy involved.

i used to think it was a lack of science education [and it is] but more important its a lack of education regarding history as well as the lack of education in the bible itself.

 

[gnostic]

Do you know the difference between a truth and a fact? They are not the same. I also said many that does not mean most it means more than a few.

I know quite well the difference between truth and fact. I am the one who often argue for the distinction between the two, at this forum and others, against theists, especially Christians. Quite often Christians think they are the one and the same, but if you are one who know the distinction, then you won't get any argument.

But I do have a problem with your assertions, like these, for example:

All of the OT stories have truth and some are factual as well.

I said there are truths in the Bible and many based on facts.

Having some factual, and I must emphasize "some", doesn't any way mean they are accurate in their narrative. And basing something on fact, can hardly be considered the "truth", let alone "fact".

There are couple of Christians (who they are, I don't remember, and I don't remember the exact thread(s) precisely), here, posted something about the Bible being facts and accurate, etc, simply because the cities mentioned in the bible existed.

Those cities and places referred to may exist, historically, factually and archaeologically, but that does not in any way validate the biblical stories in any way.

People both past and present, have often used real locations for their fictional narratives.

For example, in The Da Vinci Code, Brown used real locations, like the Louvre in Paris, and some sites in the UK, does that mean the Brown's story is factually true? No.

Homer (eg. Troy, Argos, Sparta, Ithaca), Pindar, Sophocles (Athens), Euripides and Ovid (Rome) have all used largely locations that existed, as well as mythological, but it doesn't mean anything, because the contents are still mythological.

They may include real and historically verified people, but that doesn't make it any less fictional. My favorite sci-fi - The X-Files - have president Bush - in the last season, does that mean Scully and Mulder exist as a real people, working for the FBI (a federal organization that do exist).

Anyway using the Black Sea Deluge Theory, which is yet to be a proven theory, does not in anyway help your assertion that the Flood of Genesis was real.

And how do you know that the sumarian tale did not originate from the Flood of Noah? You don't.

You should re-read what I wrote to Madhuri (post 14) and to you (post 28).

I have just given some details about passage from extant tablets of Sumerian poems (Death of Gilgames and the Eridu Genesis) that these myths (about Ziusudra) existed centuries before Moses and possibly centuries before Genesis was ever composed. The Eridu Genesis mentioned building an ark.

More detail about Ziusudra and Flood can be found in the Akkadian or Old Babylonian version, in the Epic of Atrahasis (c. 17th century BCE). It is clear that Atrahasis is the same hero as the Sumerian Ziusudra. At the end of 3rd tablet of Atrahasis, the name of the scribe (Ipiq-Aya) was inscribed, and mentioned a king, Ammi-saduqa, have to be testified to exist, as the King of Babylon (reign 1702-1682).

To you, I wrote about some tablet fragments of the Gilgamesh found in place as far west as Megiddo in Palestine (as well as in Hittite Empire and Egypt) in the 2nd half of 2nd millennium BCE. This is evidence that the Babylonian story of the Flood existed in Palestine, prior to the supposed invasion and migration (Exodus) of the Israelites into Canaan (the Exodus that is now seen as myth, since there are no evidences of Israelite invasion).

So don't tell me something like the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian version of the Flood didn't predate Bible's version of the Flood. Noah is just the final evolution of mythological figure that began with Ziusudra.

Do you realise that by ignoring tablets that predated composition of Genesis, will only undermine the Bible credibility as well as your own?

 

[Archer]

I know quite well the difference between truth and fact. I am the one who often argue for the distinction between the two, at this forum and others, against theists, especially Christians. Quite often Christians think they are the one and the same, but if you are one who know the distinction, then you won't get any argument.

But I do have a problem with your assertions, like these, for example:



Having some factual, and I must emphasize "some", doesn't any way mean they are accurate in their narrative. And basing something on fact, can hardly be considered the "truth", let alone "fact".

There are couple of Christians (who they are, I don't remember, and I don't remember the exact thread(s) precisely), here, posted something about the Bible being facts and accurate, etc, simply because the cities mentioned in the bible existed.

Those cities and places referred to may exist, historically, factually and archaeologically, but that does not in any way validate the biblical stories in any way.

People both past and present, have often used real locations for their fictional narratives.

For example, in The Da Vinci Code, Brown used real locations, like the Louvre in Paris, and some sites in the UK, does that mean the Brown's story is factually true? No.

Homer (eg. Troy, Argos, Sparta, Ithaca), Pindar, Sophocles (Athens), Euripides and Ovid (Rome) have all used largely locations that existed, as well as mythological, but it doesn't mean anything, because the contents are still mythological.

They may include real and historically verified people, but that doesn't make it any less fictional. My favorite sci-fi - The X-Files - have president Bush - in the last season, does that mean Scully and Mulder exist as a real people, working for the FBI (a federal organization that do exist).

Anyway using the Black Sea Deluge Theory, which is yet to be a proven theory, does not in anyway help your assertion that the Flood of Genesis was real.



You should re-read what I wrote to Madhuri (post 14) and to you (post 28).

I have just given some details about passage from extant tablets of Sumerian poems (Death of Gilgames and the Eridu Genesis) that these myths (about Ziusudra) existed centuries before Moses and possibly centuries before Genesis was ever composed. The Eridu Genesis mentioned building an ark.

More detail about Ziusudra and Flood can be found in the Akkadian or Old Babylonian version, in the Epic of Atrahasis (c. 17th century BCE). It is clear that Atrahasis is the same hero as the Sumerian Ziusudra. At the end of 3rd tablet of Atrahasis, the name of the scribe (Ipiq-Aya) was inscribed, and mentioned a king, Ammi-saduqa, have to be testified to exist, as the King of Babylon (reign 1702-1682).

To you, I wrote about some tablet fragments of the Gilgamesh found in place as far west as Megiddo in Palestine (as well as in Hittite Empire and Egypt) in the 2nd half of 2nd millennium BCE. This is evidence that the Babylonian story of the Flood existed in Palestine, prior to the supposed invasion and migration (Exodus) of the Israelites into Canaan (the Exodus that is now seen as myth, since there are no evidences of Israelite invasion).

So don't tell me something like the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian version of the Flood didn't predate Bible's version of the Flood. Noah is just the final evolution of mythological figure that began with Ziusudra.

Do you realise that by ignoring tablets that predated composition of Genesis, will only undermine the Bible credibility as well as your own?

Well as long as we are clear on a couple of thing that we evidently are clear on then all is good. All I was saying is that I believe all of these flood stories have a common root. Was the guy named Noah? We will never know who he was.

As far as religious POV I really think it has little bearing on this thread.

As far as my point. I have studied the accuracy of oral histories and the ability on technologically backward peoples to accurately repeat histories, literature and the ability to recite sacred teachings. What I have found is that it is the same as with written language. As the story moves away from the source region or the language evolves through interaction with other languages, as well as dialect differences, the names and some of the events have slight changes.

In a study of aboriginal cultures (esp. AU) the capacity for story telling is amazing as they can be as or more accurate than copied text.

This was independent study as well as college study.

 

[Ilisrum]

It's obvious that the biblical legend was influenced by a variety of other cultures, the Sumerian epics most of all. Either way, the ancient Mesopotamians believed that the Deluge was a historical event, along with the ancient Hebrews and Fundamentalists today. It's irrelevant whether it happened or not, it's still a good creative story.

 

[Rakhel]

I don't get it.
Why are people so willing to accept writings on a tablet about a mythological flood, yet not willing to accept a written oral story about a flood that may have as much potential of happening?

 

[Rakhel]

You're playing loose game, Archer, with time.

If what you said is true, and the Biblical Flood is the very same one as that of the BSD, then Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and David should be living in the Stone Age (Neolithic Period), instead of 2nd millennium Bronze Age. Moses would have led the Exodus, at the time of prehistorical Egypt, when

Heck, even Jesus would be living in the wrong time, he would still living in the (late) Neolithic period, when Rome didn't exist. Also, Luke's genealogy of Jesus, which goes all the way back to Adam and Moses would be wrong, because it is out by hundred or more generations.

There were only 367 years between time of Noah's Flood and Abraham's covenant, not some thousands of years apart.

At least, with the Bible, the dates can be used to at least make estimates of what happen when. But if you mix BSD theory with the Bible, then you will have to throw away the bible, science and history books, because you living in la-la land.

Are you saying that there are 3000-plus years instead of 367 years between Noah and Abraham's covenant?

ps

7000 BCE would mean 9000 years ago. 5000 BCE would mean 7000 years ago.

Simply get a calculator and do the maths.

Not exactly. There is no way to definitely say that they measured time in the exact same way we do.
Again those stories are oral traditions. And as we all know, most oral traditions have some truth to them. Further no-one remembers the story in the the same way.

 

[outhouse]

Well as long as we are clear on a couple of thing that we evidently are clear on then all is good. All I was saying is that I believe all of these flood stories have a common root. Was the guy named Noah? We will never know who he was.

As far as religious POV I really think it has little bearing on this thread.

As far as my point. I have studied the accuracy of oral histories and the ability on technologically backward peoples to accurately repeat histories, literature and the ability to recite sacred teachings. What I have found is that it is the same as with written language. As the story moves away from the source region or the language evolves through interaction with other languages, as well as dialect differences, the names and some of the events have slight changes.

In a study of aboriginal cultures (esp. AU) the capacity for story telling is amazing as they can be as or more accurate than copied text.

This was independent study as well as college study.

thast true but in this case you dont know the source. Your only stating that once a story is established it might remain accurate.

the capacity for story telling is amazing as they can be as or more accurate than copied text

yes but it is different for every culture and different for various time periods

with a fictional tale this doesnt always hold up.

Vansina did excellent work regarding this

 

[Archer]

thast true but in this case you dont know the source. Your only stating that once a story is established it might remain accurate.




yes but it is different for every culture and different for various time periods

with a fictional tale this doesnt always hold up.

Vansina did excellent work regarding this

Right. I just tend to follow the Biblical story and I find the truth in it concerning the view of God as it pertains to the wickedness of man. To me the Bible is a philosophy on life not just a Holy Book. I honestly could not care less about the origins of the flood story but I do believe there was a flood and because I follow the philosophy of the Bible I just accept the Biblical one as the original.

 

[outhouse]

Right. I just tend to follow the Biblical story and I find the truth in it concerning the view of God as it pertains to the wickedness of man. To me the Bible is a philosophy on life not just a Holy Book. I honestly could not care less about the origins of the flood story but I do believe there was a flood and because I follow the philosophy of the Bible I just accept the Biblical one as the original.

since some much fiction was added to a stolen or borrowed story

where do you draw the line on reality or truth?

 

[Rakhel]

repost

I don't get it.
Why are people so willing to accept writings on a tablet about a mythological flood, yet not willing to accept a written oral story about a flood that may have as much potential of happening?