The Sumerian Flood Story

[Archer]

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

where do you draw the line on reality or truth?

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?

:yes: This will do. Why can't a story from the Bible be the original? I just find it asinine that one would say that it was not within the realm of possability. Who is to say the story did not originate as it is told in the Bible?

 

[fallingblood]

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 wouldn't argue that the Biblical flood story is true. However, if one wants to prove that it is not true, this is not the way to do it.

Why? Because it makes very little sense.

 

[Copernicus]

:yes: This will do. Why can't a story from the Bible be the original? I just find it asinine that one would say that it was not within the realm of possability. Who is to say the story did not originate as it is told in the Bible?

Archer, that is the usual response that I get from folks who believe in the Bible, and it is certainly logically possible that the Hebrew myth was older. Here's the problem, though. The Gilgamesh epic existed even before there were records of Semitic speakers. The first Semites in recorded history, were the Akkadians, who adopted and embellished the Gilgamesh story. (It was "Bilgamesh" in Sumerian.) The impact of the Akkadians on the region was huge, and the Gilgamesh epic was widely known. Hebrew speakers appear as a minor set of tribes much later in history. Their version was spread primarily through an oral tradition, so we do not know all of the editorial changes that it went through before it was written down and codified in Greek (and later in Aramaic and Hebrew). The Akkadian and Sumerian records, written on tablets and carved in stone, come down to us completely unedited.

When the Ugaritic language was finally discovered and deciphered in the last century, it also contained tales of Gilgamesh. What surprised many scholars was that large parts of the Hebrew Psalms and other portions of the Hebrew Bible existed almost verbatim in the pagan literature of the Ugarits. That suggests that people living in Palestine to the south of Ugarit shared the same folklore and traditions as the Ugarits. It's just that the Hebrew story appears to have been customized to fit their particular history and position in the local politics of the time. Ultimately, Hebrew speakers came to be monotheistic, but that probably was not even the case when the earliest versions of biblical stories came to be recorded in the histories of Israel and Judea. It was fairly common back then for states and empires to make up aggrandized tales of their origins, and the Hebrew empire under David and Solomon was probably little different in that regard.

 

[outhouse]

:yes: This will do. Why can't a story from the Bible be the original? I just find it asinine that one would say that it was not within the realm of possability. Who is to say the story did not originate as it is told in the Bible?

its a myth and the fable and is not possible in any sense.

it makes me wonder what kind of reality you live in to assume such a impossibility

 

[Archer]

Archer, that is the usual response that I get from folks who believe in the Bible, and it is certainly logically possible that the Hebrew myth was older. Here's the problem, though. The Gilgamesh epic existed even before there were records of Semitic speakers. The first Semites in recorded history, were the Akkadians, who adopted and embellished the Gilgamesh story. (It was "Bilgamesh" in Sumerian.) The impact of the Akkadians on the region was huge, and the Gilgamesh epic was widely known. Hebrew speakers appear as a minor set of tribes much later in history. Their version was spread primarily through an oral tradition, so we do not know all of the editorial changes that it went through before it was written down and codified in Greek (and later in Aramaic and Hebrew). The Akkadian and Sumerian records, written on tablets and carved in stone, come down to us completely unedited.

When the Ugaritic language was finally discovered and deciphered in the last century, it also contained tales of Gilgamesh. What surprised many scholars was that large parts of the Hebrew Psalms and other portions of the Hebrew Bible existed almost verbatim in the pagan literature of the Ugarits. That suggests that people living in Palestine to the south of Ugarit shared the same folklore and traditions as the Ugarits. It's just that the Hebrew story appears to have been customized to fit their particular history and position in the local politics of the time. Ultimately, Hebrew speakers came to be monotheistic, but that probably was not even the case when the earliest versions of biblical stories came to be recorded in the histories of Israel and Judea. It was fairly common back then for states and empires to make up aggrandized tales of their origins, and the Hebrew empire under David and Solomon was probably little different in that regard.

I agree that things get mixed up but it nags me that some people are so anti Christian/Jewish that they discount anything from our Holy Books as fairy tales.

There is a big difference between an atheist and a person with an agenda kind of like Christians in a way An atheist does not hate people of faith and their beliefs so much that they would discount any validity to the texts.

 

[Rakhel]

And yet you are willing to say the story of Gilgamesh is more plausible because you believe it to be older. Do you realize how much sense that makes?
Why don't we say there is no such thing as massive floods. Would that make you happy?

 

[outhouse]

And yet you are willing to say the story of Gilgamesh is more plausible because you believe it to be older. Do you realize how much sense that makes?
Why don't we say there is no such thing as massive floods. Would that make you happy?

describe massive flood.

there was no world wide flood as the bible states covering the highest mountain by over 20'

there are reginal floods every year

how much fiction will you swallow?

 

[Archer]

its a myth and the fable and is not possible in any sense.

it makes me wonder what kind of reality you live in to assume such a impossibility

I feel the same way. You have no base one way or the other for your view. I do because that was the cycle in the fertile crescent. There were some catastrophic floods.

I cant remember but in Gilgamesh was the flood global? It was not in the Hebrew text.

 

[outhouse]

it nags me that some people are so anti Christian/Jewish that they discount anything from our Holy Books as fairy tales.

im not anti christian or jewish

im pro history and logoc and deal with facts.

you must understand how the fiction was put together before you can base it as factual history.

much of the books are fairy tales in my opinion as its obvious fiction.

there is very little of the OT and NT based on truth.

 

[outhouse]

You have no base one way or the other for your view

I do

science knows it did not happen the way the mythical tale states, history is also traced back to see where the biblical myth originated from before it was rewritten to meet the early jewish needs

 

[Rakhel]

The Gilgamesh story is not even the earliest story and was copied itself from Atra-Hasis. Further you are using Christian terms, old terms at that, to justify your refusal of a flood even happening to any degree.
Earth, even by today's terms does not necessarily mean planet Earth. It can and has meant the dirt in which we stand on, plant in and build from.

 

[Archer]

I do

science knows it did not happen the way the mythical tale states, history is also traced back to see where the biblical myth originated from before it was rewritten to meet the early jewish needs

How did it happen then? No real history is there other than Sumerian and Hebrew texts. We know there were Floods and at least one Great Flood. It is perfectly feasible that it did happen and remember the earth spoken of in Hebrew was a parcel not the globe. It was the region where man dwelt.

Interesting read: National Geographic: Noah’s Flood/Black Sea Expedition

 

[Archer]

The Gilgamesh story is not even the earliest story and was copied itself from Atra-Hasis. Further you are using Christian terms, old terms at that, to justify your refusal of a flood even happening to any degree.
Earth, even by today's terms does not necessarily mean planet Earth. It can and has meant the dirt in which we stand on, plant in and build from.

To add to your post and I have posted this before:

Original Word: אָ֫רֶץ
Transliteration: erets
Phonetic Spelling: (eh'-rets)
Short Definition: land

This is what the flood covered. I can post the long definition.

 

[Rakhel]

To add to your post and I have posted this before:

Original Word: אָ֫רֶץ
Transliteration: erets
Phonetic Spelling: (eh'-rets)
Short Definition: land

This is what the flood covered. I can post the long definition.

Exactly. This has always been my standpoint.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree that things get mixed up but it nags me that some people are so anti Christian/Jewish that they discount anything from our Holy Books as fairy tales.

No more so than you discount the stories of fantastic and miraculous events in pagan literature. We have no good reason to treat the Bible as special. Nor, for that matter, do you.

There is a big difference between an atheist and a person with an agenda kind of like Christians in a way An atheist does not hate people of faith and their beliefs so much that they would discount any validity to the texts.

Hatred is not the only motive for discounting the validity of documents. Surely, you do not discount the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita out of hatred towards Muslims and Hindus.

And yet you are willing to say the story of Gilgamesh is more plausible because you believe it to be older. Do you realize how much sense that makes?

Nobody is saying that the story of Gilgamesh is "more plausible", only that it is likely a major source of the flood story in the Bible. After all, Utnapishtim's ark is described in much greater detail in the Akkadian version of Gilgamesh. The story of the ark would have been familiar to most of the people living in Palestine, but you are claiming that the Hebrew version was more believable than the one in widespread circulation. Gilgamesh was an extremely popular epic for many centuries, and it appeared as a Sumerian myth before any Semitic speakers left records of any kind. The Hebrew version had a much more limited audience, and there is no record of it prior to the advent of Hebrew speakers. There are no ancient versions of it recorded in stone or clay tablets. There are many versions of Gilgamesh found at widely distributed sites.

Why don't we say there is no such thing as massive floods. Would that make you happy?

Massive floods did occur back then. We have archaeological evidence of that. None of them were so massive as to cover the world, let alone most of the land area of the Middle East.

 

[outhouse]

How did it happen then? No real history is there other than Sumerian and Hebrew texts. We know there were Floods and at least one Great Flood. It is perfectly feasible that it did happen and remember the earth spoken of in Hebrew was a parcel not the globe. It was the region where man dwelt.

Interesting read: National Geographic: Noah’s Flood/Black Sea Expedition

there can be any number of originating story's to the biblical fllood ... Copernicus told you exactly what probably happened.

there was a flood yes, there are every where in the world every year and imagine that they cover land

the rest is all fiction

No matter how you slice it the biblical flood is fiction.

 

[Rakhel]

Again, I am not saying it was a world wide flood. It destroyed "their world." Sheesh I guess people don't know what an idiom is anymore.

 

[outhouse]

Again, I am not saying it was a world wide flood. It destroyed "their world." Sheesh I guess people don't know what an idiom is anymore.

it doesnt matter what it really destroyed

the biblical flood is fiction in every sense.

Name one part that was true, the flood??? give me a break that doesnt meen the rest is true

 

[Archer]

Massive floods did occur back then. We have archaeological evidence of that. None of them were so massive as to cover the world, let alone most of the land area of the Middle East.

Who said covering the world? אָ֫רֶץ was the word used in the Bible, earth or land/ a very large parcel.

common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), fail* (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3).

The three occurrences of the Hebrew word meaning World were in Gen 1:

 

[Archer]

it doesnt matter what it really destroyed

the biblical flood is fiction in every sense.

Name one part that was true, the flood??? give me a break that doesnt meen the rest is true

Prove to me one part that is not true. You can not.