The Sumerian Flood Story

[David M]

Then what does earth mean to you, if it is not earth?

One of the possible translations of 'eretz' and not one of the most commonly used ones at that.

You can take the whole verse you quoted and substitute "land" for "earth" and it still reads coherently (and makes a bit more sense).

 

[outhouse]

a sumerian legend?

i think you'll find that most cultures have a legend very similar to whats in the bible

I think you will find if you even look, the others storys predate the bible

 

[gnostic]

Everything after this point is irrelevant because the biblical dating is wrong. Its derived from a list of names that cannot be shown to be complete and contain ridiculous ages. Its mythology not geneology.

I agree that the ages in Genesis genealogy are ridiculous. I used its genealogy not because I believe it to be true, the bible is the only source we have to work on.

The issue of the genealogy is indeed irrelevant, because the topic is about Sumerian flood legend and the Noah's flood, not about the genealogy.

There is no doubt that Sumerian version predates the Hebrew version, as well as the Akkadian and Babylonian versions.

 

[Archer]

The size of the ark,its not possible.

No wooden boat that large could hold together, the size of the ark has to be an exaggeration.

I said not TRUE I did not say factual. I have seen things exaggerated many times so I wont doubt that it could have been smaller, it held the animals of the earth that was flooded not all the animals on the globs. Hell I have heard some nut jobs even say the dinosaurs were in the ark:run:

 

[darkendless]

I said not TRUE I did not say factual. I have seen things exaggerated many times so I wont doubt that it could have been smaller, it held the animals of the earth that was flooded not all the animals on the globs. Hell I have heard some nut jobs even say the dinosaurs were in the ark:run:

Even if there were 50 animals on board a wooden boat in flood waters would be destroyed.

 

[waitasec]

how was noah able to go to the polar opposites of the planet and save polar bears and penguins?
or to africa and save the lions and zebras, and to australia to save the kangaroos?
why would god spare the lives of the fish in the ocean?

 

[Pegg]

I think you will find if you even look, the others storys predate the bible

I dont have a problem with that and it in no way means the bible story is 'borrowed'


All the nations descended from Noah and his 3 sons so of course they are all going to have the story of the flood in their legends. That the writing of the bible wasnt started until 1500's bce makes no difference either way.

 

[fantome profane]

I said not TRUE I did not say factual. I have seen things exaggerated many times so I wont doubt that it could have been smaller, it held the animals of the earth that was flooded not all the animals on the globs. Hell I have heard some nut jobs even say the dinosaurs were in the ark:run:

Ok, so sum it up for me, what are we left with? We got a local flood, a small wooden craft that may or may not have contained some animals, is that about it?

I mean really if that is the story, who cares? There is nothing miraculous here, no sign of “God” or anything divine, no revelation, and no relevance. So what is the big deal?

The myth of Noah’s Ark, if understood as a myth can have powerful resonance for people living today. This watered down version (pun intended) you are trying to peddle is meaningless.

 

[Pegg]

how was noah able to go to the polar opposites of the planet and save polar bears and penguins?
or to africa and save the lions and zebras, and to australia to save the kangaroos?
why would god spare the lives of the fish in the ocean?

the earth would have been a vastly different place before the flood...the polar regions were once warm and lush with vegetation which means that the climate in those areas was tropical

the theory is that the land masses were much closer together and there was not as much water in the oceans so all the continents were accessible by land ridges. After the flood the earth changed considerably and so did the climate.

with regard to the animals, God would have brought the animals to the ark rather then Noah going around collecting them.

 

[waitasec]

Ok, so sum it up for me, what are we left with? We got a local flood, a small wooden craft that may or may not have contained some animals, is that about it?

I mean really if that is the story, who cares? There is nothing miraculous here, no sign of “God” or anything divine, no revelation, and no relevance. So what is the big deal?

The myth of Noah’s Ark, if understood as a myth can have powerful resonance for people living today. This watered down version (pun intended) you are trying to peddle is meaningless.

i think the story of noahs ark is this;
god destroyed humanity/life because it is our fault evil exists on earth...but god will not destroy us again because every inclination of our being is to be evil, we just can't help our selves...
so really all those people that died in the flood were just as guilty as you and i, so why would he devalue their lives and we're blessed?

:biglaugh:
narcissism

 

[waitasec]

the earth would have been a vastly different place before the flood...the polar regions were once warm and lush with vegetation which means that the climate in those areas was tropical

the theory is that the land masses were much closer together and there was not as much water in the oceans so all the continents were accessible by land ridges. After the flood the earth changed considerably and so did the climate.

with regard to the animals, God would have brought the animals to the ark rather then Noah going around collecting them.

so all the indigenous animals and plant life were not originally?
all those animals were all within walking distance from noah's ark?

i don't know...seems like thats cherry picking the evidence of evolution when it's convenient.

 

[darkendless]

the earth would have been a vastly different place before the flood...the polar regions were once warm and lush with vegetation which means that the climate in those areas was tropical

the theory is that the land masses were much closer together and there was not as much water in the oceans so all the continents were accessible by land ridges. After the flood the earth changed considerably and so did the climate.

with regard to the animals, God would have brought the animals to the ark rather then Noah going around collecting them.

So land masses have moved hundreds if not thousands of kilometres in the space of 15000 years max?

 

[fantome profane]

the earth would have been a vastly different place before the flood...the polar regions were once warm and lush with vegetation which means that the climate in those areas was tropical

the theory is that the land masses were much closer together and there was not as much water in the oceans so all the continents were accessible by land ridges. After the flood the earth changed considerably and so did the climate.

Whose “theory” is that? I am sure you can’t be referring to the scientific theory of plate tectonics because this theory indicates that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old, and although it is true that the continents were closer together in the past this did not occur at anytime in human history (or prehistory).

So at one time penguins, polar bears, kangaroos, timber wolves etc all lived within the same geological area. Interesting that the fossil record gives us no indication of this.

with regard to the animals, God would have brought the animals to the ark rather then Noah going around collecting them.

So “God” brought the animals to the ark, fine. But what about afterwards? Did “God” taxi them home again? Why do we not find kangaroo fossils in the Middle East? Why did the European wolves not go to Australia? Why do new world monkeys have different tails than old world monkeys? If they all got off the boat at the same place how do you explain the distribution we see today?

 

[Archer]

Ok, so sum it up for me, what are we left with? We got a local flood, a small wooden craft that may or may not have contained some animals, is that about it?

I mean really if that is the story, who cares? There is nothing miraculous here, no sign of “God” or anything divine, no revelation, and no relevance. So what is the big deal?

The myth of Noah’s Ark, if understood as a myth can have powerful resonance for people living today. This watered down version (pun intended) you are trying to peddle is meaningless.

Not watering it down as I said I am focusing on the truth of it.

 

[fantome profane]

Not watering it down as I said I am focusing on the truth of it.

Thereby missing the point of it.

 

[outhouse]

I dont have a problem with that and it in no way means the bible story is 'borrowed'


All the nations descended from Noah and his 3 sons so of course they are all going to have the story of the flood in their legends. That the writing of the bible wasnt started until 1500's bce makes no difference either way.

just because it predated does not mean it was borrowed but it was.

Peg I would bet your life its fiction

Look it never happened, it was a borrowed story the fiction adeed to meet the hebrews needs of the time to make a cute little story on genocide to help put the children to sleep at night

 

[Archer]

Thereby missing the point of it.

The point of it is that God does not like wicked people. That is also the truth of it.

 

[Pegg]

so all the indigenous animals and plant life were not originally?
all those animals were all within walking distance from noah's ark?

i don't know...seems like thats cherry picking the evidence of evolution when it's convenient.

oceanographers have seen land ridges connecting isolated land areas. The Mid-Atlantic is one such ridge and there could be many more ridges undiscovered yet where animals could have migrated before such ridges sank below the surface of the ocean. There is evidence of a huge South Pacific continent that took in Australia and many of the South Sea isles. If true, then, of course, the animals had no difficulty in migrating to these lands.

 

[Pegg]

So land masses have moved hundreds if not thousands of kilometres in the space of 15000 years max?

they dont necessarily have to move... you just have to lower the water level and the continents will be closer together


if the water that flooded the earth really did come from the bibles 'water canopy' which was located in the upper atmosphere, then this extra water would have inundated the land and, in the same way floods cause cause the land to change today, it would have had a huge impact on the land back then.

 

[Pegg]

So at one time penguins, polar bears, kangaroos, timber wolves etc all lived within the same geological area. Interesting that the fossil record gives us no indication of this.

animals like to live in their own environments today, so i understand your skepticism....but if the pre-flood world had a similar environment everywhere, then this really isnt an issue.

Just look at the evidence of the warm climate once seen in the polar regions. This proves that at some time in the past, the earth was much warmer.

So “God” brought the animals to the ark, fine. But what about afterwards? Did “God” taxi them home again? Why do we not find kangaroo fossils in the Middle East? Why did the European wolves not go to Australia? Why do new world monkeys have different tails than old world monkeys? If they all got off the boat at the same place how do you explain the distribution we see today?

to this i would say that after the flood, animals slowly migrated to different areas and after time, isolated groups of animals began to develop their own unique features (as evolution predicts) and the animals we see in different regions today are the results of those earlier animals adapting to their environment.