The Sumerian Flood Story

[Pegg]

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

can you prove that it was borrowed? If you cannot, then you cannot state unequivocally that it was.

 

[outhouse]

can you prove that it was borrowed? If you cannot, then you cannot state unequivocally that it was.

actually it can be proved, it was borrowed/stolen as the same exact story with only name changes and it is recorded and pre dates the jewish flood

peg peg peg, its fiction come on. get real. it was never ment as a literal story ever.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Yes Pegg, the fact that the fossil record gives no indication of this is an issue. The fact that all the scientific data we have contradicts what you are proposing is 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.

Yes, but not within human history, your timeline is so far out of whack it is not even funny.

to this i would say that after the flood, animals slowly migrated to different areas and after time,

But why would they migrate to different areas? Using Australia as my example again, many of the animals that have been introduced there in modern times have thrived in that environment (much to the detriment of the indigenous animals). So when they got off the boat why would the koala bears go to Australia, but not the rabbits?

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.

But this is not at all “as evolution predicts”. This would be a kind of hyper evolution. For all this to happen within the timeframe of human history it would require extremely rapid changes, new species developing on a weekly or daily basis. This is not what evolution predicts, this is not what we see, there is no evidence of this, there is no known mechanism that could account for this, and this is contradicted by the evidence that we do have.

 

[Pegg]

actually it can be proved, it was borrowed/stolen as the same exact story with only name changes and it is recorded and pre dates the jewish flood

peg peg peg, its fiction come on. get real. it was never ment as a literal story ever.

sumerian is the oldest known language, and from it we find an account of noahs flood

i think its great faith building material

 

[fallingblood]

sumerian is the oldest known language, and from it we find an account of noahs flood

i think its great faith building material

It's not Noah's flood though. You should actually read the account first before commenting on it.

 

[Pegg]

Yes Pegg, the fact that the fossil record gives no indication of this is an issue. The fact that all the scientific data we have contradicts what you are proposing is an issue.

they read the data based on how our world is right now...that is the only way they can read the data because science can only state the facts about the world as it is.

But the bibles description of the preflood world is very different to the world we live in. For instance there was no rain in the pre-flood world. Mankind did not eat animals and animals did not fear humans. People lived longer, there was a water canopy enveloping the earth and protecting it from harmful radiation

Science only reads the data based on what the world is today.

Yes, but not within human history, your timeline is so far out of whack it is not even funny.

the timeline is based on what the world is today and for the dates of the timeline to be correct it would require the proportion of radiocarbon in the atmosphere to be exactly the same today as it was in ancient/prehistoric times. Now we know cosmic ray showers are variable and sporadic at times, so its very difficult to know if the timeline is accurate or not. And then we would need to know if todays cosmic rays hit the earth at exactly the same intensity as they did in the past.
Im guessing that if the earth was protected from cosmic rays due to..oh i dont know... perhaps something like the bibles description of a 'water canopy' surrounding the earth, then the rays were not all that intense back then. Lets say the rays were half as strong today as beck then, it would make any sample from that era over 5000 years older than it really is.

But why would they migrate to different areas? Using Australia as my example again, many of the animals that have been introduced there in modern times have thrived in that environment (much to the detriment of the indigenous animals). So when they got off the boat why would the koala bears go to Australia, but not the rabbits?

i really dont know the answer to that. Perhaps the entire event of the flood was under Gods guiding hand so that he not only brought the animals to the ark, but also enabled their return to different places.

But this is not at all “as evolution predicts”. This would be a kind of hyper evolution. For all this to happen within the timeframe of human history it would require extremely rapid changes, new species developing on a weekly or daily basis. This is not what evolution predicts, this is not what we see, there is no evidence of this, there is no known mechanism that could account for this, and this is contradicted by the evidence that we do have.

im not saying that entirely new animals evolved, im saying that once the ancestors of these animals were in their respective environments, the normal changes which take place as evolution predicts would have enabled them to produce the varieties we see today

 

[Pegg]

It's not Noah's flood though. You should actually read the account first before commenting on it.

i've read the Gilgamesh epic...like other cultures it varies greatly from the bible version

but its a version of the same event none the less.

 

[fantome profane]

they read the data based on how our world is right now...that is the only way they can read the data because science can only state the facts about the world as it is.

But the bibles description of the preflood world is very different to the world we live in. For instance there was no rain in the pre-flood world. Mankind did not eat animals and animals did not fear humans. People lived longer, there was a water canopy enveloping the earth and protecting it from harmful radiation

Science only reads the data based on what the world is today.



the timeline is based on what the world is today and for the dates of the timeline to be correct it would require the proportion of radiocarbon in the atmosphere to be exactly the same today as it was in ancient/prehistoric times. Now we know cosmic ray showers are variable and sporadic at times, so its very difficult to know if the timeline is accurate or not. And then we would need to know if todays cosmic rays hit the earth at exactly the same intensity as they did in the past.
Im guessing that if the earth was protected from cosmic rays due to..oh i dont know... perhaps something like the bibles description of a 'water canopy' surrounding the earth, then the rays were not all that intense back then. Lets say the rays were half as strong today as beck then, it would make any sample from that era over 5000 years older than it really is.

This is just completely wrong. The timeline is determined by several different means of dating, several different radiometric methods and several non-radio metric methods. Carbon actually has nothing at all to do with it. Carbon only dates thing back about 60 000 years. The continental formation you have been referring to dates back about 250 million years ago. Carbon dating is irrelevant.

i really dont know the answer to that. Perhaps the entire event of the flood was under Gods guiding hand so that he not only brought the animals to the ark, but also enabled their return to different places.

Magic, check.

im not saying that entirely new animals evolved, im saying that once the ancestors of these animals were in their respective environments, the normal changes which take place as evolution predicts would have enabled them to produce the varieties we see today

Fine, but then this doesn’t help you at all with the problem of animal distribution. But I guess you got that covered with the magic part.

i've read the Gilgamesh epic...like other cultures it varies greatly from the bible version

but its a version of the same event none the less.

This is another problem you have. Why would there be different versions of this story? If it was just Noah, his sons, and their wives on the boat, where did these other versions of the story come from? Did these people just go around making up stories?

 

[Pegg]

This is another problem you have. Why would there be different versions of this story? If it was just Noah, his sons, and their wives on the boat, where did these other versions of the story come from? Did these people just go around making up stories?

because as the children of noahs sons grew and went their own ways, they took the story of the flood with them...they told it to their children, and their childrens children and those children grew up and told it to their children and little by little the story changed until each national group had their own story of the flood which varied from the original true story

 

[Dirty Penguin]

because as the children of noahs sons grew and went their own ways, they took the story of the flood with them...they told it to their children, and their childrens children and those children grew up and told it to their children and little by little the story changed until each national group had their own story of the flood which varied from the original true story

The Epic Of Gilgamesh is just one of many, many stories recorded (written in stone). This culture of people who wrote these stories are consistent with their cast of characters in every story no mention of names as we find in the bible. This was a completely separate culture. The story told in the bible is a retelling of an ancient story where all the names and a lot of events were changed. The Noah story is a borrowed story of old.

 

[outhouse]

they read the data based on how our world is right now...that is the only way they can read the data because science can only state the facts about the world as it is.

But the bibles description of the preflood world is very different to the world we live in. For instance there was no rain in the pre-flood world. Mankind did not eat animals and animals did not fear humans. People lived longer, there was a water canopy enveloping the earth and protecting it from harmful radiation

this is not fantasy island lol

this never happened peg and is utterly absurd.

we know areas of the planet that from 3,000 BC to 10,000 BC had monsoons every year.

the rainforest in south america were not dry then.

please peg come back to reality and realize that it is fiction and not ment to be read literally.

how many times do we have to tell you, genesis does not have a trace of gods word in it. it does however have 3000 year old jewish thoughts some of which were stolen.

its hard to let go but you need to let the fiction go and look at it as a guide by early man.

 

[fallingblood]

i've read the Gilgamesh epic...like other cultures it varies greatly from the bible version

but its a version of the same event none the less.

No. That is like me saying that the events from Star Wars and Star Trek are the same. They both have the same idea, yet they are completely different.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is not the same story. They are not reconcilable, as they are not the same. They are comparable in some aspects, but not the same.

More so though, we know that a flood never happened. It is an impossibility. There is no geological evidence for such a massive flood. There is not enough water on Earth for a flood (and there has never been). There are too many improbabilities with the flood story that there is no reason to even assume that it could be true. Especially considering that during the time in which the flood was supposedly happening, we have evidence that other cultures were thriving, completely oblivious to the idea that the world was suppose to be destroyed by a flood.

 

[fallingblood]

they read the data based on how our world is right now...that is the only way they can read the data because science can only state the facts about the world as it is.

But the bibles description of the preflood world is very different to the world we live in. For instance there was no rain in the pre-flood world. Mankind did not eat animals and animals did not fear humans. People lived longer, there was a water canopy enveloping the earth and protecting it from harmful radiation

Science only reads the data based on what the world is today.

If you want people to give you that, you must prove those ideas. Unless you can prove those ideas, then they should just be thrown out as fantasy. If there is no evidence to support your claim, then there is no reason to assume that it might even be true.

 

[Copernicus]

We have two types of replies from Christians: natural and supernatural explanations. The naturalists read the biblical tale and try to figure out how it might have been a somewhat non-literal account of a real event. In that case, we are just looking at a catastrophic regional flood. Archer represents that method of interpreting the Bible, and he has tried to use a linguistic analysis of biblical language to defend his view.

But the fact is that, if you believe in God, then anything could have been possible, including a perfectly literal reading of the Bible in one or more English versions. God is not bound to behave within the limits of our understanding of nature. Pegg has decided to go that route. It does not matter how silly some of her claims may sound to us now, e.g. that the world used to be covered in a "watery canopy". She knows that anything is possible with her version of God.

If I had to choose between the two, I would prefer the naturalists. They still believe in a supernatural God, but they allow for science to work (up to a point, anyway). Luckily, I do not have to choose between the two.

 

[Archer]

Archer represents that method of interpreting the Bible, and he has tried to use a linguistic analysis of biblical language to defend his view.

Well the good thing is they are mine I really don't have to defend them.

My point was something happened and someone attributed it to God (everything is able to be attributed to the creator because he started it). By putting together the Flood story the Hebrews took a legendary event and gave it purpose to show that God does not like wicked people.

BTW I like mine better than the one taught in Churches. I mean a Global flood? Admittedly the entire Globe has been covered by water and perhaps the fossil shells on mountains gave them this idea. Hey there was a huge flood and God must have done it and it must have killed everything because even the highest mountains were under the water.

 

[Copernicus]

Well the good thing is they are mine I really don't have to defend them.

That is where you are wrong, my friend. When you put them in a debate forum, you put yourself in the position of having to defend your claims, whether you like it or not.

My point was something happened and someone attributed it to God (everything is able to be attributed to the creator because he started it). By putting together the Flood story the Hebrews took a legendary event and gave it purpose to show that God does not like wicked people.

OK. I can certainly understand why people in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age would attribute natural disasters to gods. In the computer age, not so much.

BTW I like mine better than the one taught in Churches. I mean a Global flood? Admittedly the entire Globe has been covered by water and perhaps the fossil shells on mountains gave them this idea. Hey there was a huge flood and God must have done it and it must have killed everything because even the highest mountains were under the water.

Archer, as far back as the 18th century, the existence of sea fossils in high mountains was taken as evidence of the biblical Flood. It was not an unreasonable conclusion, but that was when science was just starting to take hold. The "father of modern geology", James Hutton, came up with a theory of rock formation that completely blew the religious theory to smithereens. The only problem with it is that all his effort is worthless if people do not bother to study geology. Then they revert back to the ideas based on their gut feeling that powerful invisible spirits are ultimately behind everything that happens. And those fossils look like evidence for a global flood instead of massive upheavals of rock strata caused by tectonic activity. I'm glad to see that you aren't a victim of that kind of superstitious nonsense, but a lot of other people still are.

 

[outhouse]

hes also taking this history lesson from a book that required animal sacrifices to make there god happy, they were so primitive and barbaric as there imaginative fables show us

 

[fantome profane]

My point was something happened and someone attributed it to God (everything is able to be attributed to the creator because he started it). By putting together the Flood story the Hebrews took a legendary event and gave it purpose to show that God does not like wicked people.

Some people did the same thing with the recent flood in New Orleans, with equal credibility. Fortunately it seems that most people living today have moved beyond this kind of primitive superstitious thinking.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Upper atmosphere?

There are no rain cloud in the upper atmosphere. Most of the clouds are confined within the troposphere, the lowest layer.

 

[outhouse]

ancient mans imagination, all it is due to there lack of knowledge of the hydrological cycle

NOTHING MORE