Political Crossfire Forums

[issaiah1332]

I dont think i spelled that right. LOL. I was wondering what your opinions are on this table and whether or not you think that it gives the biblical tale of the great deluge more validity.

[cap'n queasy]

No.

[Aqualung]

I do. And the other flood stories in all the different religions from around the world also do.

[issaiah1332]

cap'n queasy wrote: No.


How exactly can you say that? I mean it describes almost exactly the same thing as the bible does. Right down to sending a bird to see if there is dry land. I think that it is a healthy refreshment to know that there is another account. Don't you? Whether you believe in a great deluge or not.

[Kt]

issaiah1332 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: No.


How exactly can you say that? I mean it describes almost exactly the same thing as the bible does. Right down to sending a bird to see if there is dry land. I think that it is a healthy refreshment to know that there is another account. Don't you? Whether you believe in a great deluge or not.
Ziusudra Epic came before "Noah's ark", I'd call the story of Noah's ark the bastardized version, full of jehova-ist spin.

Quote: In the eleventh tablet of the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim is the wise king of the Sumerian city state of Shuruppak who, along with his unnamed wife, survived a great flood sent by Enlil to drown every living thing on Earth. Utnapishtim was secretly warned by the water god Ea of Enlil's plan and constructed a great boat or ark to save himself, his family and representatives of each species of animal. When the flood waters subsided, the boat was grounded on the mountain of Nisir. When Utnapishtim's ark had been becalmed for seven days, he released a dove, who found no resting place and returned. A swallow was then released who found no perch and also returned, but the raven which was released third did not return. Utnapishtim then made a sacrifice and poured out a libation to Ea on the top of mount Nisir. Utnapishtim and his wife were granted immortality after the flood. Afterwards, he is taken by the gods to live for ever at "the mouth of the rivers" and given the epithet "Faraway".

The Babylonian legend of Utnapishtim (meaning "He Saw Life", presumably in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods) is matched by a Sumerian version, the legend of Ziusudra, a name with the same meaning as Utnapishtim. The tale of Ziusudra is known from a single fragmentary tablet published in 1914 by Arno Poebel. The first part deals with the creation of man and the animals and the founding of the first cities - Eridu, Badtibira, Larak, Sippar, and Shuruppak. After a missing section in the tablet, we learn that the gods have decided to send a flood to destroy mankind. The god Enki (lord of the underworld ocean of fresh water and Sumerian equivalent of Ea) warns Ziusudra of Shuruppak to build a large boat - the passage describing the directions for the boat is also lost. When the tablet resumes it is describing the flood. A terrible storm raged for seven days, "the huge boat had been tossed about on the great waters," then Utu (the Sun) appears and Ziusudra opens a window, prostrates himself, and sacrifices an ox and a sheep. After another break the text resumes, the flood is apparently over, and Ziusudra is prostrating himself before An (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), who give him "breath eternal" and take him to dwell in Dilmun. The remainder of the poem is lost. [1]

Scholars have noted similarities between the myth of Utnapishtim and the biblical story of Noah's Ark.
Always remember if nothing else, that Enlil/Jehova, is a bad guy, he wants to destroy you, your loved ones, and all of humanity.


Btw, I voted NO, because the bible story is bulls**t anyways, and will never be valid.

[Otacon]

I said yes, but since the Bible is still fake anyway, it doesn't matter.

[cap'n queasy]

The Unapishtim myth, which superficially resembles the flood account in Genesis is found on tablet XI of a set of twelve tablets which date to 650 BC, in the Neobabylonian period, which was about the same time the Book of Daniel was written. Which is one of the later books of the Tanahk.

The Genesis accounts correctly name pre-Sumerian kings, cities and historical events. They are much older than than any of the Babylonian tablets.

Additionally there are Sumerian tablets that are much older than the Gilgamesh epic which can be shown to be derived from the Genesis account.

Some researchers assume the Genesis account to be derived from the Gilgamesh tales because they follow a theory of dating the scripture called the Documentary Hypothesis, which holds that the Tanahk was written around 600 BC.

The problem is that a textual analysis of the Torah and the Tanahk shows that this is impossible, because of the accuracy of historical information contained within the Tanahk and the Torah about civilizations that were buried in the desert for thousands of years before this time period.

It is an impossibility that this information could have been known to scribes in this time period unless it was accurately preserved from the time of the Ubaid culture, a pre-Sumerian culture from which the earliest examples of the written language come from which it has been shown that the writings we have today writings describing Abraham and Job originated from this culture, as it describes it accurately. The Ubaidians were the people who founded the city state of Ur, Abraham's "hometown", in the proto-Euphratean Era (pre-Sumerian). The Genesis account of Noah predates Abraham by somewhere around 1500 years and was written in the dim edges of recorded history. Excavations of Ur in 1928 by Wooley uncovered a strata of water-laid clay in which painted pottery from the Ubaid Era. Apparently it was these people whose culture existed before the Flood, and which was continued by the descendents of Noah, such as Abraham and Job, until the Sumerians came along. Wandering desert nomads moved into the area around the 4th millenium and settled with the Ubaid culture, sometimes peacefully and at times by conquest. The result was the birth of the Sumerian culture (Known in the Bible as the land of Shinar/Sumer). They took some of the earlier records and added their own cultural odds and ends and this is what you are looking at when you see the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh Epics. The "gods" they depict were actually kings and heros from this time.

The Atrahasis accounts (Sumerian) is far younger (around 1600 BC) than the original Ubaidian accounts, these "Ubaidian" accounts are the accounts that Moses preserved in Genesis, they were brought with Abraham when he came into the area we know as Israel and preserved throughout the Egyptian captivity, and the Unapishtim account (Gilgamesh Epic, neo-Baylonian) is younger still around 650 BC. Written about the same time the final books, such as Daniel, in the Tanahk were written.

The Books of Genesis and Job contain information from the dawn of human history.

[toddytodd]

CrossEyedMary wrote: I do. And the other flood stories in all the different religions from around the world also do.

I have heard that there are at least 4 stories (including Noah) about a world flood from different religions. At least one predates the writing of the story of Noah. Unfortunately I can't remember what religions these stories came from so.... :?

[TNBiologist]

Helena` wrote: Always remember if nothing else, that Enlil/Jehova, is a bad guy, he wants to destroy you, your loved ones, and all of humanity.


Btw, I voted NO, because the bible story is bulls**t anyways, and will never be valid.

Good to see that you are open minded and not bigotted in any way.

As to the flood stories. I think that the Epic of Gilgamesh gives some backing to the Story of Noah as told in the bible. I would not call it scientific or even firm evedence but it does support the biblical story in anthropological way. It shows that somewhere back in the early day of human history there was a large flood event, be a a global flood or just an extremely large regional flood, and some people survived this to pass there story along.

[issaiah1332]

But with all of the different accounts of the flood, do you agree with the Local Flood theory.

[dtwizzy2k5]

Otacon wrote: I said yes, but since the Bible is still fake anyway, it doesn't matter.

Proof?

[cap'n queasy]

toddytodd wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: I do. And the other flood stories in all the different religions from around the world also do.

I have heard that there are at least 4 stories (including Noah) about a world flood from different religions. At least one predates the writing of the story of Noah. Unfortunately I can't remember what religions these stories came from so.... :?

I don't think you will find one older that the Atrahasis myth, which dates to 1600 BC.

And the Genesis account is obviously quite a bit older than that. It accurately decribes people and places that were forgotten, buried under the sand, for a thousand years by the time this tablet was written and were only recently uncovered. The only reason we know how accurate Genesis is, is because of archeaology.

People in Babylon did not know about cultures that lived 2000 years before them, yet Genesis names their kings, and cities.

Which is older?

[toddytodd]

cap'n queasy wrote: toddytodd wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: I do. And the other flood stories in all the different religions from around the world also do.

I have heard that there are at least 4 stories (including Noah) about a world flood from different religions. At least one predates the writing of the story of Noah. Unfortunately I can't remember what religions these stories came from so.... :?

I don't think you will find one older that the Atrahasis myth, which dates to 1600 BC.

And the Genesis account is obviously quite a bit older than that. It accurately decribes people and places that were forgotten, buried under the sand, for a thousand years by the time this tablet was written and were only recently uncovered. The only reason we know how accurate Genesis is, is because of archeaology.

People in Babylon did not know about cultures that lived 2000 years before them, yet Genesis names their kings, and cities.

Which is older?
That name doesn't ring a bell but I am not surprised as I am not a historian, nor really interested in history. All I can say (and not even remotely assuredly) is what I heard from the history experts. I would believe more of what they say as that is what they do, but being I can't even remember the name(s) of the religions they spoke it is pointless of me to continue 8:)

[maskedJR]

Cap'n, you and I have debated this very issue more than once here. :wink:


Which is older and which one is more accurate can be debated over and over, but the heart of this debate and very subject is, all these myths, legends, stories, gives us somewhat of a historically accurate picture. There were many great floods which swept these times with the warming of the planet, and the melting of the ice caps. These myths were not isolated, but were found and recorded across the globe.

As a person reads these many myths, each myth believes a god or gods in anger, sends waters to destroy humankind. Taking into account that each society believed their own community was the entire existence of the world, we realize why they recorded what they did. Still, we can clearly see that humankind was not destroyed, with only a few chosen ones spared. It was human's attempt to explain the unexplainable, such as at one time people believed gods inhabited volcanoes, caused the earth to shake, and so on and so forth.

[John]

maskedJR wrote: Cap'n, you and I have debated this very issue more than once here. :wink:


Which is older and which one is more accurate can be debated over and over, but the heart of this debate and very subject is, all these myths, legends, stories, gives us somewhat of a historically accurate picture. There were many great floods which swept these times with the warming of the planet, and the melting of the ice caps. These myths were not isolated, but were found and recorded across the globe.

As a person reads these many myths, each myth believes a god or gods in anger, sends waters to destroy humankind. Taking into account that each society believed their own community was the entire existence of the world, we realize why they recorded what they did. Still, we can clearly see that humankind was not destroyed, with only a few chosen ones spared. It was human's attempt to explain the unexplainable, such as at one time people believed gods inhabited volcanoes, caused the earth to shake, and so on and so forth.

So you really think you've got it figured out, eh? :-D

[maskedJR]

John wrote: So you really think you've got it figured out, eh? :-D

:P Of course I do John. Well, concerning this subject anyway. Nice to talk to you again. It has been awhile my friend.