Gilgamesh

The Bible took the story of the flood from Gilgamesh

  • Total voters
    2
Seattle said:
Roughly speaking, "yes".
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for at least answering. Since you didn't go into any detail I'll just stick with the facts. Logically you have to ask when each was circulated, dated, how they were dated. Just because I read of an event in the Washington Post and then later the same event is reported in the New York Times doesn't mean the New York Times took it from the Post. I would go through this and explain it all, as I've done many times before, but I figure what the hell's the point.
 
Yes, there is no point. The difference in your analogy is that in the Washington Post and then in the New York Times, those things actually happened.

The early "origin" stories didn't actually happen so if I read, as a child, about the Moon being made of cheese and then I read a story from a century earlier about the Moon being made of cheese, I could assume that this had been common folklore for quite some time.

It's the same with the Bible and then earlier stories about a God sacrificing his only son, the "flood" and other such "common" stories.

None of it happened so unless you are just a historical religious scholar, there is no point in explaining or talking about any of this. It's all been discussed and debated for milenia.
 
Seattle said:
Yes, there is no point. The difference in your analogy is that in the Washington Post and then in the New York Times, those things actually happened.

The early "origin" stories didn't actually happen so if I read, as a child, about the Moon being made of cheese and then I read a story from a century earlier about the Moon being made of cheese, I could assume that this had been common folklore for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Because you had read somewhere else that it wasn't made of cheese? Or because it wasn't logical? Or because there was scientific evidence?

My criticism of atheistic skeptics is that they don't know whether the Bible says the moon was made of cheese or that the universe wasn't created in 144 hours. You can't criticize a child's book for saying the moon was made of cheese if the fucking thing doesn't say that but you read that it did somewhere.

Seattle said:
It's the same with the Bible and then earlier stories about a God sacrificing his only son, the "flood" and other such "common" stories.

None of it happened so unless you are just a historical religious scholar, there is no point in explaining or talking about any of this. It's all been discussed and debated for milenia.
Click to expand...

I think there is because your conclusion regarding my question of Gilgamesh is demonstrably wrong. It doesn't matter whether it happened or not the question was intended to establish if one took from another. You're only using an incorrect assumption to confirm your bias. What do they call that? Science? No, something else . . . .

What I'm saying is that I can show you where you are wrong, but what you are saying is that it doesn't matter because you believe I'm wrong.

By the way, Gilgamesh isn't even the earliest flood story.
 
Yes---always
one story is borrowed / used for another story
and, most likely(except for river flood stories)
all flood stories are of the same flood

eg: melt water pulses during the birth of the holocene were, most likely, accompanied by torrential rains
so
it rains and rains, and the waters of the persian gulf---etc.etc,etc rise (flooding your farms and villages)
many times in many different places
and people from those disparate places told each other of the event
and it began to seem as though the flood was world wide
so
that becomes the way the story is told.
 
Revelation In Space said:
Because you had read somewhere else that it wasn't made of cheese? Or because it wasn't logical? Or because there was scientific evidence?

My criticism of atheistic skeptics is that they don't know whether the Bible says the moon was made of cheese or that the universe wasn't created in 144 hours. You can't criticize a child's book for saying the moon was made of cheese if the fucking thing doesn't say that but you read that it did somewhere.



I think there is because your conclusion regarding my question of Gilgamesh is demonstrably wrong. It doesn't matter whether it happened or not the question was intended to establish if one took from another. You're only using an incorrect assumption to confirm your bias. What do they call that? Science? No, something else . . . .

What I'm saying is that I can show you where you are wrong, but what you are saying is that it doesn't matter because you believe I'm wrong.

By the way, Gilgamesh isn't even the earliest flood story.
Click to expand...
Because it isn't logical and there is scientific evidence to the contrary (regarding the Moon).

Why doesn't a skeptical atheist know what the Bible says? They can read. I don't personally care if one took from another in one case, or many cases, or all cases. You brought up Gilgamesh so that's what we were talking about. Whether it was the earliest or not....who cares?

What is your actual point or point of interest?
 
Seattle said:
Because it isn't logical and there is scientific evidence to the contrary (regarding the Moon).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Seattle said:
Why doesn't a skeptical atheist know what the Bible says?
Click to expand...

Because they see it through the eyes of the "Christian" tradition.

Seattle said:
They can read. I don't personally care if one took from another in one case, or many cases, or all cases. You brought up Gilgamesh so that's what we were talking about. Whether it was the earliest or not....who cares?
Click to expand...

It's often brought up as if that were confirmation of the Bible's unreliability.

Seattle said:
What is your actual point or point of interest?
Click to expand...

That it is faulty reasoning from ignorance. Not that that makes the Bible any more reliable.

As an aside, in order to tell the truth, it sometimes requires a lie, and so, the Bible is not always true in that regard. If someone takes that sort of thing out of context, like skeptics who criticize the Bible saying it says snakes or donkeys talk, they have missed that point. It's an imbalanced contextually inaccurate criticism. The Bible says the snake and ass talked only because to Eve and Balaam they appeared to do so. But also, when the Bible says something that wasn't true like in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor. Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. Metal hadn't been developed, there were no swords, what the angels had was something that appeared like something we would later know as a sword. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.

This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman. Skeptics are the blind woodsmen. Believers don't even bother. They often just look at it like "stories."

If you look at accurate Biblical chronology you can pinpoint the date of Adam's creation, the date of the flood, the date of Peleg and thus the building of the tower of Babel in the land of Sumer where the Gilgamesh and earlier flood "stories" originated. Then you can estimate how all of these things come together, leaving about 500 years or more from Peleg to the writing of the Genesis flood account. That means that there was over 500 years for stories of the flood, giants and the Cross to have grown from the original events to mythology.
 
sculptor said:
Yes---always
one story is borrowed / used for another story
and, most likely(except for river flood stories)
all flood stories are of the same flood

eg: melt water pulses during the birth of the holocene were, most likely, accompanied by torrential rains
so
it rains and rains, and the waters of the persian gulf---etc.etc,etc rise (flooding your farms and villages)
many times in many different places
and people from those disparate places told each other of the event
and it began to seem as though the flood was world wide
so
that becomes the way the story is told.
Click to expand...


Soon after the founding of the world of men, or katabole as the ancient Greeks had called it, came rivers of blood. There was a division which was first created in the lifetime of a primitive forefather who was all but forgotten. His name was Peleg, meaning division. (Genesis 10:25) He lived during the first kingdom and its king, the Sumerian Dumuzi; also known as Tammuz and Nimrod מְרוֹד in the ancient Hebrew language. (Ezekiel 8:14) He founded Accad, Babel and Calneh in the land of Shinar. (Genesis 10:8-10) The people left the great tower in Babel and scattered throughout the planet Earth. History became legend and legend became myth.

Nimrod was Tammuz, the Sumerian king Dumuzi. He is the first person to use the phallic symbol the cross as a religious symbol of fertility. Like Constantine much later, he worshipped the sun. In Ezekiel chapter 8 the women in the temple were worshipping him and carving his symbol, the mystic Tau, into the temple. God told Ezekiel that they were metaphorically shoving the "shoot" into his face, up to his nose. It's called a shoot, or branch, because it represents the male genitalia, or reproduction in fertility religions. Similar to David being the shoot, branch, sprout, offspring of David. The difference being that the Jews didn't, or at least were not supposed to worship reproduction. The Sopherim or Scribes, found the verses in Ezekiel so distasteful that they changed it from being God's nose to the women's nose instead in a rare instance called Tiqqun soferim or 18 emendations of the Sopherim.

Christians didn't start using the cross in their religion until Constantine corrupted Christianity in 325 CE. The question is, why were the Christian missionaries much later surprised to find the cross being used in the religions of the unwashed heathens when they discovered them all over the globe.

A couple other questions are why tales of giants also appear alongside flood myths and the cross? The flood, in the Bible, was caused by the unusually tall men, giants, that were offspring of the angels taking on physical form to mate with women. Also, according to the Bible where did all of that water that rained down come from? 2 Peter 3:5-6; Genesis 1:6-8

​
 
Revelation In Space said:
Because some of the events written about in Genesis, including the flood, were known more than 1,600 years before Moses wrote them down in 1513 BCE.
Click to expand...
Why do you think there was a historical Moses? Or any of the early patriarchs?
There is zero archaeology for any events regarding Moses and the Exodus.
 
The pity party about "They enslaved us and made us make bricks out of mud" is worth a giggle. The Egyptians were indefatigable archivists. And they don't mention the Hebrews being there in any serious numbers. They do record the peasants being kept busy in the slack season for the "public works" projects. The workers were fed and got a mug of beer with their lunch. As an old sailor I approve.
 
Maybe God needed to weewee really badly and needed a scapegoat to deflect God's Mom anger. God's Mom just sighed. "There's no teachin' that boy!" and she flushed. Bye Bye Flood "waters".

Prove I'm wrong.
 
Seattle said:
The larger question is where did all the water that flooded the Earth go?
Click to expand...

What was the earth like before the flood? A water vapor canopy surrounded the planet making it more moderate in temperature globally. What about the icecaps? What would all of that water do to the thin crust? Mountains wouldn't have been as prevalent nor high. The land a more solid structure. River beds in the ocean floor, animals in places you wouldn't think they were, suddenly frozen while grazing. The planet is 70% water.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Or come from? Perhaps the dome above the earth that does not exist.
Click to expand...

The idea of a literal solid metal dome surrounding the earth comes from science of the dark ages and a Latin mistranslation. Bible encyclopedias were illustrated with the unscriptural concept at that time because that's what they thought at that time. The Latin fimamentum should have been translated expanse. Even older Bibles indicate that in footnotes. The actual Bible itself has birds flying in the expanse, and clouds. It describes the hydrologic cycle simply but accurately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top