Genesis 6 (Jesus, Earth, tradition, beliefs, grace)

[Fade]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

Your source summarizes ...

It was also assumed that the Indus Valley culture derived its civilization from the Middle East, probably Sumeria, as antecedents for it were not found in India. Recent French excavations at Mehrgarh have shown that all the antecedents of the Indus Valley culture can be found within the subcontinent and going back before 6000 BC.

I certainly have no argument with this and, in fact, have noted Indus Valley Culture in threads dealing with YEC. However, to suggest that this proves anything at all about the sustainability of oral lore, or the viability of the Black Sea event as the source of (multiple) flood myths, or the appropriateness of designating these "antecedents of the Indus Valley culture' as primitive seems a streatch worthy of its own thread.

I'm not claiming that they are related to the black sea event. India has plenty of its own archeological evidence for floods dating to just after the last Ice Age, more than enough in fact for it to generate its own flood myths.

My point was that oral traditions(in this case the vedic traditions) are sustained even when the culture behind them evolves. As this article illustrates.

At any rate, lets forget the 'primitive' issue.

[JerryL]

Unlikely in that one must argue that an extremely primitive people maintained an oral history over the millennia of migration and cultural development, diffussion, and redevelopment separating the Black Sea event from the advent of the culture that spawned the Gilgamesh Epic.

There are other cultures which have maintained oral traditions for at least as long as the Babylonians had to. I'm also not convinced that we can rule out the possability that it was written down in far less than thousands of years.

Unnecessary, in that all great rivers, including the Tigres & Euphrates, have been home to rare and catastrophic floods more than capable of influence ancient folklore.

I agree that it's quite possible for the story to cover a different flood, or simply be concocted without any specefic event. The Black Sea history fits well for me and I find it compelling, though not convincing and I would not be too surprised to be found wrong.

You'll find I was pretty specific in my language as to where I said "I believe" vs. "I know" or "it's obvious".

Argue all you wish, but to claim that culture was not "extremely primitive" 7500 years ago is to simply bar the term 'primitive' from discourse in deference to the PC censor. As for the Vedas ...

I think "primitive" is a very nebulous claim. Somali government today is vey primitive compared to a very refined system in (say) ancient Sparta. I think it's a mistake to dismiss a given culture as "primitive" without a more specific claim.

The question at hand is whether the Sumerians could have still had folktales in 2750 of an event from 5500 (about 2250 years)... whether a piece of mythoology could have survived there that long.

I suppose what we would need to do is look at other cultures where we can know a time of convergence.. whether Native American Animists share specific similarities to Shinto Animists, or whether there are legends in common which do not appear to be parallel development (though such exigenesis as the Gilgamesh/Noah comparison). This is likely beyond the scope of tihs thread, though it would be an interesting conversation.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JerryL

There are other cultures which have maintained oral traditions for at least as long as the Babylonians had to.

What oral traditions belonging to which cultures for how long and according to what evidence?

Originally Posted by JerryL

The Black Sea history fits well for me and I find it compelling, though not convincing and I would not be too surprised to be found wrong.

And why do you find it more compelling than the conflation of local flood events. If we were to allow for a so-called "100-year flood" every 100 years on average, there would be nearly 3 dozen of these over the 3.5 millennia separating the Black Sea event and the early Gilgamesh. Why would these fail to rise to the level of compelling.

Also, it is unclear to me how something cand be "compelling, though not convincing".

Finally, see here.

Originally Posted by JerryL

I think "primitive" is a very nebulous claim.

As are such terms as 'culture' and 'oral history'.

[JerryL]

What oral traditions belonging to which cultures for how long and according to what evidence?

Truely crossing two malennia poses a challenge in reasearch for me (I'm far omre into sciences than histories), but I'll see what I can find.

And why do you find it more compelling than the conflation of local flood events. If we were to allow for a so-called "100-year flood" every 100 years on average, there would be nearly 3 dozen of these over the 3.5 millennia separating the Black Sea event and the early Gilgamesh. Why would these fail to rise to the level of compelling.

Among othert things because the Sumerian account names names of kings which would put the flood at or around 5000 BCE. Not onlt is the flooding of the Black Sea a more dramatic event (that might inspire something other than "damn! Another flood", but it's chronoogically correct.

Also, it is unclear to me how something cand be "compelling, though not convincing".

It rings true enough that I think it's likely correct without being sure that it's definately correct... something like the legal difference between "proven by proponderance of evidence" and "proven beyond reasonable doubt".

Finally, see here.

This site is equally against your hypothesis of an even more localized flood... arguing that the "mere" 400 ft rise in water level would not have necessitated an ark nor coverend mountains.

As are such terms as 'culture' and 'oral history'.

In this case, y ulture I'm referring to "a group of people in the same area who would share much of the same history" and "oral history" I'm referring to "stories of events passed down by speech over the course of many years"

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Among othert things because the Sumerian account names names of kings which would put the flood at or around 5000 BCE. Not onlt is the flooding of the Black Sea a more dramatic event (that might inspire something other than "damn! Another flood", but it's chronoogically correct.

That evidence would be interesting to read. I've seen dates ranging from 2700 BCE to 2400 BCE for Gilgamesh, but I recall nowhere reading that Utnapishtim locates the deluge some 3 millennia earlier. I would very much like to see your sources.

Originally Posted by JerryL

This site is equally against your hypothesis of an even more localized flood... arguing that the "mere" 400 ft rise in water level would not have necessitated an ark nor coverend mountains.

I don't understand. There is nothing in the article, or in a "400 ft rise in water level", that speaks against my suggestion that the Sumer/Babylonian flood myth was conflated lore reflecting local flood events in the Tigres/Euphrates "flood plain".

[JerryL]

That evidence would be interesting to read. I've seen dates ranging from 2700 BCE to 2400 BCE for Gilgamesh, but I recall nowhere reading that Utnapishtim locates the deluge some 3 millennia earlier. I would very much like to see your sources.

I'm drawing very much from a History Channel show regarding William Ryan and Walter Pitman. In it, there was an explanation which set the dates claimed in Giglgamesh and by the evidence he was looking at as "substantially similar" (within 500 years). I understand that there is some date as to the whole event, and if new data conflicts I'll gladly adjust my position.

Searching right now is not immediately yielding good data (and I'm hungry). Are you aware of a likely date for the event (based, for example, on the liniage of Kings coming up to a known rough date)?

I don't understand. There is nothing in the article, or in a "400 ft rise in water level", that speaks against my suggestion that the Sumer/Babylonian flood myth was conflated lore reflecting local flood events in the Tigres/Euphrates "flood plain".

Your cite dismissed the proposed flooding of the Black Sea based on the claim that water levels rose 400-feet or so and therefore did not drown out mountains. I don't believe that local flood events of the Tigres/Euphrates were more than 400ft in water-level rise, nor that they would drown mountains... though I'm honestly assuming, and if you assert that they would exceed a 400ft rise, I'll go reasearch.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JerryL

I'm drawing very much from a History Channel show regarding William Ryan and Walter Pitman.

I have the book right in front of me ...

'Gilgamesh' is found on pages 5, 47-48, 51, 96, 198, 222, 224, 225, 243, and 247 [Noah's Flood, First Touchstone Edition 2000]. Despite all these attempts to infer a linkage, I see nothing that dates Utnapishtim's flood to 5500 BCE.

Originally Posted by JerryL

Your cite dismissed the proposed flooding of the Black Sea based on the claim that water levels rose 400-feet or so and therefore did not drown out mountains.

So what. Again, contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in the article that speaks against my suggestion that the Sumer/Babylonian flood myth was conflated lore reflecting local flood events in the Tigres/Euphrates "flood plain".

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by AV1611

The term SONS OF GOD in the Old Testament, refers to angelic beings. In Job 38:6-7, God, speaking to Job about the 1st day of creation of the Earth, asks Job: WHEREUPON ARE THE FOUNDATIONS FASTENED? OR WHO LAID THE CORNER STONE THEREOF; WHEN THE MORNING STARS SANG TOGETHER, AND ALL THE SONS OF GOD SHOUTED FOR JOY?

Since it was the 1st day of creation, man hadn't been created yet. Thus it was the angelic beings.

I, too, believe that the sons of God who shouted for joy were angelic beings. But, that does not exlude them from also being "sons of God."

[JerryL]

So what. Again, contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in the article that speaks against my suggestion that the Sumer/Babylonian flood myth was conflated lore reflecting local flood events in the Tigres/Euphrates "flood plain".

Did I miss something in the flods you are refferring to? Did local flod events in the Tigres/Euphrrates river exceed 400ft in depth?

[qoute]'Gilgamesh' is found on pages 5, 47-48, 51, 96, 198, 222, 224, 225, 243, and 247 [Noah's Flood, First Touchstone Edition 2000]. Despite all these attempts to infer a linkage, I see nothing that dates Utnapishtim's flood to 5500 BCE. [/quote] Actually, in thinking about it, I believe the show was on Scott Ballard's attempt to verify Pitman and Ryan's hypothesis (the hypothesis is discussed reasonably well: http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/blacksea.htm). Note that the flood did indeed cover mounts (they are still there, underwater), and that it occured in a group that then fled to Sumer (where the legend comes from). It fits pretty well, but you are asking for support that Gilgamesh dates itself to the approcimate time.

"The date of the composition of the Gilgamesh Epic can therefore be fixed at about 2000 BC. But the material contained on these tablets is undoubtedly much older, as we can infer from the mere fact that the epic consists of numerous originally independent episodes, which, of course, did not spring into existence at the time of the composition of our poem but must have been current long before they were compiled and woven together to form our epic (Heidel 1963: 15)." http://www.ancientdays.net/nimrod.htm

well, I'm not the only one who believes the fable to be signifigantly older than the oldest tablet (BTW, do you know how long the Torah survived as oral tradition? I wonder if that's reasonably comparable).

http://www.grisda.org/origins/07053.htm - actually looks at the Genesis parts in question to get a date around 5500BC

Hrm. I'm still hunting for someone surmising the dates of the kings. It's easy to find creationists doing it for the Bible, but it's hard to find a timeline to date sumer... and "I heard some guy explain it, but can't repeat it" isn't gonna be useful. I'll have to get back with you if I can track it down.