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

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Fade

The way I see it, the two myths are so strikingly similar that, in my mind, it is reasonable to assume that they both come from the same source.

That is not in dispute.

[Fade]

Then what is?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Did local flod events in the Tigres/Euphrrates river exceed 400ft in depth?

I haven't a clue. Whether they did or not in no way means that the referenced article argues against my position.

Originally Posted by JerryL

"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, ..."

But not 3.5 millenia older.

Originally Posted by JerryL

(BTW, do you know how long the Torah survived as oral tradition? I wonder if that's reasonably comparable)

Given an Israelite ethnogenesis around the 13th century BCE, not that long.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

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."

Huh??

By that did you mean to say that the line of Seth are also "sons of God"?

If so - not so, because angels and humans are two different races of beings.

[JerryL]

I haven't a clue. Whether [the Tigres/Euphreties floods] did [exceed 400ft in depth] or not in no way means that the referenced article argues against my position.

From your referenced article on "why the Black Sea is not the location of Noah's Flood" (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm):

The 400 foot rise in water level would not cover anything that could be described as a mountain

I'm very confused how you do not see this article, which claims that the Black Sea could not be the source because a water rise of 400ft is insufficient to account for the legend, does not dismiss your hypothesis for the source of the legend based on your floods not rising 400 ft or more.

But not 3.5 millenia older.

2.5-3... but you seem to be making a claim here which is, at best, an appeal to ignorance. If you want to say you find it unlikely, that's fine (all I've said is that I find it likely); but to assert that its wrong based on such sheer speculation seems inappropriate.

Given an Israelite ethnogenesis around the 13th century BCE, not that long.

Looking up some claims of oral tradition, I have one at over 8,000 years

"During the early years of West African trade with the Americas, commercial seafarers made frequent voyages across the Atlantic. In fact, the oral history of a tradition of seafaring between the Americas and Africa is part of the history of the Washitaw People, an aboriginal Black nation who were the original inhabitants of the Mississippi Valley region, the former Louisiana Territories and parts of the Southern United States. According to their oral traditions, their ancient ships criss-crossed the Atlantic Ocean between Africa and the Americas on missions of trade and commerce..

Some of the ships used during the ancient times, perhaps earlier than 7000 B.C. (which is the date given for cave paintings of the drawings and paintings of boats in the now dried up Sahara desert) are similar to ships used in parts of Africa today. These ships were either made of papyrus or planks lashed with rope, or hollowed out tree trunks."

also on another site (http://nativehistory.tripod.com/id15.html)

While Pendergast and Meighan have clearly proven oral traditions can span hundreds of years, W.D. Strong has proven they can span thousands of years. In 1934, Strong published a convincing article detailing the Native American knowledge of the wooly mammoth. The Naskapi describe a monster they call Kátcheetokúskw (present in many of their myths) as being very large, having a big head, large ears and teeth, and a long nose with which he hit people. When presented with photos of modern elephants, the informants said they fit the description of Kátcheetokúskw as represented in their oral history. The Penobscot of Maine describe a huge animal with long teeth that leaned against certain trees to sleep (noting that when these beasts lay down, they could not get back up). The Ojibwa and Iroquois note the existence of a large beast that once ranged through the forest and was so strong that it would easily knock down any trees that stood in it's path. These "elephant" legends are rampant in many other Indigenous cultures such as the Micmac, Alabama, Koasati, and Chitimacha. (19)

Neither is my favorite site, but Google is being a challenge on the matter and antropology is not my stong suite. Never the less, your claim that oral traditions don't last three mellennia is [minimally] heavily disputed.

[Fade]

Originally Posted by JerryL

Neither is my favorite site, but Google is being a challenge on the matter and antropology is not my stong suite. Never the less, your claim that oral traditions don't last three mellennia is [minimally] heavily disputed.

I agree with this point of view.
It is such a pity that oral traditions don't leave behind verifiable archeological evidence

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fade

It is such a pity that oral traditions don't leave behind verifiable archeological evidence

Fade, this is so true! Wouldn't it be nice if the facts would have just been put down in writing and preserved throughout history?

[Fade]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Fade, this is so true! Wouldn't it be nice if the facts would have just been put down in writing and preserved throughout history?

I think for something to be considered fact it would need a lot more than simply being put down in writing. The 'fact' is that the various genesis accounts don't even claim to be factual.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fade

I think for something to be considered fact it would need a lot more than simply being put down in writing. The 'fact' is that the various genesis accounts don't even claim to be factual.

Well, let's try this again. I'll reword for clarity.

Wouldn't It be nice if the facts, the true facts, and nothing but the facts, would have just been put down in writing and preserved throughout history?

O THAT MY WORDS WERE NOW WRITTEN! OH THAT THEY WERE PRINTED IN A BOOK!

Job 19:23

[Fade]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Well, let's try this again. I'll reword for clarity.

Wouldn't It be nice if the facts, the true facts, and nothing but the facts, would have just been put down in writing and preserved throughout history?

O THAT MY WORDS WERE NOW WRITTEN! OH THAT THEY WERE PRINTED IN A BOOK!

Job 19:23

Oh, well that certainly clears it up. In that case, yes it would have been lovely. Pity it wasn't.