The Insignificance of Gilgamesh

[sayak83]

No. Again, let me clarify. The start of the flood was about 2370 B.C.E. Moses completed Genesis about 1513 B.C.E. That's 857 years for the story of the global deluge to spread. After it happened but before Moses allegedly wrote about it.

Please show evidence of a megaflood at 2370 BCE. Thanks.

 

[Earthling]

Please show evidence of a megaflood at 2370 BCE. Thanks.

I keep having to explain to science minded skeptics that looking for answers in the Bible from the perspective of science is pointless. Just hypothetically speaking, if I could show you scientific "evidence" of a mega-flood at 2370 B.C.E. would that prove without a doubt that such a flood took place? The answer is no. So the opposite is true as well. Is it possible that both our interpretations are wrong? Yes it is.

Don't perpetuate the illusion that evidence isn't subject to error, interpretation, or bias. It's unreasonable. I could show you possible evidence, the opinion of science, that could be misconstrued or correctly construed as interpretation of such a flood being possible but that evidence I've encountered in my past is at least 40 years old. The very fact that it's no longer pertinent is an indication of science's constant correction thereby nullifying current evidence as well.

When it comes to science and theology all we can realistically say is "This is what we think right now, and that is subject to change. Fallible." In this regard it doesn't matter what science says. The evidence is conjecture.

 

[blü 2]

The ark was a chest. A floating box.

Okay.

Affirmative on the tops of the mountains, though I don't see the relevance.

The relevance is that if there never was a Flood, then it doesn't really matter to the historian what any version of the Flood story says.

And there wasn't really a Flood, for a whole host of reasons, including that the Flood requires a flat earth and a magical source of water, and would have left huge amounts of unmistakable evidence which are simply not there.

So to return your OP, where you said:

If you read an article in Time magazine about some event and then later read a more detailed account in another article by another publisher it wouldn't indicate that the event didn't occur or that the later publication copied from the first. It's that simple.
​

I add the observations that ─

the many similarities between the Gilgamesh account and the biblical account, and the existence of the Gilgamesh account earlier in time, persuasively point to the biblical account being based on the Gilgamesh account,

if the Gilgamesh account is fable then it follows that the biblical account is fable, and

the Gilgamesh account is indeed fable.

 

[sayak83]

I keep having to explain to science minded skeptics that looking for answers in the Bible from the perspective of science is pointless. Just hypothetically speaking, if I could show you scientific "evidence" of a mega-flood at 2370 B.C.E. would that prove without a doubt that such a flood took place? The answer is no. So the opposite is true as well. Is it possible that both our interpretations are wrong? Yes it is.

Don't perpetuate the illusion that evidence isn't subject to error, interpretation, or bias. It's unreasonable. I could show you possible evidence, the opinion of science, that could be misconstrued or correctly construed as interpretation of such a flood being possible but that evidence I've encountered in my past is at least 40 years old. The very fact that it's no longer pertinent is an indication of science's constant correction thereby nullifying current evidence as well.

When it comes to science and theology all we can realistically say is "This is what we think right now, and that is subject to change. Fallible." In this regard it doesn't matter what science says. The evidence is conjecture.

Current scientific evidence is entirely against any megaflood in that time period. Since science is evidence based and theology faith based, I consider scientific conclusions about the world (past or present) to be far more reliable than theological narratives. Why believe in such narratives rather than evidence based history and archaeology when it comes to the past?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No. Again, let me clarify. The start of the flood was about 2370 B.C.E. Moses completed Genesis about 1513 B.C.E. That's 857 years for the story of the global deluge to spread. After it happened but before Moses allegedly wrote about it.

And you hold that the biblical events were just "more clear" about the flood than Gilgamesh, thus his story is irrelevant... Right?

 

[Earthling]

And you hold that the biblical events were just "more clear" about the flood than Gilgamesh, thus his story is irrelevant... Right?

Seriously? I said nothing about that. There are two simple point being made in the OP.

1. Because Gilgamesh came first doesn't mean the Bible copied.
2. Because Gilgamesh came first doesn't mean the event didn't take place.

 

[Earthling]

Current scientific evidence is entirely against any megaflood in that time period. Since science is evidence based and theology faith based, I consider scientific conclusions about the world (past or present) to be far more reliable than theological narratives. Why believe in such narratives rather than evidence based history and archaeology when it comes to the past?

Because their more trustworthy. They have a much better track record.

 

[metis]

It's not only the narrative that includes Gilgamesh but also the Babylonian creation account that probably were used by early Jewish sages and sharply modified to reflect their teachings. This pretty much what all societies do so as to teach what they believe versus others.

 

[sayak83]

Because their more trustworthy. They have a much better track record.

I beg to differ. Nothing matches the track record of scientific investigation.

 

[Susan Maneck]

If you read an article in Time magazine about some event and then later read a more detailed account in another article by another publisher it wouldn't indicate that the event didn't occur or that the later publication copied from the first. It's that simple.

Edited By Author To Add: By insignificant I mean in relation to the authenticity or historicity of the Bible.

Except the Epic is written a thousand years before the biblical account. When you focus on the historicity of the biblical account you are missing the point anyhow. In some ways Genesis is saying "no" to the Babylonian myths by assigning them entirely new meanings.

 

[Skwim]

If you read an article in Time magazine about some event and then later read a more detailed account in another article by another publisher it wouldn't indicate that the event didn't occur or that the later publication copied from the first. It's that simple.

Edited By Author To Add: By insignificant I mean in relation to the authenticity or historicity of the Bible.

Thing is, 2 + 3 does not equal 4 no matter who or what says it does.

.

 

[Earthling]

Thing is, 2 + 3 does not equal 4 no matter who or what says it does.

.

That's very good. Tomorrow we'll work on your colors.

 

[Earthling]

Except the Epic is written a thousand years before the biblical account. When you focus on the historicity of the biblical account you are missing the point anyhow. In some ways Genesis is saying "no" to the Babylonian myths by assigning them entirely new meanings.

About 858 years, was it? Anyway, do you agree with the OP or not?

 

[Earthling]

I beg to differ. Nothing matches the track record of scientific investigation.

At being wrong. But that's the point isn't it?

 

[Earthling]

It's not only the narrative that includes Gilgamesh but also the Babylonian creation account that probably were used by early Jewish sages and sharply modified to reflect their teachings. This pretty much what all societies do so as to teach what they believe versus others.

That is certainly possible but not likely. First of all it doesn't explain why so many other cultures around the world have a similar legend of a global flood. Not a local flood. A global flood.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nothing matches the track record of scientific investigation.

At being wrong. But that's the point isn't it?

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server.

"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of man made hogwash."- anon.

it doesn't explain why so many other cultures around the world have a similar legend of a global flood. Not a local flood. A global flood.

Finding marine fossils on mountain tops does. What else were such people to think about the origin of these fossils and shells? Certainly not our modern understanding that mountains arose from sea floors?

 

[Estro Felino]

That is certainly possible but not likely. First of all it doesn't explain why so many other cultures around the world have a similar legend of a global flood. Not a local flood. A global flood.

Myths used to spread among civilizations. Let's not forget that the Greek civilization absorbed almost entirely the Phoenician culture, also by adopting their alphabet.
The Greek mythology contains the myth of the flood (Deucalion and Pyrrha); but it also says that Prometheus created man by forging him out of clay (like in Genesis).

 

[Earthling]

"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.

Here we go. The American Dreamer. Your Internet and the personal computer wasn't invented by the U.S. Army and a couple college drop outs in their parent's garage, it was invented by a vague Utopian concept we will call . . . SCIENCE! Now the best fart jokes and pornography known to man is readily available to everyone! Praise Science. Now, asbestos, weapons of mass destruction and genetically modified foods, those things are taboo.

Science created all things great and wonderful. Science tells us eggs are bad and fluoride is good. Eugenics on the other hand . . . and we keep getting sicker and fatter and lazier and more sure that we are headed for our own destruction.

But praise Science!

Finding marine fossils on mountain tops does. What else were such people to think about their origin? Certainly not our modern understanding that mountains arose from sea floors?

It's a thin crust we walk upon. Imagine the force of a water canopy crashing down. Not to mention those tall mountains didn't exist at one time so would be far more easy to cover the tops of with water in a global flood.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Seriously? I said nothing about that.

Subject Title: The insignificance of Gilgamesh. Your OP goes on about reading a story in TIME, and then a second story later that "gives more detail". Only your bible doesn't give more detail, it gives the same details (quite possibly less), and by today's standards plagiarizes the story with it's own cast of characters. That the Epic of Gilgamesh came first, and that Moses (and Noah, by estimates) lived nowhere near the regional flood that spawned Gilgamesh's legend, absolutely means that the bible "copied" the story and used it for it's own narrative.

...it doesn't explain why so many other cultures around the world have a similar legend of a global flood. Not a local flood. A global flood.

Similar, but not exact. "Global" because when these myths were told, the immediate area around these tribes was the entire world. There was no concept of "global". That floods are common to areas where these stories originated, and combined with that anthropological fact of primitive geographic observation, when you're whole world (not the entire globe) is flooded, so says the story. You - and Creationists like you - take these all coincidentally and assume that everyone's talking about the same event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go. The American Dreamer. Your Internet and the personal computer wasn't invented by the U.S. Army and a couple college drop outs in their parent's garage, it was invented by a vague Utopian concept we will call . . . SCIENCE! Now the best fart jokes and pornography known to man is readily available to everyone! Praise Science. Now, asbestos, weapons of mass destruction and genetically modified foods, those things are taboo.

Science created all things great and wonderful. Science tells us eggs are bad and fluoride is good. Eugenics on the other hand . . . and we keep getting sicker and fatter and lazier and more sure that we are headed for our own destruction.

But praise Science!



It's a thin crust we walk upon. Imagine the force of a water canopy crashing down. Not to mention those tall mountains didn't exist at one time so would be far more easy to cover the tops of with water in a global flood.

Oh my! Total ignorance of what science is or what science does. No wonder you are so confused.

There was no canopy. We can see that you do not understand science at all, but how high was this supposed canopy of water? How thick was it? I need some serious numbers.