The Insignificance of Gilgamesh

[Thaif]

What would you like references on? Why can't you find some yourself?

I'm sorry, you want me to provide references on your quote? Really? I'm not sure that's how this works.

 

[blü 2]

This smells a bit like hay to me. I could be lazy and quote the Wiki definition of Strawman here but I'm sure you're capable of doing that yourself.

If your local paper says "Smith Family win Billion Dollars ─ AP"

and if AP got it wrong and the Smith Family didn't win a billion dollars

then your local paper is wrong too

and that's the case whether your local paper mentioned their source was AP or not.

What strawman do you see in that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

This smells a bit like hay to me. I could be lazy and quote the Wiki definition of Strawman here but I'm sure you're capable of doing that yourself.

That's not a strawman, that's following the logic posed. A strawman would be constructing an argument that RSCG had not originally made, and trying to refute that argument to prove RSCG wrong. Rather, blü 2 stated his own observations in the segment that you quoted, which is not a strawman by definition and function.

 

[Thaif]

That's not a strawman, that's following the logic posed. A strawman would be constructing an argument that RSCG had not originally made, and trying to refute that argument to prove RSCG wrong. Rather, blü 2 stated his own observations in the segment that you quoted, which is not a strawman by definition and function.

Okay, fair enough, I'm going to take your word for it, the thread has gotten so long I'm having trouble following who posted what so I'll retract the Strawman accusation. :-} (that's a wry smiley face)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, you want me to provide references on your quote? Really? I'm not sure that's how this works.

I have no idea what you were asking about. The original post that you asked about had a couple of claims, both common knowledge.

So once again, what was your question?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

New Pangea, Gondwanaland Laurasia. A warmer climate with fewer and lower mountains, riverbeds in ocean floors, seashells in mountain ranges, mammoths stuck in ice with grass in their mouths and stomachs . . .

Well that was... relevant?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

He said seriously

And obviously thinks is devastatingly witty and deeply insightful. For some reason.

 

[ChristineM]

And obviously thinks is devastatingly witty and deeply insightful. For some reason.

I just don't understand how someone can be so far off the mark and still think they are being clever.

 

[metis]

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.

When we are dealing with scriptures and oral traditions that are many hundreds to thousands of years old, the "world" was pretty much just their backyard. About 2/3 of these societies had flood stories, and that should be of no surprise since most areas of the world are subject to a least periodic flooding.

There simply was no global flood, and this doesn't come from me but from the geologists who have repeatedly studied this.

The Gilgamesh narrative was most likely taken by my ancestors from the Babylonians and reworked to teach Jewish morals and values. This is what cultures do all over the world, and eretz Israel was not one of the areas subject to flooding.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe there are those that say the other Gospel writers plagiarized Mark but why wouldn't the stories be similar. They all experienced the same things.

 

[Muffled]

You probably misread it and should have linked it. The Noah story was copied from the Epics of Gilgamesh, not the other way around. And the Gilgamesh story was a reworking of an even older one. Perhaps it was this article that you were talking about:

Before Noah: Myths of the Flood Are Far Older Than the Bible

At any rate there are countless reasons that we know that there was no worldwide flood.

God was there when the event occurred so even though His account is later it is certainly an eyewitness account which may not be the case with Gilgamesh.

 

[Muffled]

Moses was merely another mythical character in the Bible, and the tower of Babel is another myth.

I believe it is not myth when the knowledge comes from God. We might not have the evidence we like to have but God is an eyewitness to all those people and events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God was there when the event occurred so even though His account is later it is certainly an eyewitness account which may not be the case with Gilgamesh.

Sorry, God did not write the Bible. And since the evidence clearly tells us that there was no flood you are left with two options. Either there was no flood, or God lied by creating false evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it is not myth when the knowledge comes from God. We might not have the evidence we like to have but God is an eyewitness to all those people and events.

but you have to rely on a terribly flawed book of myths to believe that.

How would you rationally support your claim?

 

[Earthling]

I believe there are those that say the other Gospel writers plagiarized Mark but why wouldn't the stories be similar. They all experienced the same things.

Matthew was the first gospel. Jerome wrote: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III [Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pages 8, 9]

The stories are similar, of course, but they each had their own perspective.

 

[Earthling]

When we are dealing with scriptures and oral traditions that are many hundreds to thousands of years old, the "world" was pretty much just their backyard. About 2/3 of these societies had flood stories, and that should be of no surprise since most areas of the world are subject to a least periodic flooding.

There simply was no global flood, and this doesn't come from me but from the geologists who have repeatedly studied this.

The Gilgamesh narrative was most likely taken by my ancestors from the Babylonians and reworked to teach Jewish morals and values. This is what cultures do all over the world, and eretz Israel was not one of the areas subject to flooding.

You hear this sort of explanation all the time. You can explain away anything with assumptions and call them facts, but, I've found those sort of "scientific" explanations to be baseless.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sorry, God did not write the Bible. And since the evidence clearly tells us that there was no flood you are left with two options. Either there was no flood, or God lied by creating false evidence.

Certainly G-d did not write the Bible, a child reading it will tell one. It is written in third person, must be some narrator/scribe did it.

Regards

 

[Earthling]

Well that was... relevant?

Yes, actually it all was, but left for the reader to figure it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matthew was the first gospel. Jerome wrote: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III [Translation from the Latin text edited by E. C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pages 8, 9]

The stories are similar, of course, but they each had their own perspective.

modern scholars recognize that Matthew was not the first Gospel, Mark was. And none of them were written by the people that they were named for.

this may help:

When was Matthew's Gospel written

 

[Subduction Zone]

Certainly G-d did not write the Bible, a child reading it will tell one. It is written in third person, must be some narrator/scribe did it.

Regards

Far too many here claim that it was.