That is not in dispute.Fade said: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.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is not in dispute.Fade said: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.
I haven't a clue. Whether they did or not in no way means that the referenced article argues against my position.JerryL said:Did local flod events in the Tigres/Euphrrates river exceed 400ft in depth?
But not 3.5 millenia older.JerryL said:"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, ..."
Given an Israelite ethnogenesis around the 13th century BCE, not that long.JerryL said:(BTW, do you know how long the Torah survived as oral tradition? I wonder if that's reasonably comparable)
Huh??Katzpur said: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."
From your referenced article on "why the Black Sea is not the location of Noah's Flood" (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/bseaflod.htm):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.
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.But not 3.5 millenia older.
Looking up some claims of oral tradition, I have one at over 8,000 yearsGiven an Israelite ethnogenesis around the 13th century BCE, not that long.
I agree with this point of view.JerryL said:[font=Times New Roman,Times,serif]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. [/font]
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 said:It is such a pity that oral traditions don't leave behind verifiable archeological evidence
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.AV1611 said: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?
Well, let's try this again. I'll reword for clarity.Fade said: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.
Oh, well that certainly clears it up. In that case, yes it would have been lovely. Pity it wasn't.AV1611 said: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
But do they predate the flood of The Bible? Gilgamesh does, so why not believe it was correct?Yet, the legends have some basic points in common with the Biblical account of the Deluge.
In fact, The Bible gives so much detail it actually gives two accounts. Is it not possible for a people to add their own details to a traditional story? Detail, or lack thereof, is not evidence of these stories not being related.However, it lacks the graphic details and simplicity of the Bible account, and it does not give reasonable dimensions for the ark nor supply the time period indicated in the Scriptures.
scitsofreaky said:But do they predate the flood of The Bible? Gilgamesh does, so why not believe it was correct?
In fact, The Bible gives so much detail it actually gives two accounts. Is it not possible for a people to add their own details to a traditional story? Detail, or lack thereof, is not evidence of these stories not being related.
may said:Outside the Genesis account, the Scriptures refer to Noah or the global Deluge ten times. Do these references indicate that the inspired writers viewed the Flood as genuine history or as a fable?
In the Scriptures, Noah appears in two genealogies of the nation of Israel, the second culminating in Jesus Christ. (1 Chronicles 1:4; Luke 3:36) Ezra and Luke, the compilers of these genealogies, were both skilled historians and must have believed that Noah was a real person
I never said that those that wrote The Bible after this story was written believe it is a fable. But since we don't know who actually wrote this original account, we do not know if he authored any of the other references.Do these references indicate that the inspired writers viewed the Flood as genuine history or as a fable?
because i believe the bible is inspired of God but the telly is notFade said:I believe everything I see on TV. The TV says it's true so therefore it must be true.
Why is the above statement ridiculous but saying the same thing about accounts in the Bible not?
Sorry ,true you did not say it was a fable. for me i find it more believable because of the genenology records back to noah in the biblescitsofreaky said:I never said that those that wrote The Bible after this story was written believe it is a fable. But since we don't know who actually wrote this original account, we do not know if he authored any of the other references.
It seems to me that The Bible's version is just an exaggeration of Gilgamesh. For example, 6 days 7 nights turns into 40 days and 40 nights.