I guess I need to post this again:
How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?
How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, your link had no "evidences". By the way, you might want to look up the word "evidence" and see what the plural of evidence is.
Once again, we need to go over the concept of evidence. You have not shown any yet.
joelr
Well-Known Member
As this ex-JW points out the majority of the flood legends are found in people who live near large bodies of water. Of those who do not most were descendants from cultures who had ancestors who did.
4:33
Also half of the ancient flood myths had no God involved. Not likely if there were one event they would have missed that. Then every nation got the names wrong, names of the God, multiple Gods until the Israelites who finally wrote the correct version. Ridiculous.
The logic that because we see flood myths often one must be true is absurd.
If so then other common themes found in many myths should also be true,
Mankind created from clay - The creation of man from clay is a theme that recurs throughout numerous world religions and mythologies.
First humans - didn't happen that way
Dying God - Many myths feature a god who dies and often returns to life, wait you believe that one too
Axis Mundi - a center of the world where supernatural realms meet. Fiction
Titamonachy - a race of older Gods died fighting younger Gods who then created order in the universe
Epic battles against a dragon
Oroboros, giant snake eating it's own tail
all cross culture myths
Calculus was invented by Newton and Leibniz at the same time. Humans tend to think alike and create similar fiction.
It is believed that a local flood near Sumer was possibly the reason for those versions which includes Gilamesh. Many exact details are copied into the Noah version demonstrating it is a re-working. But the 2 creation stories also mirror 2 Mesopotamian creation stories. Scholars know GEnesis was not written to be history but used myths and lore that was popular at the time.
Exodus is considered a national foundation myth and not at all how the culture started. Job has a Babylonian counterpart, Yahweh was a typical warrior God and then during 2nd temple Judaism the Hellenistic and Pagan myths were absorbed, world saviors, messianism, apoctalyiptic tales, God vs Satan, world ends people get resurrected in heaven (another Greek concept not in Judaism). Christianity is just a Pagan/Hellenized Judaism.
All of the middle easter religions blended with Hellenism at this time and got themselves savior demigods who salvationed members into their heaven.
Scholar Petrra Pakken has a good book about this The Hellenization of early Religion, 1996.
Brian2
Veteran Member
That's really replacing the scriptures and saying they are false because of a theory of a particular flood.
I guess people also do that sort of thing when it comes to the Exodus and conquest of Canaan. People are willing to say the scriptures are false and that Moses was a mythological figure because of the ideas of some historians.
These days people also are willing to write off the miracles and resurrection of Jesus because of modern ideas.
In all of this I am talking about Christians.
But it does show a particular attitude to the scriptures which I don't like.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is more than a bit of a strawman. The reasons that Moses is thought to be a fictional character is far more involved than the failure of the flood myth. And the failure of the flood myth is based upon all of the endless evidence that contradicts it. And not just scientific evidence, historical, archaeological, even mythological 'evidence' refute the story.
What should bother you is people that abuse scripture by insisting that it is literally true.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
If you're a Biblical literalist, how do you account for the Gilgamesh version (the earlier version) being different from the Noah version? I can accept the Noah story is derived from the same event as the Gilgamesh story (personally I like the Black Sea Innundation Event theory as the source event of both stories) but if your claim is that the Noah version comes from the Gilgamesh version, AND you claim to be a Biblical literalist, how do you account for the literal differences between the two versions? Have you actually read both versions?
If you'd ever care to discuss the many, many internal contradictions that make Biblical "literalism" unworkable, I'd be happy to have that discussion, too.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
IMPE most people who claim to be "Biblical Literalists" aren't actually that familiar with scripture. Personally I suspect Biblical Literalism is a crutch for people without particularly strong faith, who can only "believe" if they don't have to deal with nuance, context, and actual interpretative effort.
Of course, I'm happy to be proven wrong by any self proclaimed "Biblical literalist" who can rationally address the many, MANY internal contradictions within the Bible, but I haven't encountered any yet. Despite asking these questions for a long time now.
And that's before we even attempt to discuss extra-Biblical contradictions from science, archaeology and comparative religions or linguistics.
an anarchist
Your local anarchist.
The version recorded by Moses in the Bible is divinely inspired, the belief goes. These other flood myths, Gilgamesh included, are not inspired, hence the differences. I’m not claiming that the Noah version comes from the Gilgamesh version, the OP intends to disagree with that assumption.
I am curious of contradictions, I’ve read through the Bible and nothing has ever seemed contradictory to me when I do so. It seems to present itself as a matter of fact straight forward account, in my opinion. It appears to me that it is intended to be taken literally, and faith is required to do so because of the fantastical stories in there, like the flood.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
fair enough, I suppose. I don't really like argumentsthat rest on special pleading, but at least it has a certain logic to it, if an unfalsifiable one.
the fantastical stories aren't the issue. "God did it" as an explanation for fantastic stuff is fine by me. That's part and parcel of belief in miraculous divine interventions. No, the problem with Biblicnal literalism is the stuff like Romans 4:2 contradicting James 2:21. Yes, sure, there are explanations for most of the contradictions of a "well what he REALLY meant..." variety, but the point is as soon as you do that, it's not literal anymore.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Amalekites. Who killed 'em all? Saul, David or were some left alive, or was it Samuel? Or did some escape? Or did one of them kill Saul? The Bible says all these things happened, but they can't all be LITERALLY true.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Of course when I say "Biblical literalist" I call them that based upon their own description of themselves. And I agree, their understanding of the Bible is quite often inferior due to the shallow way that they treat the book. That shallow approach also allows them to pick and choose verses that support their own personal prejudices. Of course I love to play that game too, though I honestly tell people that I am abusing the Bible first. It is too bad that they do not admit that they are abusing the Bible themselves.
firedragon
Veteran Member
It is also possible that both flood episodes had an older source and both are copied from that, said since we are making assumptions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What "assumptions"?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Read the post that I responded to SZ, and I am addressing all the assumptions in it.
Anyway, if one is to make an assumption that the author of the Noah account copied the flood episode from the epic of Gilgamesh, maybe Gilgamesh is copied from an older source, which could be the source for the Bible also. Thats an assumption, as same as the other assumption. Both are assumptions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And what in that post do you think is an assumption? And when you claim that something is an assumption you take on a burden of proof. That is why I asked the question. Unless one is ready to demonstrate that a claim is an assumption it is unwise to say that the claim is an assumption.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I just said it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In other words you made a claim that you do not appear to be able to support. That would be no different than if I said that Allah is a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Let me cut and paste my post so that you can read again. Below:
if one is to make an assumption that the author of the Noah account copied the flood episode from the epic of Gilgamesh, maybe Gilgamesh is copied from an older source, which could be the source for the Bible also. Thats an assumption, as same as the other assumption. Both are assumptions.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Unless a Christian handles rattlesnakes, I don't believe they are truly literalists.
Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
Okay, I guess it doesn't literally say rattlesnakes, but with a rattlesnake it takes care of handling snakes and the poison verse also. Oh man, it says they got to drink the poison. Oh well, how many Christians literally do all of those things even the way it is written?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually they are not. At least not for scholars. They have to justify their conclusions. The correct claim is to say that "scholars have determined". As to the Noah's Ark myth the similarities to the clearly older Epic of Gilgamesh is rather clear evidence that is where it came from. There do not appear to be any accounts of Noah's Ark that are older than the time of the Babylonian captivity. The Babylonian records are far older than that. That is why it is not an assumption to conclude that the Noah's story came from Babylon. And if you want to learn how we know that it is a myth there is endless evidence for that and no reliable evidence at all for the flood story.