How does the Epic of Gilgamesh discredit the story of Noah’s flood?

[Subduction Zone]

Nice.

Good, you are finally seeing the light.

 

[firedragon]

Already did? Wiki sums up the consensus,

No it doesnt.

There is con scholarly consensus that "Moses was a myth". None. Some scholars believe so because there is no evidence. But that is not scholarly consensus that "Moses was a myth".

 

[firedragon]

Good, you are finally seeing the light.

Yes yes. Words like Loon is your argument. Thats your light.

Instead, show me where it says "scholarly consensus is that Moses was a myth".

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it doesnt.

There is con scholarly consensus that "Moses was a myth". None. Some scholars believe so because there is no evidence. But that is not scholarly consensus that "Moses was a myth".

Prove it. Find a more reliable source. I doubt if you can. All you have are empty claims so far.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes yes. Words like Loon is your argument. Thats your light.

Instead, show me where it says "scholarly consensus is that Moses was a myth".

You know that is not true. I offered to even help you to understand how we know that it is a myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes yes. Words like Loon is your argument. Thats your light.

Instead, show me where it says "scholarly consensus is that Moses was a myth".

I already provided the link. But here you go:

The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yeẓi’at Miẓrayim: lit. 'Departure from Egypt') is the founding myth[a] of the Israelites.[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#cite_note-3 It tells a story of Israelite enslavement and departure from Egypt, revelations at biblical Mount Sinai, and wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[2] Its message is that the Israelites were delivered from slavery by Yahweh their god, and therefore belong to him by covenant.[1]


Departure of the Israelites (David Roberts, 1829)
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Torah does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture.[3][4][5] Most modern scholars believe that the story of the Exodus has some historical basis,[6][7] but contains little material that is provable.[8]

 

[joelr]

No it doesnt.

There is con scholarly consensus that "Moses was a myth". None. Some scholars believe so because there is no evidence. But that is not scholarly consensus that "Moses was a myth".

First you seem to know nothing about the evidence that Thomas Thompson put forth to demonstrate the mythical nature of Moses and the Patriarchs.
Thompsons work is now highly regarded, respected and has created the consensus. If you want to remain outside of the historicity loop, I'm not that worried about it.

Leading archaeologist says Old testament storeis are fiction

ABRAHAM, Jacob, Moses, King David, and King Solomon in all his splendour, never existed, a 15-year study of archaeological evidence has concluded.

The study - by Professor Thomas Thompson, one of the world's foremost authorities on biblical archaeology - says that the first 10 books of the Old Testament are almost certainly fiction, written between 500 and 1,500


You are failing dramatically to put any evidence forward and instead are just giving beliefs clearly based on no good evidence. Wiki summing up the scholarship about Moses as "generally seen as a legendarys figure" means exactly what I said. Going into denial isn't changing this fact. I have already provided evidence.

William Denver is the top archeologist for Biblical work. His opinion is standard (that means consensus), the stories about Moses are enlarged.

No historian believes anyone ever heard messages from any God, any flood tale or any other common supernatural myth is a real story. If there was a person named Moses it is believed he would have been a leader. No Gods or magic or supernatural happenings. No historian believes any of that.


Again, another source:


Historicity
Some of the stories of the Pentateuch may derive from older sources. American science writer Homer W. Smith points out similarities between the Genesis creation narrative and that of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, such as the inclusion of the creation of the first man (Adam/Enkidu) in the Garden of Eden, a tree of knowledge, a tree of life, and a deceptive serpent.[7] Scholars such as Andrew R. George point out the similarity of the Genesis flood narrative and the Gilgamesh flood myth.[8][t] Similarities between the origin story of Moses and that of Sargon of Akkad were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909[12] and popularized by later writers, such as H. G. Wells and Joseph Campbell.[13][14] Jacob Bronowski writes that, "the Bible is ... part folklore and part record. History is ... written by the victors, and the Israelis, when they burst through [Jericho (c. 1400 BC)], became the carriers of history."[15]

 

[Subduction Zone]

First you seem to know nothing about the evidence that Thomas Thompson put forth to demonstrate the mythical nature of Moses and the Patriarchs.
Thompsons work is now highly regarded, respected and has created the consensus. If you want to remain outside of the historicity loop, I'm not that worried about it.

Leading archaeologist says Old testament storeis are fiction

ABRAHAM, Jacob, Moses, King David, and King Solomon in all his splendour, never existed, a 15-year study of archaeological evidence has concluded.

The study - by Professor Thomas Thompson, one of the world's foremost authorities on biblical archaeology - says that the first 10 books of the Old Testament are almost certainly fiction, written between 500 and 1,500


You are failing dramatically to put any evidence forward and instead are just giving beliefs clearly based on no good evidence. Wiki summing up the scholarship about Moses as "generally seen as a legendarys figure" means exactly what I said. Going into denial isn't changing this fact. I have already provided evidence.

William Denver is the top archeologist for Biblical work. His opinion is standard (that means consensus), the stories about Moses are enlarged.

No historian believes anyone ever heard messages from any God, any flood tale or any other common supernatural myth is a real story. If there was a person named Moses it is believed he would have been a leader. No Gods or magic or supernatural happenings. No historian believes any of that.


Again, another source:


Historicity
Some of the stories of the Pentateuch may derive from older sources. American science writer Homer W. Smith points out similarities between the Genesis creation narrative and that of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, such as the inclusion of the creation of the first man (Adam/Enkidu) in the Garden of Eden, a tree of knowledge, a tree of life, and a deceptive serpent.[7] Scholars such as Andrew R. George point out the similarity of the Genesis flood narrative and the Gilgamesh flood myth.[8][t] Similarities between the origin story of Moses and that of Sargon of Akkad were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909[12] and popularized by later writers, such as H. G. Wells and Joseph Campbell.[13][14] Jacob Bronowski writes that, "the Bible is ... part folklore and part record. History is ... written by the victors, and the Israelis, when they burst through [Jericho (c. 1400 BC)], became the carriers of history."[15]

It appears that he ran away. He merely echoed some phrases that he heard and could not justify. Calling the scholarly consensus " fringe" and "mythicist" was an example of name calling that he could not support.

 

[firedragon]

First you seem to know nothing about the evidence that Thomas Thompson put forth to demonstrate the mythical nature of Moses and the Patriarchs.
Thompsons work is now highly regarded, respected and has created the consensus. If you want to remain outside of the historicity loop, I'm not that worried about it.

Leading archaeologist says Old testament storeis are fiction

ABRAHAM, Jacob, Moses, King David, and King Solomon in all his splendour, never existed, a 15-year study of archaeological evidence has concluded.

The study - by Professor Thomas Thompson, one of the world's foremost authorities on biblical archaeology - says that the first 10 books of the Old Testament are almost certainly fiction, written between 500 and 1,500


You are failing dramatically to put any evidence forward and instead are just giving beliefs clearly based on no good evidence. Wiki summing up the scholarship about Moses as "generally seen as a legendarys figure" means exactly what I said. Going into denial isn't changing this fact. I have already provided evidence.

William Denver is the top archeologist for Biblical work. His opinion is standard (that means consensus), the stories about Moses are enlarged.

No historian believes anyone ever heard messages from any God, any flood tale or any other common supernatural myth is a real story. If there was a person named Moses it is believed he would have been a leader. No Gods or magic or supernatural happenings. No historian believes any of that.


Again, another source:


Historicity
Some of the stories of the Pentateuch may derive from older sources. American science writer Homer W. Smith points out similarities between the Genesis creation narrative and that of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, such as the inclusion of the creation of the first man (Adam/Enkidu) in the Garden of Eden, a tree of knowledge, a tree of life, and a deceptive serpent.[7] Scholars such as Andrew R. George point out the similarity of the Genesis flood narrative and the Gilgamesh flood myth.[8][t] Similarities between the origin story of Moses and that of Sargon of Akkad were noted by psychoanalyst Otto Rank in 1909[12] and popularized by later writers, such as H. G. Wells and Joseph Campbell.[13][14] Jacob Bronowski writes that, "the Bible is ... part folklore and part record. History is ... written by the victors, and the Israelis, when they burst through [Jericho (c. 1400 BC)], became the carriers of history."[15]

I would recommend that you address the point, which I think you are attempting to change. If you want to discuss Every tom, dick and harry knows Thomas L Thompson and all due respect. If you want to discuss him, you are more than welcome.

You claimed that it is the consensus of scholars that "Moses was myth".

Please provide that consensus. After that, we can discuss Thompson. I can see you have substance my friend, that's why you are at least quoting some sources. There is no need to get agitated.

There is absolutely no consensus that Moses was a myth. Mainstream scholarship does not work that way. I will give you an example. There is consensus in biblical scholarship that the synoptic gospels are synoptic. That is why they are called synoptic. And from conservative Christian scholarship to liberal christian scholarship to atheistic christian scholarship it is consensus and is taught in curriculum in every university teaching theology, NT criticism, and even some sociology of religion degrees. You are harping on Thompson while quoting Bart Ehrman as one of the mythicists in the same so called "scholarly consensus" but Ehrman is dead against Thompsons mythicist positions on Jesus and rejects it. So you quoted both of these people in the same sentence though they oppose each other in some cases.

Rather than making statements like "it is scholarly consensus" when its not, just make your case if you like with Thompsons arguments. Thats fine. But your claim that is is scholarly consensus is false. Its not true.

 

[firedragon]

I offered to even help you to understand how we know that it is a myth.

Lol. How "WE" know? Who is this "we"?

You can repeat your claim a million times. But there is no "scholarly consensus that Moses is a Myth". No way, nowhere.

You know what? Do you think Jesus is a myth? Just out of curiosity.

 

[metis]

The ratios, reduced to 30(L): 5(W): 3(H), are identical to the ratios of many modern ships!

Not according to the actual research, which would show the ship to be quite unstable, even more so if the ship was loaded. There is one built to biblical specs that at least was in Amsterdam harbor, but they say that they dare not send it out.

The Flood narratives [there's more then one] are quite clearly allegorical because they make so little sense if taken literally, thus the real meaning is the moral lessons that these narratives search. This approach is heavily used in traditional Judaism, such as what we see with Jesus' parables. Whether the "Good Samaritan" existed as an actual person really is quite irrelevant, and thus it's the moral of the parable that's important.

 

[firedragon]

No historian believes anyone ever heard messages from any God, any flood tale or any other common supernatural myth is a real story. If there was a person named Moses it is believed he would have been a leader. No Gods or magic or supernatural happenings. No historian believes any of that.

None of that is relevant.

Where is this consensus that "Moses was a myth"? This same sentence has been repeated many times but its not addressed obviously because there is no consensus as such. It was a false assessment. Thats why you cannot answer that question.

Some scholars do claim Moses was a myth. But there is no consensus. It does not work that way. So speaking about magic, God, supernatural matters, etc etc etc to answer this question is all strawman attempts. Prove that "scholarly consensus is that MOSES WAS A MYTH".

Cheers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would recommend that you address the point, which I think you are attempting to change. If you want to discuss Every tom, dick and harry knows Thomas L Thompson and all due respect. If you want to discuss him, you are more than welcome.

You claimed that it is the consensus of scholars that "Moses was myth".

Please provide that consensus. After that, we can discuss Thompson. I can see you have substance my friend, that's why you are at least quoting some sources. There is no need to get agitated.

There is absolutely no consensus that Moses was a myth. Mainstream scholarship does not work that way. I will give you an example. There is consensus in biblical scholarship that the synoptic gospels are synoptic. That is why they are called synoptic. And from conservative Christian scholarship to liberal christian scholarship to atheistic christian scholarship it is consensus and is taught in curriculum in every university teaching theology, NT criticism, and even some sociology of religion degrees. You are harping on Thompson while quoting Bart Ehrman as one of the mythicists in the same so called "scholarly consensus" but Ehrman is dead against Thompsons mythicist positions on Jesus and rejects it. So you quoted both of these people in the same sentence though they oppose each other in some cases.

Rather than making statements like "it is scholarly consensus" when its not, just make your case if you like with Thompsons arguments. Thats fine. But your claim that is is scholarly consensus is false. Its not true.

Actually there is such a consensus. I asked you multiple times to support your claims. As soon as you either support your claims or admit that you can't then I will support my claim. I requested that you support your claims more than once. All you could do was to use insults that you could not support.

When I insult someone I only do so when I can support those claims. You were projecting when you falsely accused me of arguing through insults. That is all that you have done here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not according to the actual research, which would show the ship to be quite unstable, even more so if the ship was loaded. There is one built to biblical specs that at least was in Amsterdam harbor, but they say that they dare not send it out.

The Flood narratives [there's more then one] are quite clearly allegorical because they make so little sense if taken literally, thus the real meaning is the moral lessons that these narratives search. This approach is heavily used in traditional Judaism, such as what we see with Jesus' parables. Whether the "Good Samaritan" existed as an actual person really is quite irrelevant, and thus it's the moral of the parable that's important.

There was one,count 'em one paper by a supposed Korean expert on ship building that supports his claim. The problem is that it appears to have been a paper that seems to have been commissioned by Ken Ham. It is not to be found in any well respected peer reviewed journal. And of course to even work for Ken Ham one has to swear that one will not follow the scientific method. Like all creation "science" it appears to be an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol. How "WE" know? Who is this "we"?

You can repeat your claim a million times. But there is no "scholarly consensus that Moses is a Myth". No way, nowhere.

You know what? Do you think Jesus is a myth? Just out of curiosity.

And I will repeat. You need to support your claims before you are able to demand support from others. We already showed you that there was a consensus about the Exodus. You did not admit that you were wrong about that. I have no problem supporting my claim, but a person that makes claims and continually refuses to support them is in no position to demand support from others. The demand for support was given to you first.

 

[firedragon]

And I will repeat. You need to support your claims before you are able to demand support from others. We already showed you that there was a consensus about the Exodus. You did not admit that you were wrong about that. I have no problem supporting my claim, but a person that makes claims and continually refuses to support them is in no position to demand support from others. The demand for support was given to you first.

Okay. Let me support my claim with one scholars view on one of the so called "scholars" who "HE" presented, not you since you are now only appearing as advocate for another person. Also, you didnt show any consensus, also I didnt ask about "exodus" so repeating a strawman proves you are only avoiding facing your own strawman.

I will support my claim that there is no scholarly consensus that Moses was myth by saying there is no scholarly consensus that Moses was a myth. Lol. So "we" are right, since you calling your group who ever you are calling with "we" not having provided a single consensus that says "MOSES IS A MYTH".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. Let me support my claim with one scholars view on one of the so called "scholars" who "HE" presented, not you since you are now only appearing as advocate for another person. Also, you didnt show any consensus, also I didnt ask about "exodus" so repeating a strawman proves you are only avoiding facing your own strawman.

I will support my claim that there is no scholarly consensus that Moses was myth by saying there is no scholarly consensus that Moses was a myth. Lol. So "we" are right, since you calling your group who ever you are calling with "we" not having provided a single consensus that says "MOSES IS A MYTH".

Yes we did. Two different sources were given. I linked and quoted one. He linked and quoted another. And yes, you asked about Exodus. That was one of your claims. By the way, you should realize that if the founding story for Moses is taken to be a myth by scholars that alone makes Moses a myth too. It is like demanding that someone show that Frodo Baggins is not real. and complaining when the Lord of the Rings is shown to be fiction.

By the way, you have as yet to support any of your claims. I requested that you support yours before you made any such demands. Until you support your claims or admit that you cannot support them you are in no position to make that demand of others.

 

[firedragon]

Yes we did. Two different sources were given.

Nope.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope.

Really? Was his source the same as mine? Even if that is the case one source still beats no source at all.

 

[firedragon]

Really? Was his source the same as mine? Even if that is the case one source still beats no source at all.

They pose no argument to support the claim that its "scholarly consensus". Maybe you have to do some research to find out what scholarly consensus is.