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

[joelr]

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.

Already past that. Denial is an option you seem to want to use. Ok go for it?
The Wiki page sums up the consensus, funny that you ignore that and pretend like it isn't relevant? "Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, "

I have heard many historians say the consensus on Moses is the Biblical version are mythical tales. There may have been a leader named Moses who the stories were based on but no historian believes the stories are real.
I have already posted William Denver and Carol Meyers explaining they believe these stories are legend.
Here is another quote explaining what the consessus of historians believe:



Illuminating Moses: A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance. BRILL. pp. 21, 24. ISBN 978-90-04-25854-9. Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.' ... "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information. But in the Pentateuch, history has become memorial. Memorial revises history, reifies memory, and makes myth out of history.

Bart Ehrman does not believe the stories of Moses are real, nor do any other historian. some believe he is entirely myth and some believe there was a man who the myths were based on. The absolute consensus is no supernatural stories are true. Here is another quote from a historian
Richard Carrier on Jesus but I have heard him say the same about Moses:

When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you dont even know what I claimed but you want me to support them?

What was my claim I made to you?

I do not keep track of all of your nonsense. Once again, do your own homework for once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already past that. Denial is an option you seem to want to use. Ok go for it?
The Wiki page sums up the consensus, funny that you ignore that and pretend like it isn't relevant? "Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, "

I have heard many historians say the consensus on Moses is the Biblical version are mythical tales. There may have been a leader named Moses who the stories were based on but no historian believes the stories are real.
I have already posted William Denver and Carol Meyers explaining they believe these stories are legend.
Here is another quote explaining what the consessus of historians believe:



Illuminating Moses: A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance. BRILL. pp. 21, 24. ISBN 978-90-04-25854-9. Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.' ... "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information. But in the Pentateuch, history has become memorial. Memorial revises history, reifies memory, and makes myth out of history.

Bart Ehrman does not believe the stories of Moses are real, nor do any other historian. some believe he is entirely myth and some believe there was a man who the myths were based on. The absolute consensus is no supernatural stories are true. Here is another quote from a historian
Richard Carrier on Jesus but I have heard him say the same about Moses:

When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

Frodo Lives!!!

 

[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".

That isn't even true. It isn't lack of evidence. It's because outside of fundamentalism people do not believe supernatural folk tales about Gods speaking to humans. They are considered myths by every historian I have ever read.
Historians do not think Hercules or Romulus was a myth because of lack of evidence. It's written like mythology (as is Moses) and are not real events.
Yahweh and his tales are also considered mythical tales. It doesn't become real just because the myths of the Israelites survived.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That isn't even true. It isn't lack of evidence. It's because outside of fundamentalism people do not believe supernatural folk tales about Gods speaking to humans. They are considered myths by every historian I have ever read.
Historians do not think Hercules or Romulus was a myth because of lack of evidence. It's written like mythology (as is Moses) and are not real events.
Yahweh and his tales are also considered mythical tales. It doesn't become real just because the myths of the Israelites survived.

I went over how every part of Moses life was based on mythical events. He only had denial in response. I wish you luck with him. Endless replies of "Nuh uh!" get a bit frustrating.

 

[joelr]

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.

No. Ehrman also believes the Bible is a myth. He believes Jesus was an actual man who the later myths (gospels) were based on. He has the same view of Moses.
Not Ehrman, Thompson or Denver believe the stories about Moses communicating with a God are anything other than ancient myths. What they disagree on is how much actual history can be learned from the OT writings. So when I say Moses is myth and this is consensus I mean the Biblical stories. These are myths just the same as any other religion. Again, I have read these authors and heard them all say regardless if there was an actual man named Moses the supernatural stories are definitely myth.
Only fundamentalist scholars believe stories about Gods and demons.
The arguments these historians are having are not did Moses really get 10 commandments from a warrior Deity and see a burning bush. They have to do with what history can be known from these myths.

 

[firedragon]

I do not keep track of all of your nonsense. Once again, do your own homework for once.

Lol. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Not Ehrman, Thompson

Why do Thompson and Ehrman fight each other?

 

[firedragon]

That isn't even true.

There is no consensus among scholars that Moses was a myth.

 

[firedragon]

Already past that. Denial is an option you seem to want to use. Ok go for it?
The Wiki page sums up the consensus, funny that you ignore that and pretend like it isn't relevant? "Generally Moses is seen as a legendary figure, "

I have heard many historians say the consensus on Moses is the Biblical version are mythical tales. There may have been a leader named Moses who the stories were based on but no historian believes the stories are real.
I have already posted William Denver and Carol Meyers explaining they believe these stories are legend.
Here is another quote explaining what the consessus of historians believe:



Illuminating Moses: A History of Reception from Exodus to the Renaissance. BRILL. pp. 21, 24. ISBN 978-90-04-25854-9. Van Seters concluded, 'The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.' ... "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information. But in the Pentateuch, history has become memorial. Memorial revises history, reifies memory, and makes myth out of history.

Bart Ehrman does not believe the stories of Moses are real, nor do any other historian. some believe he is entirely myth and some believe there was a man who the myths were based on. The absolute consensus is no supernatural stories are true. Here is another quote from a historian
Richard Carrier on Jesus but I have heard him say the same about Moses:

When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

There is no consensus that "Moses is a myth".

 

[joelr]

I agree wholeheartedly!

Then you are both wrong:

Historians, of course, can ask what probably happened in the past, for example, in the earthly ministry of Jesus with his disciples. And historians can establish with relative levels of probability that this, that, or the other tradition is likely something that happened or didn’t happen. But history is all a matter of such greater or lesser probabilities. When dealing with a figure such as Jesus, these probabilities are established only by critically examining the memories that were recorded by later authors.

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior

page 31

 

[firedragon]

Then you are both wrong:

Historians, of course, can ask what probably happened in the past, for example, in the earthly ministry of Jesus with his disciples. And historians can establish with relative levels of probability that this, that, or the other tradition is likely something that happened or didn’t happen. But history is all a matter of such greater or lesser probabilities. When dealing with a figure such as Jesus, these probabilities are established only by critically examining the memories that were recorded by later authors.

Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior

page 31

But Dr. Ehrman never will ever say that "it is scholarly consensus that Jesus is a myth because the stories in the NT are myths".

That type of logic is not used by the majority of scholars when it comes to Bible studies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do Thompson and Ehrman fight each other?

Experts in the field often fight each other over minor matters. You seem to think that there should be a dogma for everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But Dr. Ehrman never will ever say that "it is scholarly consensus that Jesus is a myth because the stories in the NT are myths".

That type of logic is not used by the majority of scholars when it comes to Bible studies.

And you are back to your strawman since that was never my argument.

 

[firedragon]

Experts in the field often fight each other over minor matters.

Nah. This is a major matter.

 

[firedragon]

And you are back to your strawman since that was never my argument.

Well, you and your group you call "we" have been on a strawman for a long long time. We were talking about Moses, not the exodus. I am only keeping this conversation to understand how some people keep going. Keep going.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you and your group you call "we" have been on a strawman for a long long time. We were talking about Moses, not the exodus. I am only keeping this conversation to understand how some people keep going. Keep going.

There is a simple solution. Respond to the argument that I made. Not the one that you wish that I made.

It is a slow night. You appear to be having trouble understanding a simple concept.

 

[joelr]

Tablets XI & XII.

The unit of measurement was stated in cubits.
But the point I was stressing, was the ratios of them.

The Shape of Utnapishtim's Ark - ProQuest

It's believed they may have been describing a cube. The boat making ratios included in the Noah myth being presented as proof of a supernatural agent is beyond ridiculous. Or maybe this also proves the Greeks were visited by aliens because they knew how to build war ships?

It’s quite obvious where your bias lays.

Yes it's obvious, my bias is towards what is true. You are not "bias" because you don't believe the Hindu flood story or the tales of Achilles battling sea monsters. Because it's obvious fiction and monsters are not real except in stories. Same with Gods and world floods.

No, counter-arguments from most geologists are directed toward discrediting Young Earth Creationism. (How convenient.) But YEC has no bearing on the Flood. Such arguments are straw men.

The arguments from Geology demonstrate there was no world flood. The end.

Global warming is revealing many mammals, some very well preserved, buried within the perma-frost of the extreme north.
Tell me, how did they get in that fresh-water ice & muck (not ‘on top’ of it, but deep within it)? And what about the contents found in some of their stomachs, grasses and other plants that grew in temperate climates?

Why are you asking this question?As if this means the world flood which is impossible, magically happened despite geologists having several lines of definitive evidence? Yet you are asking about permafrost? Wow, talk about confirmation bias? Animals eat grass in the summer, they die for any number of reasons in water and it freezes over? animals in northern climates migrate south and eat vegetation. None of this means the answer is a Bronze Age myth?
Find one not-creationist scientist struggling to explain this.
This is like ancient aliens.

A few other questions: according to the Biblical account of the Flood, who brought the flood? Who gave Noah his instructions, including on building that ideal vessel? Did Noah have to get the animals, or did they come to him? Who must’ve been behind that? Who does the account say closed the Ark’s door? And afterward, who opened it?

Uh, yeah it's a myth like all the other flood myths. About 50% of the flood stories have a God involved. Like all the others Yahweh is not real.

So we’re to expect God did nothing else?
If the account reveals Divine intervention in bringing the animals to Noah, we can reasonably conclude that Jehovah God returned them to their original habitat after the flood.

No it isn't reasonable to conclude Yahweh, Zeus or Roswell aliens ever did anything. But thanks for the God-splaining. That' quite a tap dnce you have to do to make it work.

In fact, to remove God from the Flood account (since He was the cause), you’d have to ignore almost all of it.

Yes we should ignore fiction unless one is looking for the actual point of the story which are themes about rebirth and starting over. They are parables and allegorical fiction.

So just ignore it. And the questions posited about those animals within the permafrost, will remain unanswered.

No they have answers. Just on religious fundamentalist sites they pretend like they don't.

"The best preserved animals likely died after being trapped in bogs or marshy ground, or in the case of wolf, lion or bear cubs, were entombed when their dens collapsed or they were abandoned by their mothers. "

Ice-Age Permafrost Mummies: The Scientific Boom

It takes 5 minutes to check in with science and test out fundamentalist crank. You too could do this.

 

[firedragon]

There is a simple solution. Respond to the argument that I made.

I did. It doesnt show "a consensus of scholars say Moses was a myth".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. It doesnt show "a consensus of scholars say Moses was a myth".

It does if one can reason logically.