What do you all think about this paper/article?

[Neogaia777]

What do you all think about this paper/article?

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF9-18Dickin.pdf

Here is an opening summary about and from the paper/article:

This article proposes a revision of the most likely date of Noah’s Flood from ca. 2900 to 5700 BC. A date around 2900 BC cannot be reconciled with the Genesis text as an eyewitness account of a real flood that devastated the Mesopotamian plain, killing all of its known inhabitants except those on the Ark. On the other hand, a devastating flood at 5700 BC could have had this effect, and is much more consistent with geological evidence for the date of severe flooding episodes in the ancient Middle East. In this article, a Neolithic date for the Flood is examined in the light of ancient literary accounts and geological evidence, and the implications for the construction of the Ark and for the origins of Sumerian religion are briefly examined.

God Bless.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

What do you all think about this paper/article?

That it's attempting to ground fictionalized accounts in events that likely actually happened. This is pretty old hat.

I do like that he spends a good bit in consideration of the Gilgamesh flood tale, but one wonders if his dating pushes the "flood" even further back in time, therefore, separating the biblical account even further from the event, and we have the original flood story, why even consider the biblical account? It's obviously borrowed and embellished being so far removed. How can you trust that any detail in the biblical account wasn't just added?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Interesting - Josephus mentions folks making pilgrimage to the Ark and names the tribe who were given task of being it's guardians.

I expect, when the hour is late enough, it will be found and stand as a physical object of judgement.

 

[Neogaia777]

That it's attempting to ground fictionalized accounts in events that likely actually happened. This is pretty old hat.

I do like that he spends a good bit in consideration of the Gilgamesh flood tale, but one wonders if his dating pushes the "flood" even further back in time, therefore, separating the biblical account even further from the event, and we have the original flood story, why even consider the biblical account? It's obviously borrowed and embellished being so far removed. How can you trust that any detail in the biblical account wasn't just added?

How do you know the Biblical accounts are quote/unquote "fictional accounts" or not, etc? Because you sound pretty biased to me? Because he seems like a very honest researcher to me? Which is probably more than I can say for you probably, etc.

But I am right now currently looking into how certain people determine the exact dates and times of the people and events mentioned in early Genesis and if exact dates can be determined for them or not to see if this can be possibly dated back to the time period he says it can or not Biblically, etc.

But if it can, then I am also going to maybe propose a two races, or maybe even two different species theories, that I have been thinking about lately.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Here is also something I have been working on:

Starting a writing/book...?

I've decided to make an attempt at working on a book, and this is what I have so far... In the beginning was the very most highest being/entity that we call God. This One started the universe and initially set it all in motion, knowing how it all would go/happen/play out from it's very most...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Estrid]

How do you know the Biblical accounts are quote/unquote "fictional accounts" or not, etc? Because you sound pretty biased to me? Because he seems like a very honest researcher to me? Which is probably more than I can say for you probably, etc.

But I am right now currently looking into how certain people determine the exact dates and times of the people and events mentioned in early Genesis and if exact dates can be determined for them or not to see if this can be possibly dated back to the time period he says it can or not Biblically, etc.

But if it can, then I am also going to maybe propose a two races, or maybe even two different species theories, that I have been thinking about lately.

God Bless.

As told, the flood story is fiction.

World wide, months long, highest hills, all life except on ark.

Obvious fiction, provably false.

 

[Neogaia777]

As told, the flood story is fiction.

World wide, months long, highest hills, all life except on ark.

Obvious fiction, provably false.

With the right perspective or interpretation, maybe not false.

God Bless.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

How do you know the Biblical accounts are quote/unquote "fictional accounts" or not, etc? Because you sound pretty biased to me? Because he seems like a very honest researcher to me? Which is probably more than I can say for you probably, etc.

But I am right now currently looking into how certain people determine the exact dates and times of the people and events mentioned in early Genesis and if exact dates can be determined for them or not to see if this can be possibly dated back to the time period he says it can or not Biblically, etc.

But if it can, then I am also going to maybe propose a two races, or maybe even two different species theories, that I have been thinking about lately.

God Bless.

Oh, I am biased. Reality biases my opinion. The biblical account of the flood could not have happened the way it's portrayed. Genetic evidence does not support a genetic bottleneck of 8 individuals a few thousand years ago. Physics renders the narrative of flooding the whole earth to the highest peak in 40 days untenable. Biology refutes the 2 of each "kind" on an ark for 2 years tended by 8 people. The ark itself likely would not have been sea worthy based on the description given, etc. etc.

And again, why should we trust the biblical account as being anything other than copied and embellished fiction when it's so far removed from any actual event it might have been based on, even further according to this paper, when we have a more ancient, original flood story that differs dramatically from the biblical version?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What do you all think about this paper/article?

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF9-18Dickin.pdf

Here is an opening summary about and from the paper/article:

This article proposes a revision of the most likely date of Noah’s Flood from ca. 2900 to 5700 BC. A date around 2900 BC cannot be reconciled with the Genesis text as an eyewitness account of a real flood that devastated the Mesopotamian plain, killing all of its known inhabitants except those on the Ark. On the other hand, a devastating flood at 5700 BC could have had this effect, and is much more consistent with geological evidence for the date of severe flooding episodes in the ancient Middle East. In this article, a Neolithic date for the Flood is examined in the light of ancient literary accounts and geological evidence, and the implications for the construction of the Ark and for the origins of Sumerian religion are briefly examined.

God Bless.

I tend to think the flood took place even further in the past. They have dated Gobekli Tepe at around 9500 BC (I understand it's a moving target) and have discovered evidence of petrified sea life, sea shell tools and depictions of sea life at the site.

 

[Estrid]

With the right perspective or interpretation, maybe not false.

God Bless.

Of course. Change all the
words, perspective and interpretation,
all fiction becomes fact.


Meanwhile, while perhaps entertaining, and believable to children, the story is FICTION.

 

[Estrid]

I tend to think the flood took place even further in the past. They have dated Gobekli Tepe at around 9500 BC (I understand it's a moving target) and have discovered evidence of petrified sea life, sea shell tools and depictions of sea life at the site.

A world wide flood?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

A world wide flood?

Sure! Why not? There are over 200 ancient flood accounts from cultures all over the world. These accounts share many similarities, which suggests that they may all be based on a real event.

 

[dlamberth]

Sure! Why not? There are over 200 ancient flood accounts from cultures all over the world. These accounts share many similarities, which suggests that they may all be based on a real event.

The Biblical flood is reported to have drowned ALL human beings except for those that survived on the Ark. Other than those few there would have been absoutly no one left on the Earth to have even known about about said flood...unless these accounts were about local floods.

 

[Kale100]

Sounds like an interesting read. There are a few other candidates of interest too, most known probably the Black Sea deluge, also the Caspian spillway.

 

[AV1611VET]

This article proposes a revision of the most likely date of Noah’s Flood from ca. 2900 to 5700 BC.

One small problem though:

The universe didn't exist in 5700 BC.

 

[Larniavc]

How do you know the Biblical accounts are quote/unquote "fictional accounts" or not, etc?

Reality is biased against the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

As told, the flood story is fiction.

You were there?

World wide, months long, highest hills, all life except on ark.

Okay, but you still weren't there.

Obvious fiction,

You were there?

provably false.

Get to it.

 

[Kale100]

One small problem though:

The universe didn't exist in 5700 BC.

Assuming you are aware that...
A) Some Christians take early Genesis figuratively, if you weren't previously aware it was explicitly announced in the 2nd sentence.
B) Your one liner is not going to convince anyone of your viewpoint, nor even arouse them to consider it favorably or in good faith (much the opposite).
What does it profit you to post that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, I am biased. Reality biases my opinion. The biblical account of the flood could not have happened the way it's portrayed. Genetic evidence does not support a genetic bottleneck of 8 individuals a few thousand years ago. Physics renders the narrative of flooding the whole earth to the highest peak in 40 days untenable. Biology refutes the 2 of each "kind" on an ark for 2 years tended by 8 people. The ark itself likely would not have been sea worthy based on the description given, etc. etc.

Says science.

Science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

They have dated Gobekli Tepe at around 9500 BC

One small problem:

The universe didn't exist in 9500 BC.