Genesis is history.

[GodSaves]

There are also hunderds of different global flood stories from every continent that date back about 4000 years ago. They are all consistent with the fact that all but one man and his family were killed and the waters covered the entire earth.

This is talked about in many mythology classes taught at the University level. One University Professor I remember stated that because there are so many stories that teach virtually the same thing that it could be a fact. It is taught in this class that these stories were being told at around the same time.

The flood story doesn't just exists in the Middle East, it in China, Greece, North America, South America, and other regions. This has better statistics then evolution has chances.

 

[Vance]

Well, archealogy does, indeed, support much of Biblical history starting with the patriarchs, but all of those you just mention simply provide the evidence that other cultures had similar non-literal legends and myths, which Biblical scholars have known for decades, and which others on this site (like Gluadys) have pointed out many times. What almost assuredly happened is that Abraham and his family brought these stories with them from Mesopotamia and they passed down as oral stories for many, many generations, being converted into Israelite versions along the way, then eventually written down as revised. This is nothing new at all. God simply inspired them to use these stories in a way to convey His truths.

In fact, it is these very stories that make it almost certain that the Biblical versions of these stories can not be read literally, since they were so clearly adopted from EARLIER versions which we DON'T take literally.

 

[owen_rocks]

In fact, it is these very stories that make it almost certain that the Biblical versions of these stories can not be read literally, since they were so clearly adopted from EARLIER versions which we DON'T take literally.

I've always thought of it in a different way. Noah's descendants transmitted the real flood story (detailed in the Bible) orally. Eventually they became corrupted and adapted to various other cultures, etc.

Seems odd that so many cultures would have a similar flood story unless there was one point of origination.

regards,
o/r

 

[Vance]

I've always thought of it in a different way. Noah's descendants transmitted the real flood story (detailed in the Bible) orally. Eventually they became corrupted and adapted to various other cultures, etc.

Seems odd that so many cultures would have a similar flood story unless there was one point of origination.

Oh, I think that a certain number of them DID originate from one point of origin, the Sumerian flood story, which was based on a local flood of the Mesopotamian region. IIRC, it is only those myths within range of Mesopotamia which contain strong enough similarities to be viewed as originating from the same source (ie, the stories in the Americas deal with floods, but in a more generic sense). If someone has details about those myths which contradict this, feel free, it has been a while since I studied these issues.

We even have evidence of such floods in that region and close to the possible time periods, as was pointed out above. These evidences, of course, preclude it having been global, however, since all evidences of a local flood (which is what we have) would have been destroyed in a global flood.

What we have is a flood story being told in Sumeria, and spreading from there. Abraham is from that very region, and that story is part of his heritage and he takes it with him when he leaves to go to the Palestine area. Now, let's assume that this flood story is based on a true event. We know that the Israelite telling of this story differs in many details from the Sumerian version. So, both can not be literally true. Which is more likely to be more accurate: the earlier version known to Abraham, or the version written down later by Abraham's descendents? If we do not take the Sumerian version to be literally true in all its details, why would we take the later version, which passed through so many generations, to be literally true in all its details?

Is it not more likely that God used this well-known story to convey His truths about His relationship with Man?

The other believe about the Israelite version of the story is that it was not even part of the Israelite bundle of origin stories, and the rediscovered it when in exile in Babylon (at which time the actual current texts of the OT were transcribed, or some believe were first written). I think it is more likely that it passed through Abraham and was part of the Israelite origin stories from the beginning, but that it evolved over time, as God directed.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Thanks, GodSaves. An excellent compilation of data supporting our claim that the Genesis creation accounts are drawn from antecedent and contemporary mythology. I only wish you had considered the context of these parallels: they're found in literature considered mythological, stuff you would eschew as pagan through and through. It is no slam dunk that these mythological parallels are corroboration for the Genesis accounts being history; you might as well say that the Genesis accounts corroborate the historicity of Babylonian and Chinese mythology.

 

[GodSaves]

There is archaeological evidence that Native Americans also believed in a world wide flood where one family was saved by the gods. Same timing as the other storys from Asia.

 

[GodSaves]

Thanks, GodSaves. An excellent compilation of data supporting our claim that the Genesis creation accounts are drawn from antecedent and contemporary mythology. I only wish you had considered the context of these parallels: they're found in literature considered mythological, stuff you would eschew as pagan through and through. It is no slam dunk that these mythological parallels are corroboration for the Genesis accounts being history; you might as well say that the Genesis accounts corroborate the historicity of Babylonian and Chinese mythology.

LOL! Perception is funny. I guess you are right, so many civilizations have recorded the same history as Genesis so it must all be fake to teach a greater teaching. Archaeology shows that the flood could not have been a local flood because of the extent of water-laid layers, and yet your perception is because of this evidence it must be a myth. There are actual tablets that speak of Adam and Eve eating of the tree. Perception is a funny thing, we see what we want to see and only that.

 

[Didaskomenos]

There is archaeological evidence that Native Americans also believed in a world wide flood where one family was saved by the gods. Same timing as the other storys from Asia.

But the very presence of Native Americans in the Americas is another problem with YEC. Wikipedia's article "Native American" says that the old theory that they crossed the Bering Strait around 10,000 BC (already a problem for YEC) has been pushed back another 2,000 years at least, due to the increasing evidence that there were already people in South America by 9,500. Of course, it's all a conspiracy I suppose.

 

[Vance]

"Perception is a funny thing, we see what we want to see and only that."

Except, of course, when there is scientific evidence that is much less subject to so many possible perceptions.

Do you have cites for the stories from the Americas which show the similarities with the Sumerian/Israelite myths?

 

[Vance]

But the very presence of Native Americans in the Americas is another problem with YEC. Wikipedia's article "Native American" says that the old theory that they crossed the Bering Strait around 10,000 BC (already a problem for YEC) has been pushed back another 2,000 years at least, due to the increasing evidence that there were already people in South America by 9,500. Of course, it's all a conspiracy I suppose.

Yes, and we know that there were contacts between the Mesopotamian region and the Chinese region from very early times. The question would be when any flood stories first appear which show sufficient connection with the Sumerian version. If it is after the first contacts, but not before, then this would also be a problem for the YEC approach.

 

[GodSaves]

But the very presence of Native Americans in the Americas is another problem with YEC. Wikipedia's article "Native American" says that the old theory that they crossed the Bering Strait around 10,000 BC (already a problem for YEC) has been pushed back another 2,000 years at least, due to the increasing evidence that there were already people in South America by 9,500. Of course, it's all a conspiracy I suppose.

Why would that be a problem for me? I consider myself a young earther because the Bible to me suggests this. If the earth is older then i think, i don't care. It is man evolving from some primative ape type thing that I find problems with. I haven't argued about age of the earth, I just wonder what other earth scientists use to test how old this one is. Is there a young earth or planet that we test against to make sure our testing is correct? I mean after all Mt Saint Helens dating was way off.

Age of the earth makes no difference to me. It is evolution that I believe is unscriptural, but I guess I am not allowed to say that any more.

 

[GodSaves]

The Great Flood



Salish

Long before missionaries ever arrived in the New World, the Indians had ancient legends of a great flood, similar to that of Noah. This is the one the Cowichan tell.


In ancient times, there were so many people in the land that they lived everywhere. Soon hunting became bad and food scarce, so that the people quarrelled over hunting territories.

Even in those days, the people were skilled in making fine canoes and paddles from cedars, and clothing and baskets from their bark. In dreams their wise old men could see the future, and there came a time when they all had similar bad dreams that kept coming to them over and over again. The dreams warned of a great flood. This troubled the wise men who told each other about their dreams. They found that they all had dreamed that rain fell for such a long time, or that the river rose, causing a great flood so that all of the people were drowned. They were much afraid and called a council to hear their dreams and decide what should be done. One said that they should build a great raft by tying many canoes together. Some of the people agreed, but others laughed at the old men and their dreams.

The people who believed in the dreams worked hard building the raft. It took many moons of hard work, lashing huge cedar log canoes together with strong ropes of cedar bark. When it was completed, they tied the raft with a great rope of cedar bark to the top of Mount Cowichan by passing one end of the rope through the centre of a huge stone which can still be seen there.

During the time the people were working on the raft, those who did not believe in the dreams were idle and still laughed, but they did admire the fine, solid raft when it was at last finished and floated in Cowichan Bay.

Soon after the raft was ready, huge raindrops started falling, rivers overflowed, and the valleys were flooded. Although people climbed Mount Cowichan to avoid the great flood, it too was soon under water. But those who had believed the dreams took food to the raft and they and their families climbed into it as the waters rose. They lived on the raft many days and could see nothing but water. Even the mountain tops had disappeared beneath the flood. The people became much afraid when their canoes began to flood and they prayed for help. Nothing happened for a long time; then the rain stopped.

The waters began to go down after a time, and finally the raft was grounded on top of Mount Cowichan. The huge stone anchor and heavy rope had held it safe. As the water gradually sank lower and lower, the people could see their lands, but their homes had all been swept away. The valleys and forests had been destroyed. The people went back to their old land and started to rebuild their homes. After a long time the number of people increased, until once again the land was filled and the people started to quarrel again. This time they separated into tribes and clans, all going to different places. The storytellers say this is how people spread all over the earth.

--North American Indian Salish Story

 

[GodSaves]

Flood Stories from around the world. Everyone seems to have a story that accounts for a global flood. You call them what you want, but almost every civilization had their story at around the same time. Like I said this has better chances of being true then evolution. It is by faith you choose the latter to be true and not the former.
http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/floods.htm#SmithRiver

 

[Vance]

How could they have their story around the same time, and how do you know that? Even under the literalist approach, this story would have had to diffuse throughout the world via Noah's children. If they all developed the story at the same time, then they can not have been from the same source.

I believe that they ARE all from the same source, or at least many of them. Many of these cultures were in contact and the telling of these stories spread out both through word of mouth and migration (the latter even the YEC's would have to agree with). Even under the YEC model, the widespread existence of the stories would be based on diffusion of peoples with the story, not evidence that the flood happened "way over there as well" since if the flood was global, there would not be any people "over there" to pass the story down. They would be dead. The story, whether based on a true global flood, a true local flood, or simply a story, would have spread the same way.

The point is that the existence and similarity of these stories only show that they may have come from a single source, which very well may be true. But their existence does not in any way bolster the idea that such an event actually happened, or that it was global. All it bolsters is that the single story spread.

We can all agree that the story spread around the world. So?

 

[GodSaves]

Why would a single story of a local flood be talked about world-wide? A local flood would not be significant enough for almost all cultures to have a story about.

 

[Vance]

Why would a single story of a local flood be talked about world-wide? A local flood would not be significant enough for almost all cultures to have a story about.

Think about it for a minute. Why is it talked about world-wide? Why do all these different cultures have a story about it? Did it happen to "all these different cultures"? Could all these stories have arisen independently in these various areas because they also suffered a world-wide flood?

No, if there was a world-wide flood, everyone would be dead, and any cultures experiencing that flood would be gone. We would have just the single family left to SPREAD this story around the world as they, themselves expanded, populated and re-filled the planet. That would be the literal Biblical model: that it spread through diffusion. No matter how far and wide it spread, it would still be based on the single original story.

If you believe that it could have originated in different areas separately based on their own experiences of the flood, please explain how that would fit with the literal reading of the text, with only Noah and his family left.

The point is that a story about a huge flood that seemed to cover the whole world and was described as global, but was just local to the region, would spread just as easily, and would be just as consistently retold, as one which actually WAS global, since the telling would be exactly the same.

 

[GodSaves]

So you then you are saying that a local flood was significant enough for it to be passed on for generation to generation. Do you believe the local flood killed all man and animals?

 

[Vance]

So you then you are saying that a local flood was significant enough for it to be passed on for generation to generation. Do you believe the local flood killed all man and animals?

A story about a local flood AS a local flood, probably not. But, a story of a global flood, even thought the actual event was a local flood, then absolutely.

How far the story would travel and for how long it would remain in the culture would not depend on what actually happened, but what the STORY was. If the story was that a global flood occured, even though it was only a local flood, then the story would do as well as if the global flood had actually occured.

This can happen in two ways. First, it could be that those that survived the local flood believed it to be a global flood. Second, the story could have originally been of just a big flood, and eventually got conflated into one that covered the entire earth.

As far as killing all man and animals, it is possible that the flood killed all the men and animals in the local area, sure. Or, again, it could have just been very damaging and grew to be conflated into "all life under the heavens" over time.

Whatever the actual historic background, I see two possibilities:

1. God took the story that was being told about the culture's past and used it to teach His truths.

2. God inspired the retelling of the story of the local flood very much (even if not exactly) as it actually happened, using language that would be consistent with either a local flood or a global flood (which is true about the language).

What is not possible in the least is that a global flood took place within the era of human development.

 

[GodSaves]

Do you believe any type of flood happened?

 

[Vance]

Do you believe any type of flood happened?

I believe that a very dramatic local flood happened and that most of the flood myths we have discussed developed from an original story arising from that flood. But I have no idea whether the Biblical story is meant to be a straightforward account of that local flood (thus God guiding the development of the story BACK from its Sumerian version toward the actual historical details), or whether God just took the story as the Israelites had developed it from the earlier Sumerian version and used it to convey His greater truths.

Theologically, the result is the same to me.