I just heard Noah's Ark is based on some egyptian tale.

Imscared34 · Jan 2, 2008

I thought that was supposed to be a true story?

jive4005 · Jan 2, 2008

According to Christ, all scripture (O.T., psalms. proverbs) is good for instrution, teaching, preaching and effecting Godly change. I'm taking no chances and believing it all... as for Noah, I'd try looking into the lessons it teaches rather than trying to dot all the "I"s and crossing the "T"s.
The bible is to be read not with the mind, but with the heart and the spirit... to non-believers it's just anyother fancy book.

rev

DefinitelyMaybe · Jan 2, 2008

While I'm sure about that specific Egyptian legend, let's just assume for a moment that the world was covered by water that destroyed 99.9999....% of everything that God had made. Should we not then be surprised when many cultures all around the world retell various versions of this historical event?

I have heard that the Aboriginals (the original inhabitants of Australia pre-European settlement) also make slight mention of a time when water covered the earth as do the Biami people (a culture from the western provience of Papua New Guinea).

The fact that many societies and cultures mention this event is of little surprise to those who hold it as history given the nature of it. Since all people on the Earth today are descended from Noah and his family, it only makes sense that cultures have some mention to varying degrees of this event. However, as time goes on and as people turn against God and go off on their own, and other reasons, it is hardly surprising that variations to the story have occured.

Only the revelation that God had given to Moses that is recorded in Genesis is the most detailed and reliable. Far from disproving the idea of a global flood, legends from different and independent cultures add credibility to the idea of a global flood in the past.

Merlin · Jan 2, 2008

Imscared34 said:
I thought that was supposed to be a true story.

There are many tales of an ark.
Some were written down prior to the Bible account.
They aren't earlier stories, just written before the Bible.

noodle · Jan 2, 2008

Well the common thing is that believers and Non-Believers alike believe in stories from the Bible.

They're cool stories and lots of fun to admire.

Note this though:

If you don't have a solid foundation, you'll believe anything you hear.

ebia · Jan 2, 2008

Imscared34 said:
I thought that was supposed to be a true story.

It's true in the sense that what it tells us about God, us, and the rest of creation is true. That's it's purpose - not to convey a historically precise account of an actual event.

Stinker · Jan 4, 2008

I just heard Noah's Ark is based on some egyptian tale.

Imscared34 said:
I thought that was supposed to be a true story.

The real flood was a very large regional flood, according to scientists. The story gathered more and more hype as the centuries passed, until, the flood covered the whole world.

There really was a man (not a Noah) that rescued his family and livestock on a large barge that he used to travel up and down the river before the flood.

OldChurchGuy · Jan 5, 2008

Imscared34 said:
I thought that was supposed to be a true story.

I am guessing you are referring to a story entitled "The Epic of Gilgamesh" which is thought to have been written down some centuries before the story of Noah.

For some, the story of Noah and the flood is a true story. For others, it is the Hebrew version of a great flood story which had been popular for many centuries.

The fact that flood stories exist in many cultures around the world makes sense because most, if not all cultures having a flood story were located on or near a river. And rivers flood from time to time.

It is only in the late 20th century we have the miralce of "The Weather Channel" which shows weather patterns around the world via satellite photos and makes reasonable accurate predictions about weather in the coming days.

So, does believing the flood story in Genesis as a literal and true story make a difference to my salvation? Personally, I don't think so.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

capnator · Jan 9, 2008

Imscared34 said:
I thought that was supposed to be a true story.

I think you got it the wrong way round... there is an egyptian tale based on the story of the flood.

Digit · Jan 27, 2008

Imscared34 said:
I thought that was supposed to be a true story?

Hi Imscared,

Some Egyptian tale? Can you provide specifics please, if not, why would you accept some Egyptian tale over what the Bible says?

Here are a couple of links for you:
Ark history.
Flood legends from around the world.

Cheers,
Digit

Adoniram · Jan 30, 2008

I think Merlin has it correct. The fact that a "written" record of the flood may pre-date the writing of the Genesis account by Moses doesn't mean that Moses drew inspiration from those earlier written accounts.
When Moses, by God's instruction, wrote the stories down for the people of Israel, he relied on the oral tradition of the Hebrew people as well as inspiration from God in getting the details correct.

The origin of the account is from Noah and his family. It makes sense that as they spread out and repopulated the earth (becoming the precursors of many civilizations including the Egyptians), they carried the story of the flood, as well as stories of what happened before the flood, with them. These stories were passed orally down from generation to generation for centuries before anyone thought to actually write them down. They naturally became part of each individual civilization's history.

Alcamo · Jan 30, 2008

It's certainly true that various cultures have a history of an ancient flood, some perhaps recorded before the Bible, and this has led some to think that the ancient Hebrews therefore borrowed and adapted the flood narratives from one or more of those other cultures, but that would be untrue.

Before the middle of the last century a man named P.J. Wiseman published a book (New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1936) about his discoveries regarding ancient cuneiform writings which give great insight into the text of Genesis. In short, it appears that, for the first 36 chapters of Genesis, Moses used other already ancient sources in his time, and (brace yourself) even cited his sources in the text. He used what is called a TOLeDOTH, a Hebrew bibliographical note that appears 11 separate times.

Theres no way I could go into detail on it here, but you will find it discussed at length in various books, including these:

Introduction to the Old Testament by R.K. Harrison, pp. 542 through at least 548. This is an older book, published by Eerdmans, 1969.

Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pp. 213-222. As the title hints, this is actually a Creationist book, but he nevertheless treats on the literary issues behind Genesis. My copy is older, so I cant guarantee an updated copy of the book will still include it or have it on the same page numbers. Regardless, in my copy its chapter 19, Genesis: the Footnotes of Moses.

Of course, Im sure there are probably some articles online somewhere, too.

My primary point here is to say that, while the writings of other cultures about a flood might predate Moses, that does not mean they predate the sources he used to write that portion of Genesis. For example, when he writes in Genesis 10:1, immediately after the story of the flood, This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noahs sons (NIV), he does not mean that what follows is about them (though he does list their descendants). He means that what he just finished writing came from a record made by them!

Its all very interesting stuff!

aiki · Jan 30, 2008

Neither the apostle Paul nor the apostle Peter mention Noah and the Flood as though he or it were fictional or merely symbolic. They both plainly state that the entire world suffered the judgment of God by the Flood. Even in the OT, Noah and the Flood are never referred to as simply some spiritual allegory. When the Bible speaks of the Flood and Noah, it does so as a matter of fact, never diminishing or qualifying the account. Dodging the question of whether the Flood was as the Bible describes by suggesting the point of the account is purely spiritual and non-literal ignores the fact that the Bible itself treats the Flood account as real.

Peace to you.

jukesk9 · Jan 31, 2008

Throw in my .02 here--There is evidence for a flood that covered Mesopotamia during the time mentioned in the Bible. Mesopotamia was the known world at the time. For those who are seeking the Truth and have doubts about the Flood, thinking in these terms, it is very practical that a "world wide" flood did indeed occur.

I think the important thing here is not whether or not the Flood was localized or truly indeed world wide (check out the Hydroplate Theory) but to understand why the Flood is important.

God gave Noah a strange but important task that took him several years to complete yet Noah obeyed God. It is an act of faith that we can look to for inspiration. Think of the ridicule Noah must've received. Yet he obeyed. He said yes to God and trusted God.

Compare that to today. We aren't faced with floods, we aren't being thrown to lions yet we are ridiculed and mocked. As Catholic Christians, we receive ashes on Ash Wednesday. Co-workers, who many times this has been explained to in the past, continue to laugh and mock me and my fellow Catholics at work when we come to work with ashes.

How many late Saturday nights have you been out when friends insist you stay out later? You say no because you have to get up early and attend Mass. Laughed at? I have been.

When a Christian feels doubt, second thoughts, etc., Scripture provides examples of faith, such as Noah, Mary's yes to God, Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, etc. for us to look to.

Just my .02

OldChurchGuy · Jan 31, 2008

aiki said:
Neither the apostle Paul nor the apostle Peter mention Noah and the Flood as though he or it were fictional or merely symbolic. They both plainly state that the entire world suffered the judgment of God by the Flood. Even in the OT, Noah and the Flood are never referred to as simply some spiritual allegory. When the Bible speaks of the Flood and Noah, it does so as a matter of fact, never diminishing or qualifying the account. Dodging the question of whether the Flood was as the Bible describes by suggesting the point of the account is purely spiritual and non-literal ignores the fact that the Bible itself treats the Flood account as real.

Peace to you.

Just to be sure I understand things, because Paul and Peter believed the flood story in Genesis to be true, I am obligated to also believe the flood story in Genesis is true?

Also, what are the passages from Paul and Peter that verify their belief in a literal interpretation of the flood story?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Digit · Jan 31, 2008

OldChurchGuy said:
Just to be sure I understand things, because Paul and Peter believed the flood story in Genesis to be true, I am obligated to also believe the flood story in Genesis is true?

Also, what are the passages from Paul and Peter that verify their belief in a literal interpretation of the flood story?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

As soon as you start suggesting they may have gotten things incorrect, you run into other issues, like what else did they get wrong and it has a trickle down effect that leads all the way down the questioning the very reliability of the Bible. If scripture is God-breathed, not inspired, actually breathed by God, then it is not in error and we either accept it as whole, or not at all.

Digit

aiki · Jan 31, 2008

Just to be sure I understand things, because Paul and Peter believed the flood story in Genesis to be true, I am obligated to also believe the flood story in Genesis is true?

Also, what are the passages from Paul and Peter that verify their belief in a literal interpretation of the flood story?

You can believe as you like, but I think it is at least inconsistent to give credence to their claims of divine inspiration and so accept their writings on some matters, but then deny their inspired authority by suggesting they are mistaken about something like the Flood. Peter and Paul believed and taught and wrote a great many things that serve as the basis for the Christian faith. If you accept them as spiritual teachers, "speaking as God gave them utterance," writing of things far less tangible, less physical, than the Flood, why would you then hesitate to accept their confirmation of the reality of the biblical account of the Flood? Why would God inspire them to write what was true on one hand and allow them to confirm what was false on the other? When you start picking and choosing what to believe from the Bible, suggesting that some things are true and others merely fiction or exaggeration, you venture on to a slippery slope where the entire veracity of the Scriptures is called into question. How can you trust anything the Bible says if some of it is untrue?

The biblical account of the Flood and Noah's preparations for it are very detailed, very specific. The account's specificity, its attention to mundane detail, strongly indicates that the story is not intended as mere allegory, but as literal truth. There is nothing of the poetic or ephemeral in the telling of the Flood in Genesis; the story is quite prosaic and matter-of-fact.

Christ himself mentions the Flood as a fact of history:

Matt. 24:37-39; Lu. 17:26, 27

Paul the apostle:

Heb. 11:7

The apostle Peter:

1 Pe. 3:20; 2 Pe. 2:4, 5

Peace to you.

ebia · Feb 1, 2008

OldChurchGuy said:
Just to be sure I understand things, because Paul and Peter believed the flood story in Genesis to be true, I am obligated to also believe the flood story in Genesis is true?

Also, what are the passages from Paul and Peter that verify their belief in a literal interpretation of the flood story?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

In any case what they said isn't incorrect. What little Peter and Paul say about the flood is as compatible with it being a shared story about God's working in the world as it is with it being an historically accurate narative. The words one uses to talk about a shared story are pretty much indistinguisable whether that story is literal-historical or not unless one wishes to make ones' view on that explicit. There is nothing in Jesus, Peter or Paul's references that require the Noah story to be literal-historical.

Digit · Feb 1, 2008

It always amuses me that people have such a hard time with the flood or Genesis, when as a Christian, they believe someone rose from the dead, performed all sorts of miracles and walked on water.

Cheers,
Digit

Utah Knight · Feb 1, 2008

Digit said:
Hi Imscared,

Some Egyptian tale? Can you provide specifics please, if not, why would you accept some Egyptian tale over what the Bible says?

Here are a couple of links for you:
Ark history.
Flood legends from around the world.

Cheers,
Digit

Basically many cultures have a flood and ark stories around the same time frame there is no way to know when it originated but beings so many cultures/religions believe the flood story there must be something to it. Even if there were not so many stories about it i would believe in it because it is in the bible

I just heard Noah's Ark is based on some egyptian tale.

Active Member

Senior Veteran

DefinitelyMaybe

Guest

Paradigm Buster

Regular Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Alcamo

Guest

Regular Member

Dixie Whistlin' Papist

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

A friend to all

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency