Not even a local flood

That is my point, so far, I have not found anything that conflicts with history. Now I do not expect to find an actual mention of Japheth, so if you want to argue that the people were made up, we don't have any proof supporting that or disproving that. I haven't mentioned that sending out birds to find land is recorded in Sumerian records. Wine is also attested to be grown at that time.

Basically your statement that this is just a story comes down to belief.

greentwiga said:

That is my point, so far, I have not found anything that conflicts with history. Now I do not expect to find an actual mention of Japheth, so if you want to argue that the people were made up, we don't have any proof supporting that or disproving that. I haven't mentioned that sending out birds to find land is recorded in Sumerian records. Wine is also attested to be grown at that time.

Basically your statement that this is just a story comes down to belief.

Click to expand...

You seem to be under the misapprehension that because I think it is "just a story" (a phrase I have not used) that I think it has no connection to history at all.

On the contrary, I have been affirming in the strongest possible terms that I recognize the high probability of connections to history in these stories.

But it is still the case that they are stories. The accuracies and parallels you mention are consistent with a story well-placed in its historical setting. We don't even need to suppose that the characters or places or events are all fictional, as good historical stories are often built around historical characters. Nevertheless, just as there is a difference between a biography of Julius Caesar and a drama about the death of Julius Caesar, there is a difference between a record of history and a story with historical roots in a historical setting.

So, I repeat, it is a matter of emphasis.
You want to emphasize the history we see in the story.
I am emphasizing that the history is given to us in a story, not a report.

The two emphases are perfectly compatible with each other.
Please recognize that I am not disputing your emphasis.

gluadys said:

You seem to be under the misapprehension that because I think it is "just a story" (a phrase I have not used) that I think it has no connection to history at all.

On the contrary, I have been affirming in the strongest possible terms that I recognize the high probability of connections to history in these stories.

But it is still the case that they are stories. The accuracies and parallels you mention are consistent with a story well-placed in its historical setting. We don't even need to suppose that the characters or places or events are all fictional, as good historical stories are often built around historical characters. Nevertheless, just as there is a difference between a biography of Julius Caesar and a drama about the death of Julius Caesar, there is a difference between a record of history and a story with historical roots in a historical setting.

So, I repeat, it is a matter of emphasis.
You want to emphasize the history we see in the story.
I am emphasizing that the history is given to us in a story, not a report.

The two emphases are perfectly compatible with each other.
Please recognize that I am not disputing your emphasis.

Click to expand...

Thanks,I do recognize that. You are perfectly free to believe it is just a story, and I am free to think that it is actual history, since there is no proof either way that Noah existed, outside of the Bible.

Sayre said:

Hi...

Just wondering how many fellow TE'ers out there have moved away from the idea of a flood all together.

I recognise it as nothing but "true myth", to borrow the term from CS Lewis.

If I understand A.N.E. cosmology, the dome was solid, and there were waters above it. When the noahic flood happened, this dome literally broke (in other words, their entire universe shattered) and there was a global flood.

I think in proper context, that the way the bible describes the flood cannot be taken literally, and a "local flood" is just a wishy washy toned down literalism... and doesn't go far enough to solve the problems we have biblically with a large scale flood.

Can we just accept it as mythology and move on from here?

Click to expand...

Would you be open to the contrary?

greentwiga said:

Thanks,I do recognize that. You are perfectly free to believe it is just a story, and I am free to think that it is actual history, since there is no proof either way that Noah existed, outside of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that. Similarly there is no proof either way that the Hierodule or Utnapishtim or Atrahasis existed outside of those respective texts.

For myself, I prefer not to identify a story as historical without positive evidence (which means extra-textual evidence) that it is. I am open to some or all of the story being history if there is sufficient evidence for that proposition, but I do not consider lack of evidence against that proposition sufficient to establish historicity.

I would also add that history or history-based story, it is still, in my view, inspired scripture with all the properties and functions Paul described in his letter to Timothy and to be respected as such.

gluadys said:

Thank you for that. Similarly there is no proof either way that the Hierodule or Utnapishtim or Atrahasis existed outside of those respective texts.

For myself, I prefer not to identify a story as historical without positive evidence (which means extra-textual evidence) that it is. I am open to some or all of the story being history if there is sufficient evidence for that proposition, but I do not consider lack of evidence against that proposition sufficient to establish historicity.

I would also add that history or history-based story, it is still, in my view, inspired scripture with all the properties and functions Paul described in his letter to Timothy and to be respected as such.

Click to expand...

There is no proof for Moses or David either

greentwiga said:

There is no proof for Moses or David either

Click to expand...

That's right.

No proof for Peter or Paul either. But there is for Pontius Pilate.

That is why faith cannot rest on proof.

It's a local flood. Also check out the Hebrew word

However, there are many more examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although the context clearly indicates a local area. For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel) the text says, "the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language."6 We know that this reference is not really to the earth at all (and certainly not to the "whole earth"), but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth.6 There are many other examples of where kol erets actually refers to people rather than the geography of the "whole earth":

Shall not the Judge of all [kol] the earth [erets] deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25) (God judges the people of the earth, not the earth itself)
Now behold, today I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets], and you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one word of all the good words which the LORD your God spoke concerning you has failed; all have been fulfilled for you, not one of them has failed. (Joshua 23:14) (Joshua was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
And all [kol] the people of the land [erets] entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground. (1 Samuel 14:25) (The words "the people of" are added to the English, since they are not found in the Hebrew. The actual translation would be "all the land entered the forest," obviously referring to the people and not to the land itself moving into the forest.)
While all [kol] the country [erets] was weeping with a loud voice, all the people passed over. (2 Samuel 15:23) (Obviously, the earth cannot weep with a loud voice.)
"I am going the way of all [kol] the earth [erets]. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. (1 Kings 2:2) (David was going the way of all people in the earth, whose ultimate destiny is death.)
He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day. (1 Chronicles 16:23) (The people sing, not the planet)
Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30) (This does not refer to earthquakes!)
Let all [kol] the earth [erets] fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. (Psalm 33:8) (People, not planets, fear the Lord)
For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm.) Shout joyfully to God, all the earth; (Psalm 66:1) (People shout, not the earth)
"All the earth will worship Thee, And will sing praises to Thee; They will sing praises to Thy name." Selah. (Psalm 66:4) (People worship, not the earth)
Sing to the LORD a new song; Sing to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:1) (People sing, not the earth)
Worship the LORD in holy attire; Tremble before Him, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 96:9) (People worship, not the earth)
Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]; Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises. (Psalm 98:4) (People shout, not the earth)
(A Psalm for Thanksgiving.) Shout joyfully to the LORD, all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 100:1) (People shout, not the earth)
He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (Psalm 105:7) (Judgments are done against people, not the planet)
"The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7) (People shout, not the earth)
The "whole earth" usually refers to local geography
Examples of where kol erets refers to a local area include the following verses:

"Is not the whole [kol] land [erets] before you? Please separate from me: if to the left, then I will go to the right; or if to the right, then I will go to the left." (Genesis 13:9) (The "whole land" was only the land of Canaan)
And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth. (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)
Then God said, "Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all [kol] the earth [erets], nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you. (Exodus 34:10) (There would be no need to add "nor among any of the nations" if "all the earth" referred to the entire planet.)
'You shall then sound a ram's horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets]. (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)
'Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land. (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)
behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken." (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)
And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, "Let the Hebrews hear." (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)
For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured. (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth.)
So when they had gone about through the whole [kol] land [erets], they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. (2 Samuel 24:8) (No they didn't go through the entire earth, just the lands of Palestine.)
And all [kol] the earth [erets] was seeking the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart. (1 Kings 10:24) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans went to see Solomon.)
Then the fame of David went out into all [kol] the lands [erets]; and the LORD brought the fear of him on all the nations. (1 Chronicles 14:17) (It is unlikely that the Native Americans knew about David.)
And David said, "My son Solomon is young and inexperienced, and the house that is to be built for the LORD shall be exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious throughout all [kol] lands [erets]. (1 Chronicles 22:5) (The temple was famous to all the lands in the Middle East, but was destroyed before the advent of globalism.)
And they were bringing horses for Solomon from Egypt and from all [kol] countries [erets]. (2 Chronicles 9:28) (It is unlikely that the Chinese brought horses to Solomon)
Many more examples8

greentwiga said:

There is no proof for Moses or David either

Click to expand...

Why can't the accounts count as credibility?

Think about it- everything in history not recorded before the last thousand years is in parchment or stone. It's funny how one can accept entire histories based on such, but not a single measure of scripture and tradition.

It's logically inconsistent, people just come up with excuses not to believe the people of the Bible.

Swordfall, I know that Moses an David existed. I was just pointing out the problem of the other persons logic. Despite all the supporting evidence valididating the story of Noah, the person decided He didn't exist, without a bit of evidence. Though I believed without the extra Biblical evidence, I researched Moses and have found much more evidence supporting him than others use.

My faith is not reliant on this, I use 1 John's test to know you are saved. I just enjoy confounding skeptics.

greentwiga said:

Swordfall, I know that Moses an David existed. I was just pointing out the problem of the other persons logic. Despite all the supporting evidence valididating the story of Noah, the person decided He didn't exist, without a bit of evidence. Though I believed without the extra Biblical evidence, I researched Moses and have found much more evidence supporting him than others use.

My faith is not reliant on this, I use 1 John's test to know you are saved. I just enjoy confounding skeptics.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in a worldwide, literal Flood. I think the story was intentionally symbolical, given the extent of blatant symbolism within the story itself.
I believe the Flood was local: every eastern culture has a story of the Deluge, but this isn't the case in the western world and that's evidence enough for me.


What I said was not pointed at you directly, I suppose I to was making a general point
Also, I concur with your point in reality, it's just with this subject, there's so many different beliefs that you can't help but be in arms with others.

After an intense study of the passage, I concluded that it was a local flood. I was especially struck how the Bible records that the ark was a reed boat. The whole world had forgotten about the Sumerian ocean going reed boats for over four thousand years, but the Bible remembers.

SwordFall said:

Why can't the accounts count as credibility?

Think about it- everything in history not recorded before the last thousand years is in parchment or stone. It's funny how one can accept entire histories based on such, but not a single measure of scripture and tradition.

Click to expand...

Actually, the point is to treat scripture on the same basis as other contemporaneous literature and to determine whether it is story or historical record or (as is often the case) a blend of both on the same basis as one would an account found in Ashurbanipal's library or Cheop's pyramid. So the biblical account of the flood counts toward credibility just as much as (but not more than) the similar account in the epic of Gilgamesh.

greentwiga said:

Swordfall, I know that Moses an David existed. I was just pointing out the problem of the other persons logic. Despite all the supporting evidence valididating the story of Noah, the person decided He didn't exist, without a bit of evidence.

Click to expand...

That is not quite correct. For all I know, Noah could be as much a historical person as Julius Caesar (though perhaps "Noah" was not his actual name). And as a historical person, he could be a survivor of a historical flood--an event mirrored in the biblical story. So I make no claim that Noah did not exist. Nor that there was no flood.

But just as the Julius Caesar or Macbeth or Hamlet of Shakespeare are characters in a play and not the actual historical persons whose histories are the basis of the dramas, so the Noah of the biblical account is not the Noah of history. Nor is the flood of the biblical account the historical flood which the historical Noah experienced.

Of course, whenever history is storified, there can be a lot of overlap between the actual history and the account of it in story form. So it would not be surprising to find evidence about the history that agrees with what the story presents.

gluadys said:

Actually, the point is to treat scripture on the same basis as other contemporaneous literature and to determine whether it is story or historical record or (as is often the case) a blend of both on the same basis as one would an account found in Ashurbanipal's library or Cheop's pyramid. So the biblical account of the flood counts toward credibility just as much as (but not more than) the similar account in the epic of Gilgamesh.

Click to expand...

I understand your logic. Look at the history of the Bible. People have declared much of it to be stories. Archaeology keeps finding it to be historical. I find the main reason people think it is a spiritual story is due to bad interpretations.

gluadys said:

All of this (other than the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) is consistent with the same literary forms used by other cultures in the Ancient Near East. We attribute these stories to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but that doesn't change their genre and method of narration. It doesn't change them into reportage like that of a journalist or historian.

Click to expand...

What literary form is it? Give an example of a pagan story in the same literary form.

No, it is cosmic in that it presents a destruction of "every living thing" on the face of the earth (or land). "He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, human beings and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left of those with him on the ark." Gen. 7:21

Click to expand...

That doesn't make it cosmic. It was an earthly event.

And later it traces all human peoples to Noah and his sons. There would be no point to those genealogies if the people formerly inhabiting those lands had not been completely destroyed and left no descendants.

Click to expand...

Maybe,but there is no way of knowing how extensively humans had spread throughout the earth before the flood. They may have only inhabited the Near East lands.

In what sense? What do we have that tells us the intention of the story? Our best indication is Gen. 6:5 but that is part of the story too, so only provides the set up for the rest of the story.

Click to expand...

The writer did not give his intention. But the story cannot be a mere allegory or parable because there is nothing to indicate that it is. Allegories and parables in the Bible are not given as history,or without a context that indicates an allegory or a parable. If you say it is mythological history,that doesn't mean that it did not happen,because the God of the story is the one,true God,not a false pagan god,and he certainly could have made the flood happen. And pagan myths of origins were taken as histories,not as stories with a moral intention.

Yes it does suggest the existence of civilizations. Right back in the story of Adam and Eve, you have reference to agriculture. Gen. 4:17 tells us that Cain founded a city and named it for his first son, Enoch. vs. 20-22 tells us of the three sons of Lamech who founded arts associated with civilization, including the use of bronze and iron. The flood story itself speaks of domesticated animals.

Click to expand...

These things do not indicate a civilization such as Sumer.

Anthony Puccetti said:

What literary form is it? Give an example of a pagan story in the same literary form.



That doesn't make it cosmic. It was an earthly event.



Maybe,but there is no way of knowing how extensively humans had spread throughout the earth before the flood. They may have only inhabited the Near East lands.



The writer did not give his intention. But the story cannot be a mere allegory or parable because there is nothing to indicate that it is. Allegories and parables in the Bible are not given as history,or without a context that indicates an allegory or a parable. If you say it is mythological history,that doesn't mean that it did not happen,because the God of the story is the one,true God,not a false pagan god,and he certainly could have made the flood happen. And pagan myths of origins were taken as histories,not as stories with a moral intention.



These things do not indicate a civilization such as Sumer.

Click to expand...

I did notice that in Peter, he said God created the earth (ge), God destroyed the earth (Cosmos) by the flood, and that He will destroy the earth (ge) by fire. Why, if the flood was worldwide, didn't he use the word ge? Instead he used cosmos, which means the organized world. Back at 3,000 BC, the only organized or civilized world was Sumer. They recorded a flood that destroyed all the major cities in 3,000 BC. If it was only Sumer that was destroyed, then only the domestic and wild animals of the flood plain would need rescuing, That would be a reasonable job. I see exact history. I understand that Glaudys says that I have no proof that Noah existed or that he planted a vineyard. I don't have any proof outside of the Bible, yet so many of the details are accurate, that I believe the rest. I pointed out that she doesn't have any way to prove any statement in the Bible about the flood is false, so her statements are pure belief.

I understand what she says about the history of fables, that they evolve to fit new needs in a society. There is ample evidence of fables evolving, just look at the three little pigs. I understand the basis of her belief, but that doesn't prove a thing about the story of Noah.

gluadys said:

Actually, the point is to treat scripture on the same basis as other contemporaneous literature and to determine whether it is story or historical record or (as is often the case) a blend of both on the same basis as one would an account found in Ashurbanipal's library or Cheop's pyramid. So the biblical account of the flood counts toward credibility just as much as (but not more than) the similar account in the epic of Gilgamesh.

Click to expand...

The Romans and Greeks used that same logic to determine scripture. Believe it or not, that logic came long before you generation.

In fact, a lot of your philosophy is based on them. In a way, they invented your reasoning.
Maybe you should not be so self-inducing, thinking you know everything about everything

Anthony Puccetti said:

What literary form is it? Give an example of a pagan story in the same literary form.

Click to expand...

Already did. I think we have already mentioned Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis--there are many more as well.

That doesn't make it cosmic. It was an earthly event.

Click to expand...

Cosmos refers to "world" not just heaven. Earth is part of the cosmos.

Maybe,but there is no way of knowing how extensively humans had spread throughout the earth before the flood. They may have only inhabited the Near East lands.

Click to expand...

Sure there is: archeology and paleontology. We know humanity originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago and there have always been human populations in Africa ever since. We know they began spreading beyond Africa no later than 60,000 years ago, reached Australia over 30,000 years ago and began settling in the Americas around 20,000 years ago. But the earliest civilizations with major monuments can only be traced to about 10-15 thousand years ago. I don't know what date you propose for the flood, but it is a certainty that humans lived in all parts of the world at that time and most of them would not trace their ancestry back to Noah and his sons.

But the story cannot be a mere allegory or parable because there is nothing to indicate that it is. Allegories and parables in the Bible are not given as history,or without a context that indicates an allegory or a parable.

Click to expand...

Who says? I don't accept rules of interpretation which are recent inventions to support one's preferred interpretation. In most cases, Jesus did not introduce a parable as a parable. Those indications, where they exist, were added later by the person writing the gospel. When Nathan used a parable to accuse David of adultery, he did not say it was a parable. He presented it as a case of theft and David assumed it was about an actual event until Nathan told him "You are the man."

So I have no reason to believe that there is always a signpost naming a parable or allegory as such.

If you say it is mythological history,that doesn't mean that it did not happen,

Click to expand...

That is what I have been saying. It could well have happened--as a local event. That doesn't make the scriptural account of it any less mythological. For the scriptural account does not present it as a local event but as an event affecting all creatures in whose nostrils was the breath of life. It presents Noah & family and the creatures with him as the only terrestrial survivors of the flood.

And pagan myths of origins were taken as histories,not as stories with a moral intention.

Click to expand...

True. Another reason to understand the biblical accounts in the same way. There may well have been history (in some cases the same history) behind those accounts too. But we don't consider those stories to BE history as the original story-tellers did.

These things do not indicate a civilization such as Sumer.

Click to expand...

Shifting the goal posts.

SwordFall said:

The Romans and Greeks used that same logic to determine scripture. Believe it or not, that logic came long before you generation.

Click to expand...

Oh, by no means am I making any claim to originality. Allegorical interpretations of the bible are as old if not older than Christianity. We see a good deal of it in the New Testament. In fact, allegorical interpretations were seen as superior to literal interpretations pretty much up to the 17th century. Now we have a fetish of preferring literal interpretations even when they are not warranted.

We should probably aim for a good balance based on what both the textual and extra-textual evidence allows.

gluadys said:

Already did. I think we have already mentioned Gilgamesh, Enuma Elish, Atrahasis--there are many more as well.





Cosmos refers to "world" not just heaven. Earth is part of the cosmos.





Sure there is: archeology and paleontology. We know humanity originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago and there have always been human populations in Africa ever since. We know they began spreading beyond Africa no later than 60,000 years ago, reached Australia over 30,000 years ago and began settling in the Americas around 20,000 years ago. But the earliest civilizations with major monuments can only be traced to about 10-15 thousand years ago. I don't know what date you propose for the flood, but it is a certainty that humans lived in all parts of the world at that time and most of them would not trace their ancestry back to Noah and his sons.





Who says? I don't accept rules of interpretation which are recent inventions to support one's preferred interpretation. In most cases, Jesus did not introduce a parable as a parable. Those indications, where they exist, were added later by the person writing the gospel. When Nathan used a parable to accuse David of adultery, he did not say it was a parable. He presented it as a case of theft and David assumed it was about an actual event until Nathan told him "You are the man."

So I have no reason to believe that there is always a signpost naming a parable or allegory as such.




That is what I have been saying. It could well have happened--as a local event. That doesn't make the scriptural account of it any less mythological. For the scriptural account does not present it as a local event but as an event affecting all creatures in whose nostrils was the breath of life. It presents Noah & family and the creatures with him as the only terrestrial survivors of the flood.





True. Another reason to understand the biblical accounts in the same way. There may well have been history (in some cases the same history) behind those accounts too. But we don't consider those stories to BE history as the original story-tellers did.





Shifting the goal posts.



Oh, by no means am I making any claim to originality. Allegorical interpretations of the bible are as old if not older than Christianity. We see a good deal of it in the New Testament. In fact, allegorical interpretations were seen as superior to literal interpretations pretty much up to the 17th century. Now we have a fetish of preferring literal interpretations even when they are not warranted.

We should probably aim for a good balance based on what both the textual and extra-textual evidence allows.

Click to expand...

The Bible does say that after the flood, people moved east into the land of Shinar. Shinar is a good transliteration of Sumer (compare Peiking and Beijing) and Sumer was empty after the flood, but the semites lived to the NW.