The Sumerian Flood Narrative

[TLK Valentine]

Myths are usually symbolic descriptions of facts. Decipher the symbols and we will understand the facts.

True enough -- which puts religious people at a disadvantage, since they mistake the symbols for the facts.

On the other hand, scientific theories are make-believe stories designed to explain facts, stories that can never be proven.

Wow. you really believe this in others but have a blind spot for yourself.... just... wow.

So let me guess -- you consider the Bible to be a book of facts, not symbols?

When referring to ancient events, the ancient records of those who lived there are far more reliable than modern assumptions from people who did not live there.

Right -- and since we have the records of the Eqyptians and the Chinese, who lived through the period and more or less say there was no flood, to the myths of Genesis, written centuries after such an event was presumed to take place, the "no flood" side takes the win.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your ignorance of the Bible is showing. Throughout the gospel of John, the disciple never uses the first person singular. Rather, he refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved." Given his closeness with Christ, he was a natural pick to take care of Mary in her declining years; a responsibility of the first born male.

"Yep, Jesus liked me best."

Well, I, for one, trust such an assessment completely and without question -- after all, it's not like a writer would ever skew the truth to portray himself in a positive light; such a thing is utterly unheard of!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Germ theory and Atomic theory are make believe? Really?

Haven't you heard? It's actually evil spirits who cause disease! Only sinners get sick, and only prayer cures them.

 

[samaus12345]

Germ theory and Atomic theory

Both these constructs are TERRIBLE for big bang/evolution. Science must be discarded to embrace them (usually in complete ignorance ie doing so blindly)

Cells-Life begets life.

Matter- conservation of energy/entropy.

 

[Dieselman]

"Yep, Jesus liked me best."

Well, I, for one, trust such an assessment completely and without question -- after all, it's not like a writer would ever skew the truth to portray himself in a positive light; such a thing is utterly unheard of!

John never said Jesus didn't love the others, only that jesus loved John. I think knowing that God loves us is a powerful thing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

John never said Jesus didn't love the others, only that jesus loved John. I think knowing that God loves us is a powerful thing.

But your entire exegesis relies on Jesus loving John more than the other 11 -- who were... what? just some guys Jesus knew?

Your ignorance of the Bible is showing. Throughout the gospel of John, the disciple never uses the first person singular. Rather, he refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved." Given his closeness with Christ, he was a natural pick to take care of Mary in her declining years; a responsibility of the first born male.

So -- was John any closer to God than the other 11? or any of us, for that matter?

If not, then he's really no closer to Christ, and not so much the "natural pick" anymore, is he?

 

[Doveaman]

That is not how I view them. Myths are metaphors for a given philosophy. When Jesus used parables he used them to illustrate the philosophy of christianity.

Parables are not myths.

Germ theory and Atomic theory are make believe? Really?

Some ideas produce useful results. Others are just make-believe stories designed to try to make sense of the past, like Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.

 

[Doveaman]

Right -- and since we have the records of the Eqyptians and the Chinese, who lived through the period and more or less say there was no flood, to the myths of Genesis, written centuries after such an event was presumed to take place, the "no flood" side takes the win.

Your dating methods on the past are obviously flawed.

 

[samaus12345]

bawhahahahahahaha

 

[TLK Valentine]

Parables are not myths.

They are a kind of folk tale, which occasionally falls under the category of myth.

However, since Jesus' parables were most likely created on the spot, and not passed down to him, they wouldn't have been considered myths. Now, however, they would be. Fun, isn't it?

Some ideas produce useful results. Others are just make-believe stories designed to try to make sense of the past, like Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.

Like creation myths and flood myths -- which have never produced a single useful result anywhere near what atomic theory and germ theory have.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your dating methods on the past are obviously flawed.

Not just my methods -- every single historian, Egyptologist, archaeologist, etc., etc.... except for you. You're right; the rest of them are wrong, down to the last man. Only you can be trusted.

Tell me -- doesn't it infuriate and frustrate you to no end, being so much smarter than every "expert" who ever lived, but not having anyone believe you?

Must make you gnash your teeth -- they and all their research and hard work get all the credit and respect, while you with... well, whatever it is you do, get ignored.

 

[Loudmouth]

Parables are not myths.

I really don't see how they are different.

Some ideas produce useful results. Others are just make-believe stories designed to try to make sense of the past, like Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.

Evolution does produce useful results. For example, evolutionary mechanisms are the foundation of phylogenomics.

PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.

Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.
Source

Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America. bee@cs.berkeley.edu

Abstract

We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.

Using the theory of evolution these scientists were able to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. I would call that quite useful.

 

[Dieselman]

So -- was John any closer to God than the other 11? or any of us, for that matter?
If not, then he's really no closer to Christ, and not so much the "natural pick" anymore, is he?

I listened to a pastor do an entire sermon about the closeness between Jesus and John, It was pretty thorough. You have to attend a church to hear semons like that, however. I don;t know of any on the internet. John, by the way, means "Beloved of God."

John 21:
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I listened to a pastor do an entire sermon about the closeness between Jesus and John, It was pretty thorough.

And I once listened to Eddie Izzard do most of a stand-up routine about the supermarket -- what's your point?

You have to attend a church to hear semons like that, however. I don;t know of any on the internet.

I'm sure it was fascinating.

John, by the way, means "Beloved of God."

...deriving from "Yehochanan" -- but what's in a name?

John 21:
19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.
20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Again, how is this different from self-promotion? Why is it that John plays no significant part in any Gospel except his own? Doesn't that strike you as just a bit odd?

 

[sandwiches]

Myths are usually symbolic descriptions of facts.

Greek myths, as well? What about Aztec? Mayan? Japanese? Chinese? The thousands of different myths in the African continent alone? They're all symbolic descriptions of facts? Muslim myths?

Now, what method would you suggest to find out where the symbolism is and the truth is in all those myths?

 

[Gracchus]

Your ignorance of the Bible is showing. Throughout the gospel of John, the disciple never uses the first person singular. Rather, he refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved."

You're missing the point. How do you know that the evangelist was "the disciple Jesus loved"? I don't think that's in the Bible. I could be wrong. Cite me chapter and verse, if you would.

 

[Split Rock]

Parables are not myths.

But parables are not historical accounts either.

Some ideas produce useful results. Others are just make-believe stories designed to try to make sense of the past, like Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.

I like the make-believe stories with rib-women and talking snakes the best... how about you?

Your dating methods on the past are obviously flawed.

Then publish some papers and get yourself a Nobel Prize. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air in our direction... aren't you?

 

[Dieselman]

Then publish some papers and get yourself a Nobel Prize. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air in our direction... aren't you?

Nobel prizes are meaningless. Obama got one for giving speeches. Al Gore got one for perpetrating a known fraud. It's nothing more than liberals patting each other on the back.

 

[sandwiches]

Nobel prizes are meaningless. Obama got one for giving speeches. Al Gore got one for perpetrating a known fraud. It's nothing more than liberals patting each other on the back.

So, you mean there are no scientific papers to publish supporting your claims? Shocking!

 

[WarriorAngel]

True enough -- which puts religious people at a disadvantage, since they mistake the symbols for the facts.




Wow. you really believe this in others but have a blind spot for yourself.... just... wow.

So let me guess -- you consider the Bible to be a book of facts, not symbols?




Right -- and since we have the records of the Eqyptians and the Chinese, who lived through the period and more or less say there was no flood, to the myths of Genesis, written centuries after such an event was presumed to take place, the "no flood" side takes the win.

Actually many narratives of a great flood exist.
Including Native Americans.