This is the question I have!

[timothyu]

This really reminds me of the people who freak out that bears, wolves and coyotes and such still prowl around places humans live in.

Really? I see them all the time passing through the property

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Really? I see them all the time passing through the property

Yeah, but there's many people who do freak out. Enough to know that such people do exist.

 

[timothyu]

Yeah, but there's many people who do freak out.

They freak out over politicians too. No surprise that they are so emotionally fragile. Self interest does that to a person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a script that has no truth of fact written in the Earth itSelf. I see no wiggle room there.

That may be the case, but not every event or person who has lived is "written" in the Earth itself. So, I tend not to think this particular criterion you're suggesting carries enough significance to serve as a test for historicity all by itself. If anything, it's a mere heuristic you're relying on.

If you want to use it for your own worldview, go ahead. But I think there is place for interpreting some small amount of wiggle room within this topic, even if the possible wiggling is only a worm's worth.

 

[dlamberth]

That may be the case, but not every event or person who has lived is "written" in the Earth itself. So, I tend not to think this particular criterion you're suggesting carries enough significance to serve as a test for historicity all by itself. If anything, it's a mere heuristic you're relying on.

If you want to use it for your own worldview, go ahead. But I think there is place for interpreting some small amount of wiggle room within this topic, even if the possible wiggling is only a worm's worth.

My reply was specifically directed towards the 'Big-O-Flood' part of your comment and not towards every event or person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My reply was specifically directed towards the 'Big-O-Flood' part of your comment and not towards every event or person.

Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to imply that some sort of Large Flood could be behind the cultural remnants we see still extant in A.N.E. texts.

Of course, we don't know that this is the case, but we also don't certainly know that it isn't. And this is the wiggle room I think that we have.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to imply that some sort of Large Flood could be behind the cultural remnants we see still extant in A.N.E. texts.

If there are ANE large flood accounts, they're just that.

ANE large flood accounts that probably occurred every now and then.

But THE FLOOD was different.

It was worldwide.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes, I understand that. I'm just trying to imply that some sort of Large Flood could be behind the cultural remnants we see still extant in A.N.E. texts.

Of course, we don't know that this is the case, but we also don't certainly know that it isn't. And this is the wiggle room I think that we have.

A Large flood I have no problem agreeing with. 10 thousand years ago here in the Pacific Northwest we had the Ice Age Floods. My house would have been under a couple of hundred feet of water. The evidence is still everywhere around here. But a Global Biblical Flood only 4 thousand years ago? If that were true, the Earth would be screaming with the physical evidence such a massive and violent flood would have left behind. That's where I see no wiggle room.

 

[timothyu]

If that were true, the Earth would be screaming with the physical evidence such a massive and violent flood would have left behind.

You mean like how North America is still rising after the weight of the ice age?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A Large flood I have no problem agreeing with. 10 thousand years ago here in the Pacific Northwest we had the Ice Age Floods. My house would have been under a couple of hundred feet of water. The evidence is still everywhere around here. But a Global Biblical Flood only 4 thousand years ago? If that were true, the Earth would be screaming with the physical evidence such a massive and violent flood would have left behind. That's where I see no wiggle room.

My apologies. I should have been clearer since you likely didn't see what I wrote in post #267. My context in this discussion isn't pertaining to finding geological evidence of a literal 'biblical' flood, especially not for a world-wide global sort.

So, yes, I think there IS some small wiggle room IF the biblical account is simply an Israelite interpolation of the Epic of Gilgamesh story, or other A.N.E. accounts like the Eridu Genesis or Artrahasis epic, etc.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My apologies. I should have been clearer since you likely didn't see what I wrote in post #267. My context in this discussion isn't pertaining to finding geological evidence of a literal 'biblical' flood, especially not for a world-wide global sort.

So, yes, I think there IS some small wiggle room IF the biblical account is simply an Israelite interpolation of the Epic of Gilgamesh story, or other A.N.E. accounts like the Eridu Genesis or Artrahasis epic, etc.

If it is just based on a Mesopotamian myth (as it clearly is), then no geological evidence is required.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If it is just based on a Mesopotamian myth (as it clearly is), then no geological evidence is required.

Did I say that? No, I don't think I did.

Please don't do eisegesis on what it is you think I've said. Thanks!

Moreover, I'm not sure what your pronoun usage is specifically referring to? Do you understand what it is that I'm actually referring to?

I'm not talking about a literal, global, worldwide flood according to an idealized ultra-literalization of the biblical Flood Account.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did I say that? No, I don't think I did.

I was noting that a story based on an earlier story that is just myth doesn't need geology to "prove it". Neither the Hebrew version, nor earlier versions would need to have any geological evidence behind them.

Please don't do eisegesis on what it is you think I've said. Thanks!

I don't know that you are, but if you want to claim the earlier stories are based on an actual flood, you can feel free to show the geological evidence of that flood, but I'm not expecting you to do so, nor do I need that explanation.

Moreover, I'm not sure what your pronoun usage is specifically referring to? Do you understand what it is that I'm actually referring to?

I'm not talking about a literal, global, worldwide flood according to an idealized ultra-literalization of the biblical Flood Account.

I know you are talking about the actual written account that covers about one page of Genesis. That story was the "it" I was referring to. If I was talking about a certain poster I ignore, I would have called them "Mr. Invisible".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was noting that a story based on an earlier story that is just myth doesn't need geology to "prove it". Neither the Hebrew version, nor earlier versions would need to have any geological evidence behind them.

When there are widespread stories, there might be some historical impetus as to why they share a similar story as a cultural memory of some even in the past, even if that story is related in the ancient world in what we identify as purely mythological terms.

I don't know that you are, but if you want to claim the earlier stories are based on an actual flood, you can feel free to show the geological evidence of that flood, but I'm not expecting you to do so, nor do I need that explanation.

Right. And at present, we all know there is no known geological evidence of a large local flood to have taken place within the last 7,000 years or so, other than one that MIGHT have involved the region of the Black Sea rather than one more centrally located across the Mesopotamian lands and which could have more directly spawned legendary stories. There were known floods, however.

I know you are talking about the actual written account that covers about one page of Genesis. That story was the "it" I was referring to. If I was talking about a certain poster I ignore, I would have called them "Mr. Invisible".

Oh, ok. I see. Well, as long as we're both clear on all of that now.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When there are widespread stories, there might be some historical impetus as to why they share a similar story as a cultural memory of some even in the past, even if that story is related in the ancient world in what we identify as purely mythological terms.

As I recall, the various flood stories o the ANE either don't resemble the "global flood" of ancient Mesopotamia, or are clearly derivative from it. (For example, again IIRC, Egyptian flood stories fit withing the pattern of annual flooding.

Right. And at present, we all know there is no known geological evidence of a large local flood to have taken place within the last 7,000 years or so, other than one that MIGHT have involved the region of the Black Sea rather than one more centrally located across the Mesopotamian lands and which could have more directly spawned legendary stories. There were known floods, however.

I have that book on the innundation of the Euxine Lake at the end of the Younger Dryas, thought that is so far back before written stories that even if it was the inspiration, thousands of years of retelling it certainly distorted it greatly. Even a large flood on the Upper Euphrates stayed with in the broad limit of the larger flood plain and wouldn't have covered "everything" from what I recall of the geological record in these rivers and generally. Really big deluges like the Missoula floods tend to leave very distinct marks. (Though the notion that the biblical story originates from rising seas from those floods or even the one that likely did start the Younger Dryas in the Yukon is rather silly since the ocean sea level increase would have been quite small in those latter events, despite what was being pushed here by a certain poster a few months ago.)

Oh, ok. I see. Well, as long as we're both clear on all of that now.

I thought I had been. Oh, well.

 

[timothyu]

What about when the Atlantic poured into the Mediterranean basin as an excuse to move to higher ground?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I recall, the various flood stories o the ANE either don't resemble the "global flood" of ancient Mesopotamia, or are clearly derivative from it. (For example, again IIRC, Egyptian flood stories fit withing the pattern of annual flooding.

What???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? How about deciding for "or" when you're indicating that it's "clearly derivative"?

I'm going to go with this answer: flood stories are mainly common, derivative, and protean among the various A.N.E. cultures, as far as I can tell from the sources I have.

I have that book on the innundation of the Euxine Lake at the end of the Younger Dryas, thought that is so far back before written stories that even if it was the inspiration, thousands of years of retelling it certainly distorted it greatly. Even a large flood on the Upper Euphrates stayed with in the broad limit of the larger flood plain and wouldn't have covered "everything" from what I recall of the geological record in these rivers and generally. Really big deluges like the Missoula floods tend to leave very distinct marks. (Though the notion that the biblical story originates from rising seas from those floods or even the one that likely did start the Younger Dryas in the Yukon is rather silly since the ocean sea level increase would have been quite small in those latter events, despite what was being pushed here by a certain poster a few months ago.)

Oh? And which book is that, Hans?

I thought I had been. Oh, well.

No, I was being facetious. Just be glad I'm not fascist.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I recall, the various flood stories o the ANE either don't resemble the "global flood" of ancient Mesopotamia, or are clearly derivative from it.

I agree.

They are mockeries of the real story -- that is, His story.

Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob, and I once made up this story to show how Shem could have set the record straight every time some civilization came up with their bogus version.

Re: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Shem: What's this trash you wrote, Nimrod; are you okay!?

Nimrod: Don't start on me again, uncle; you've always looked down on us Hamites.

Shem: That's garbage too! You used to be a mighty hunter before the LORD, what went wrong?

Nimrod: You think you Shemites are so much better than us, just because my grandfather was cursed for what his father did to your mother in that tent that day.

Shem: I watched you grow up, Nimrod, and how you used to love the LORD so much; but somewhere along the line you went astray and broke away from the rest of us and went and formed your own little empire. Well ... you do what you want, but as long as I live, I'll make sure my eyewitness testimony trumps your lies.

Nimrod: And what makes you an authority on the Flood over me?

Shem: I was there! Remember??? I was on the Ark ... you weren't!

Nimrod: Oh, that's right ... somehow I forgot ... what with there being no evidence and all.

Shem: [facepalms]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree.

They are mockeries of the real story -- that is, His story.

Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob, and I once made up this story to show how Shem could have set the record straight every time some civilization came up with their bogus version.

Re: The Epic of Gilgamesh

Shem: What's this trash you wrote, Nimrod; are you okay!?

Nimrod: Don't start on me again, uncle; you've always looked down on us Hamites.

Shem: That's garbage too! You used to be a mighty hunter before the LORD, what went wrong?

Nimrod: You think you Shemites are so much better than us, just because my grandfather was cursed for what his father did to your mother in that tent that day.

Shem: I watched you grow up, Nimrod, and how you used to love the LORD so much; but somewhere along the line you went astray and broke away from the rest of us and went and formed your own little empire. Well ... you do what you want, but as long as I live, I'll make sure my eyewitness testimony trumps your lies.

Nimrod: And what makes you an authority on the Flood over me?

Shem: I was there! Remember??? I was on the Ark ... you weren't!

Nimrod: Oh, that's right ... somehow I forgot ... what with there being no evidence and all.

Shem: [facepalms]

I just love World His Story!

 

[Hans Blaster]

What???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? How about deciding for "or" when you're indicating that it's "clearly derivative"?

To quote you: "What????????????"

I listed two categories of ANE flood myths:

1. Those based on the Sumerian myth of Utnapishtim, and
2. Those that don't at all resemble "global" floods, such as stories about annual floods or a flash flood after a rainstorm.

I'm going to go with this answer: flood stories are mainly common, derivative, and protean among the various A.N.E. cultures, as far as I can tell from the sources I have.

I wasn't asking a question.

Oh? And which book is that, Hans?

"Noah's Flood" or something like that. It was by two geologists 20-25 years ago. It was one of the books I didn't list a couple weeks ago because I left out all of the science-related tomes. I thought you were referencing it and their theory about the Euxine Lake inflow.

No, I was being facetious.

Oh, great, sarcasm.

Just be glad I'm not fascist.

I get enough of those already...