FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-10-2001, 08:09 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Depending on the location, date and configuration of the "big boat," it certainly would be evidence of Noah.
 
Old 04-10-2001, 08:09 AM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

I think that what you are rembering is...

Apparently, a German paper ran an 'April Fool's' that a joint American and English team 'found' the Ark, and a few weeks later it was picked up as a ture story (having gained a bit in translation) and has been believed throughout the world--- despite the fact that the university that sponsored the expedition does not exist.


 
Old 04-10-2001, 12:25 PM   #13
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Depending on the location, date and configuration of the "big boat," it certainly would be evidence of Noah. </font>
Well, actually you would first have to find evidence of a world wide flood that wiped out most of the human race, and this is lacking.

Then you would have to have some way of distinguishing Noah from the Babylonian flood-myth guy.

Toto is offline  
Old 04-10-2001, 12:40 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Well, actually you would first have to find evidence of a world wide flood that wiped out most of the human race, and this is lacking.

Then you would have to have some way of distinguishing Noah from the Babylonian flood-myth guy.
</font>
No you would not.

I agree that the evidence of a world wide flood is lacking, however that does not mean that the story could not be rooted in a local flood that threatened most of humanity. Evidence for vast floods does exist.

And I agree, that the location of a large ship from that time period might be confirmatory of the Bablyonian myth as well. As I understand it, however, the two stories give very different pictures of the type of vessel involved. If such a vessel was located, a comparison of its design to the descriptions offered by the many flood myths could shed some light on this issue.
 
Old 04-10-2001, 05:09 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Depending on the location, date and configuration of the "big boat," it certainly would be evidence of Noah. </font>
The Genesis flood story is a myth, Layman. Why waste time conjecturing about mythical characters and a mythical boat?

According to S. N. Kramer, "That the Biblical deluge story is not original with the Hebrew redactors of the Bible has been known now for more than half a century [now for more than a century]--from the time of the discovery and decipherment of the eleventh tablet of the Semitic Babylonian 'Epic of Gilgamesh.' The Babylonian deluge myth itself, however, is of Sumerian origin; it is inscribed on Tablet 10, the only Sumerian 'flood' tablet as yet discovered." Biblical Parallels from Sumerian Literature, P. 13.

How old is the original form of the Akkadian 'Epic of Gilgamesh?' Kramer states, "The original date of the composition of the Akkadian work has to be placed at the turn of the second millenium, if not slightly earlier." Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, P. 73. The Sumerian version of the flood myth is much older than the Akkadian. Both are many centuries older than the Genesis myth.

No one is ever going to find the mythical ark of the mythical Noah.

rodahi

 
Old 04-10-2001, 05:23 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:
The Genesis flood story is a myth, Layman. Why waste time conjecturing about mythical characters and a mythical boat?

According to S. N. Kramer, "That the Biblical deluge story is not original with the Hebrew redactors of the Bible has been known now for more than half a century [now for more than a century]--from the time of the discovery and decipherment of the eleventh tablet of the Semitic Babylonian 'Epic of Gilgamesh.' The Babylonian deluge myth itself, however, is of Sumerian origin; it is inscribed on Tablet 10, the only Sumerian 'flood' tablet as yet discovered." Biblical Parallels from Sumerian Literature, P. 13.

How old is the original form of the Akkadian 'Epic of Gilgamesh?' Kramer states, "The original date of the composition of the Akkadian work has to be placed at the turn of the second millenium, if not slightly earlier." Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, P. 73. The Sumerian version of the flood myth is much older than the Akkadian. Both are many centuries older than the Genesis myth.

No one is ever going to find the mythical ark of the mythical Noah.

rodahi
</font>
If you remember, I said I don't think there is an ark to be found. What impressed me was your statement that, "'They' need to prove that Noah existed as a historical person BEFORE 'they' start looking for the biblical ark."

Since, if one was going to attemp to "prove that Noah existed" the most likely evidence of his existence was the Ark, I found your statement confusing. How are "they" supposed to prove that Noah existed if they can't look for the only piece of evidence that could possibly remain?

I actually agree with you that the entire search is a complete waste of time. But your methodology could have been simplified: "You theists are unreasonable idiots. There was no Noah."

But I suppose that would belie your claim that you haven't said that "Noah didn't exist."

 
Old 04-10-2001, 06:02 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
The Genesis flood story is a myth, Layman. Why waste time conjecturing about mythical characters and a mythical boat?
According to S. N. Kramer, "That the Biblical deluge story is not original with the Hebrew redactors of the Bible has been known now for more than half a century [now for more than a century]--from the time of the discovery and decipherment of the eleventh tablet of the Semitic Babylonian 'Epic of Gilgamesh.' The Babylonian deluge myth itself, however, is of Sumerian origin; it is inscribed on Tablet 10, the only Sumerian 'flood' tablet as yet discovered." Biblical Parallels from Sumerian Literature, P. 13.

How old is the original form of the Akkadian 'Epic of Gilgamesh?' Kramer states, "The original date of the composition of the Akkadian work has to be placed at the turn of the second millenium, if not slightly earlier." Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, P. 73. The Sumerian version of the flood myth is much older than the Akkadian. Both are many centuries older than the Genesis myth.

No one is ever going to find the mythical ark of the mythical Noah.

rodahi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Layman: If you remember, I said I don't think there is an ark to be found.

Great! We agree on something.

Layman: What impressed me was your statement that, "'They' need to prove that Noah existed as a historical person BEFORE 'they' start looking for the biblical ark."

Since, if one was going to attemp to "prove that Noah existed" the most likely evidence of his existence was the Ark, I found your statement confusing. How are "they" supposed to prove that Noah existed if they can't look for the only piece of evidence that could possibly remain?


Picky, picky, picky.

Layman: I actually agree with you that the entire search is a complete waste of time. But your methodology could have been simplified: "You theists are unreasonable idiots. There was no Noah."

You like misrepresenting me, don't you? First, you said that I "demand" something when, in fact, I demand nothing. Then you put words in my mouth that I have never said, nor thought. Does creating a strawman that you can attack make you feel good?

Layman: But I suppose that would belie your claim that you haven't said that "Noah didn't exist."

There is zero evidence for the existence of Noah or Ziusudra, the Sumerian counterpart of the biblical character. I think you know that.

rodahi

 
Old 04-10-2001, 06:11 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Layman: I actually agree with you that the entire search is a complete waste of time. But your methodology could have been simplified: "You theists are unreasonable idiots. There was no Noah."

Rodahi: "You like misrepresenting me, don't you? First, you said that I "demand" something when, in fact, I demand nothing. Then you put words in my mouth that I have never said, nor thought. Does creating a strawman that you can attack make you feel good?"

You spend a lot of time complaining without explaining why this is a strawman. You stated that they "need to prove that Noah existed as a historical person BEFORE they start looking for the Ark." Whether it is a demand or a requirement, you were clear that they "need" to establish a fact BEFORE look for the most likely enduring evidence of it.

Rodahi: "There is zero evidence for the existence of Noah or Ziusudra, the Sumerian counterpart of the biblical character. I think you know that."

So you ARE saying that Noah did not exist?
 
Old 04-10-2001, 07:23 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
[b]Layman: I actually agree with you that the entire search is a complete waste of time. But your methodology could have been simplified: "You theists are unreasonable idiots. There was no Noah."

Rodahi: "You like misrepresenting me, don't you? First, you said that I "demand" something when, in fact, I demand nothing. Then you put words in my mouth that I have never said, nor thought. Does creating a strawman that you can attack make you feel good?"

Layman: You spend a lot of time complaining without explaining why this is a strawman.

You put the following words in my mouth: "You theists are unreasonable idiots. There was no Noah." I DO NOT think theists are "unreasonable idiots." They do have some absurd beliefs, but that does not make them "unreasonable idiots." This is the where you misrepresented me.

Layman: You stated that they "need to prove that Noah existed as a historical person BEFORE they start looking for the Ark." Whether it is a demand or a requirement, you were clear that they "need" to establish a fact BEFORE look for the most likely enduring evidence of it.

How long do wish to beat this dead horse, Layman? FACT: Noah is a literary character. The ark is part of the story about Noah.

Rodahi: "There is zero evidence for the existence of Noah or Ziusudra, the Sumerian counterpart of the biblical character. I think you know that."

Layman: So you ARE saying that Noah did not exist?

I will say it again: There is zero evidence for the existence of Noah or Ziusudra, the Sumerian counterpart of the biblical character.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 10, 2001).]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.