Angelfish

What are the implications to the Old Testament and Genesis in particular of both this series of tablets and the account of the flood listed in the poem.
The similarities are between the accounts are striking. The floods were global cause by the need for cleansing this evil of man. Both were sent by god although the Mesopotamian version was a group there of. Both had a heroic figure who was clean of spirit and were given directions from the god or gods and both complained about their lot. They both were told to construct a boat of the same design. They were both told to gather up animals and their families and the flood came . Both floods were caused by rain and although the length of the period of rain was different the result was the same. They both released birds after the rain stopped and landed their ships on mountains. While some of the interpretations of the Epic are a little liberal with the term interpretation there lies the fact that the two are so similar as to be related. While my personal belief is the biblical account is an adaptation of the Mesopotamian one there are some who believe in commonality of the source of the two stories predating either and others that put the biblical on first and give it divine and in some cases factual meaning. If the biblical account is predated by the epic account what does this do for the divine nature of Genisis?

Kyzra

obviously, one is the immitation of the other. which came first? open to sepculation really, but factual dating evidance indicates the sumerian version to predate the biblical version.

given the nomadic nature of the hebrews and the fact that they passed through many of the mesopotamian kingdoms of the time, picking up bits of culture from each as they went through, i would place my bet on the sumerian version being more original.

i say 'more original' as there may or may not have been an even older oral source or an older but lost, documented source.


it adds nothing new to the absurdity of ' the divine nature of genesis,' as the whole account resembles a myth and must be treated as such.

Angelfish

While resembling a myth does not a myth make we agree on both the absurdity of genesis and on the probable source of the account of Noah’s flood. So there is not much to discuss there.
While it adds nothing new to the "absurdity of Genesis" as you call it the pre existing myths that went into the creation of Genesis are very relevant in both understanding its make up and if necessary debunking it.

Boshko

Well if Christians (C.S. Lewis I believe) can use resurrected-diety cults that predate Christianity as evidence FOR the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus (they are but faint foreshadows of the glory of Jesus, or something along those lines), then I don't see how this sort of evidence can do much

Angelfish

Agreed in that it doubtfully alters the belief system as it stands but historical evidence does impact the coming interpretations and drives them closer to fact at least among the educated.

Boro Nut

I hope your not implying that Aslan was actually killed. How do you explain the presence of Christmas every year then?

Boshko

BN: wasn't referring to Narnia, in something else Lewis wrote (I think) he talked about various resurrection cults (the Greeks mystery cults for example).

Amos

It does not matter to me which came first. I like it because it is a nice parable and belongs in every mythology because each one of us is an ark builder in our own way.

Here's a poem about it.

If he had known
unstructured space is a deluge,
and stocked his life-houseboat
with all of the animals,
. . . even the wolves
he might have floated.

But obstinate he stated
the land is solid,
and stamped . . .
watching his foot
go down through stone
up to the knee.

Note here that "unstructured space" is obscured vision and our mind is our life-houseboat.

Amos