Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Thomas II · 05-03-2012, 09:35 AM

This is an interesting map to give an idea of what a global flood would be...

http://globalfloodmap.org/

sotto voce · 05-03-2012, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

There is not a boat, exactly. There is an ark or chest, without rudder, port-holes, oars or sails, pilot or crew. It is made of wood, like the sticks carried by Isaac on which a ram was sacrificed; like the doorpost covered in the blood of lambs in Egypt; like the cross of Jesus, the one called 'the Lamb of God' by John. The Ark is a place of atonement by a ransom. This is the relevant meaning of the Hebrew used in Genesis.

There was no flood, except in the foreknowledge of deity. In the biblical view, there will be a 'flood', by which all who are not 'in Christ' by faith in the atonement made by Christ's ransom, will perish.

Well, that's convenient.

It's inconvenient if one does not wish to see pre-figurement of atonement.

Quote:

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the evidence

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the historic evidence, one simply takes the allegorical significance— which is the intended significance, on the literary evidence. People can take it literally as well if they insist.

outhouse · 05-03-2012, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Actually your spot on.

with one aspect to add.

the archeology done on this flood shows it to be the worst of any flood in the area since it happened.

that makes this a epic flood 4900 years ago.

However, you are placing certainty on this particular flood when there were other older ones that were also severe. How old the oral tradition was, is unknown, and we don't know if or how many times the big storm tale grew.

I would posit that the legends can be trace back to several possible floods, as the links I provided argue. The Ubaid/Ur flood could have been just as bad or worse.

Quote:

The Euphrates flooded in 2900 BC after a 6 day thunderstorm on a already swollen river.

I think you are again reading to much certainty into the fable. The 6 day storm is only part of the fable, so it is no more real that the thousand year old kings, though it is at least reasonably possible to have been a week long storm front.

But I would still agree that the Noah Deluge tale grew, or was adapted, from the fables passed along from the ancient Sumerians. There probably are higher odds that a real Ziusudra existed, than a real Noah existed. But we can't even really know if he was around during the 2900BC flood.

except for one problem

the mythology states said king Ziusudra who is said to live at that exact time as the 2900 Flood, and the Sumerians say it was that exact flood.

older floods? why place a king in a older flood when they already have him placed perfectly with reality.

and your data posted is wrong. the almost 3 meters of silt was later dated to exactly 2900 BC.

outhouse · 05-03-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Well, that's convenient.

It's inconvenient if one does not wish to see pre-figurement of atonement.

Quote:

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the evidence

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the historic evidence, one simply takes the allegorical significance— which is the intended significance, on the literary evidence. People can take it literally as well if they insist.

yes we know YEC abuse mythology

but there is no debate this legend was handed down from mesopotamia, even the OT says its the originating place.

sotto voce · 05-03-2012, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Well, that's convenient.

It's inconvenient if one does not wish to see pre-figurement of atonement.

Quote:

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the evidence

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the historic evidence, one simply takes the allegorical significance— which is the intended significance, on the literary evidence. People can take it literally as well if they insist.

yes we know YEC abuse mythology

but there is no debate this legend was handed down from mesopotamia, even the OT says its the originating place.

It does?

Tom Sawyer · 05-03-2012, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Well, that's convenient.

It's inconvenient if one does not wish to see pre-figurement of atonement.

Quote:

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the evidence

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the historic evidence, one simply takes the allegorical significance— which is the intended significance, on the literary evidence. People can take it literally as well if they insist.

Yes, the allegorical significance of the story is the important part of it, especially given the complete lack of historical accuracy of the story so that there's no other way to legitimately take it.

My point was that your going beyond the allegorical significance and attempting to portray it as some kind of factual story doesn't make anymore sense when you put it into the future as foreknowledge given to us by a deity is just as invalid as saying it actually happened in the past. The allegorical significance works just as well without either of those.

sotto voce · 05-03-2012, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Well, that's convenient.

It's inconvenient if one does not wish to see pre-figurement of atonement.

Quote:

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the evidence

If the historical accuracy of the Flood isn't bearing out with the historic evidence, one simply takes the allegorical significance— which is the intended significance, on the literary evidence. People can take it literally as well if they insist.

Yes, the allegorical significance of the story is the important part of it, especially given the complete lack of historical accuracy of the story so that there's no other way to legitimately take it.

My point was that your going beyond the allegorical significance and attempting to portray it as some kind of factual story

You misunderstood. I'm not saying that there is any fact involved. There may well have been a flood or floods that started the literary legend, yes, but no more than that.

Quote:

doesn't make anymore sense when you put it into the future

A future day of judgment is a recurrent theme throughout the NT.

Thomas II · 05-03-2012, 10:12 AM

The Math of the Great Flood:

funinspace · 05-03-2012, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

However, you are placing certainty on this particular flood when there were other older ones that were also severe. How old the oral tradition was, is unknown, and we don't know if or how many times the big storm tale grew.

I would posit that the legends can be trace back to several possible floods, as the links I provided argue. The Ubaid/Ur flood could have been just as bad or worse.

I think you are again reading to much certainty into the fable. The 6 day storm is only part of the fable, so it is no more real that the thousand year old kings, though it is at least reasonably possible to have been a week long storm front.

But I would still agree that the Noah Deluge tale grew, or was adapted, from the fables passed along from the ancient Sumerians. There probably are higher odds that a real Ziusudra existed, than a real Noah existed. But we can't even really know if he was around during the 2900BC flood.

except for one problem

the mythology states said king Ziusudra who is said to live at that exact time as the 2900 Flood, and the Sumerians say it was that exact flood.

older floods? why place a king in a older flood when they already have him placed perfectly with reality.

and your data posted is wrong. the almost 3 meters of silt was later dated to exactly 2900 BC.

Pardon my ignorance, as none of this is my field; and having only read 2 books on Sumerian archeology a long time ago. What source are you using for the 3 meters of silt in 2900 BC at Shuruppak? Also, how are you arriving at the certainty of Ziusudra being the king of Shuruppak at that time?

Here is another source that matches up with what I have read in Samuel Kramer’s The Sumerians :
http://ncse.com/cej/8/2/flood-mesopo...gical-evidence

Quote:

The Sumerian King List names twenty-three rulers of the city of Kish between the Flood and a contemporary of Gilgamesh, but there are good grounds for dividing this list into two nonsuccessive segments and reckoning only eleven generations of kings in the interval. Calculating on the basis of the average reign of Mesopotamian kings, no more than about two hundred years ought to be allocated to these kings, placing the Mesopotamian Flood around 2900 to 2800.
<snip>
The hypothesis that the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak represent the same event is no more than an assumption. Flood events occurred with frequency throughout southern Mesopotamia, as the two separate early flood levels at Kish indicate. Even more so than the Ur flood, the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak fail to fulfill the biblical or even the Mesopotamian literary descriptions. In the degree to which those descriptions are "rationalized," any criteria for distinguishing between the biblical Flood and virtually any other flood disappear. The flood remains at Kish and Shuruppak are hardly imposing. The silt at Kish averages less than ten inches thick, and the deposit at Shuruppak is about fifteen inches-in comparison to up to eleven feet of material at Ur (Raikes, 1967, pp. 52-63). The severity of a flood cannot necessarily be deduced from the thickness of an isolated sample of the flood deposit.
<snip>
About the Author(s):
David MacDonald holds a Ph.D. in ancient history from the University of Minnesota. He currently teaches in the history department of Illinois State University

outhouse · 05-03-2012, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funinspace

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

except for one problem

the mythology states said king Ziusudra who is said to live at that exact time as the 2900 Flood, and the Sumerians say it was that exact flood.

older floods? why place a king in a older flood when they already have him placed perfectly with reality.

and your data posted is wrong. the almost 3 meters of silt was later dated to exactly 2900 BC.

Pardon my ignorance, as none of this is my field; and having only read 2 books on Sumerian archeology a long time ago. What source are you using for the 3 meters of silt in 2900 BC at Shuruppak? Also, how are you arriving at the certainty of Ziusudra being the king of Shuruppak at that time?

Here is another source that matches up with what I have read in Samuel Kramer’s The Sumerians :
http://ncse.com/cej/8/2/flood-mesopo...gical-evidence

Quote:

The Sumerian King List names twenty-three rulers of the city of Kish between the Flood and a contemporary of Gilgamesh, but there are good grounds for dividing this list into two nonsuccessive segments and reckoning only eleven generations of kings in the interval. Calculating on the basis of the average reign of Mesopotamian kings, no more than about two hundred years ought to be allocated to these kings, placing the Mesopotamian Flood around 2900 to 2800.
<snip>
The hypothesis that the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak represent the same event is no more than an assumption. Flood events occurred with frequency throughout southern Mesopotamia, as the two separate early flood levels at Kish indicate. Even more so than the Ur flood, the flood levels at Kish and Shuruppak fail to fulfill the biblical or even the Mesopotamian literary descriptions. In the degree to which those descriptions are "rationalized," any criteria for distinguishing between the biblical Flood and virtually any other flood disappear. The flood remains at Kish and Shuruppak are hardly imposing. The silt at Kish averages less than ten inches thick, and the deposit at Shuruppak is about fifteen inches-in comparison to up to eleven feet of material at Ur (Raikes, 1967, pp. 52-63). The severity of a flood cannot necessarily be deduced from the thickness of an isolated sample of the flood deposit.
<snip>
About the Author(s):
David MacDonald holds a Ph.D. in ancient history from the University of Minnesota. He currently teaches in the history department of Illinois State University

Your not ignorant, and im having a good time discussing this with you.

again, a real man Ziusudra is on the kings list and is said to reign exactly before the flood, then there is a flood myth naming Ziusudra, and we have a flood attested to that exact date said king lived.

Quote:

What source are you using for the 3 meters of silt in 2900 BC at Shuruppak?

if im not mistaken, there wasnt that much silt there, only a few feet

BUT

Quote:

The Ubaid flood was responsible for the 11-foot deposit of silt at Ur discovered by Sir Leonard Woolley in 1929.

this was the flood of 2900 BC

http://ncse.com/cej/8/2/flood-mesopo...gical-evidence

This flood level separated late Protoliterate and Early Dynastic I remains and dates from around 2950 to 2850 BCE. Perhaps, but not certainly, the Shuruppak flood may be equated with the earliest flood at Kish.

you know the one you posted about Woolley, that I stated had originally found to be misdated

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-03-2012, 09:35 AM	#11
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	This is an interesting map to give an idea of what a global flood would be... http://globalfloodmap.org/

05-03-2012, 10:12 AM	#18
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	The Math of the Great Flood:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.