capnkirk

Rather than attempt of address each the various tangents expressed in this thread separately, and risk never being able to get the pieces tied together into a larger context, I am offering the WHOLE story as I have come to understand it.

The story of Noah and the Great Flood is a shining example of a process that I am convinced has been repeated so often in the Old Testament that it should be considered the default. It is a process that appropriates a myth (or event) popular in the culture of the Hebrews’ parent/host culture, reassigns the players and the locale to make the myth their own, and embellishes the story dramatically to elevate Hebrew stature.

Independent archaeological digs between 1850 and 1938 in and around the ruined Mesopotamian cities (in modern day Iraq) of Ninevah, Ur, and others have unearthed clay cuneiform tablets containing significant parts of a great flood story. The tablets predate the first Hebrews by a thousand years, demonstrating that the story was already old long before Abraham et al emigrated from the Sumerian (Along with Assyria and Chaldea, Sumeria arose from the Mesopotamian civilization.) city of Ur and began his journey to Canaan. That Ur was a Chaldean city implies that this story was also available to and known to Abraham and his family.

In the Mesopotamian/Sumerian story, the hero was Ziusudra, King of the city-state of Shuruppak on the banks of the Euphrates. Ziusudra was a wealthy businessman who built a large boat(?) to house the livestock, grain, and beer he traded and sold at the docks. The “boat” was no more than a matrix of open-top “boxes”, each large enough to hold a couple of cows, lashed securely together with ropes. One day while Ziusudra and his family were having a banquet on the boat, it started to rain...hard! The tropical monsoon-like storm soaked the Euphrates watershed for seven days and nights causing floods and flash floods that swept away everything in its path, including Ziusudra and his “boat”. When the rains stopped, Ziusudra could see only water in all directions. Presently he discovered that the water was salty! This presented a problem in that without fresh water he, his family and their livestock were doomed. They discovered that the beer on board would make a viable substitute, so for the next seven days, they and their livestock subsisted on the beer and grain...and drifted. Finally they sighted land and made their way to it. The Sumerians called the land Dilmun (present day Bahrain in the southeast corner of the Persian Gulf).

Apparently Ziusudra had creditors back in Shuruppak, and in his present circumstance could not repay them. In Sumerian law, he faced enslavement if he defaulted. The tablets are incomplete here, but there are references to the “overthrow of the kingship” and “the hero was expelled” strongly implying that immediate return to Shuruppak was not an option. The story does relate that Ziusudra and his family remained in Dilmun for many years where they prospered, finally returning decades later, paying his creditors, and was received as a hero.

The evidence is quite substantial that the Hebrews in Ur at the time of Abraham’s birth were aware of this heroic tale, and in light of this evidence it becomes highly probable that it was the inspiration for Noah and the Great Flood...and inspired they must have been because of the hyperbole present in the Hebrew version. A local cataclysmic flood became a global cataclysmic flood; a collection of lashed-together crates became a 450 ft ark; a collection of cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs grew to be all the land animals in the world; seven days of rain became 40; seven days out of sight of land became a year; and landfall on an island beach became the top of a 17,000ft mountain!

It is precisely in these exaggerations that the Hebrew Noah and the Great Flood pass from heroic possibility to absolute fantasy. Here are some of the absurdities that derive from the Hebrew version:

Today environmentalists prophesying doom via global warming have calculated that if all the ice trapped in the polar icecaps were to melt it would raise sea level by 200 feet! As alarmist as that sounds, let us presume that the calculation is accurate. Further, let us stipulate that the sum of all the sea water plus all the ground water plus all the polar ice represents at least 95% of all water on the planet.

The Bible emphatically states that the ark came to rest atop Mt. Ararat (in far NE Turkey) and that before the water receded, it covered the mountaintop. So, let us compare the amount of water trapped in the polar icecaps to the amount required to cover Mt. Ararat. The Biblical Flood would have required 85 times as much water as is trapped in the icecaps! Impossible!! And this figure represents the minimum requirement. For the flood to have covered all the land on earth it would have had to cover Mt. Everest which is 29,000 ft high and would require 145 times the polar capacity! Put another way this event would have required 5 times the total contemporary water content of the planet!! So, where did all that water go? The sea is the low point that virtually all the world’s water drains to, so where could the seas drain to? Obviously they can’t. The planet’s only long term storage capacity that can affect sea levels is in the form of ice, and there is no place to hide 85x much less 145x the present polar icecap volume of water! Besides, archaeological and geological evidence demonstrate that several times in earth’s history the climate has warmed sufficiently to completely melt the icecaps and there was never enough water to cover more than 20% of the continental land mass.

Continuing...the storm that precipitated Noah’s flood lasted 40 days and nights, so what rate of rainfall would be required to accumulate that much water? 17,000 ft in 40 days requires 425 ft/day (nearly 18 ft/hr) over every square foot of the planet! 29,000 ft in 40 days requires 725 ft/day or 30.2 ft/hr. These rates are ridiculously absurd and totally beyond belief.

Currently, there are some 30,000,000 different species of land and airborne animals on earth. Noah loaded all the animals on the ark in 7 days. That would have required a loading rate of nearly 50 pairs of animals per second continuously for the whole seven days. Patently absurd! Nor does this include the problems associated with getting those animals unique to Africa, Australia, and the Americas from their native habitat to the ark (not to mention the problems in returning them all to their native habitats after the flood, nor to the survival prospects of the forests and other plants after being under water for over a year.).

Nor do the problems end there. Even floods less than 1% of the magnitude of Noah’s flood leave permanent geological scars on the land, yet while clear geological evidence of many cataclysmic local floods have been found on every continent, no such scarring has been found anywhere on the planet to confirm a global flood ever!. This conspicuous absence of geological evidence becomes strong evidence that there was NO global flood five thousand years ago! Contrast this with abundant evidence of a cataclysmic flood along the Euphrates River six thousand years ago (2,000 years before the first mention of Hebrews anywhere). The local flood evidence tends to confirm that Ziusudra’s flood at least could have happened and that there is at least a kernel of truth in the Sumerian tale, but emphatically denies any possibility of even a local flood a thousand years later during Noah’s time.

Increasing the total volume of water on the planet fivefold (or even threefold) would have dramatically changed the salinity of the oceans causing a global mass extinction of virtually everything in the oceans. There is absolutely no evidence of such an extinction in the last million years, much less the last five thousand.

Remember also that Noah and his family were the only human survivors, so the entire human genome for all the races spread around the world had to be contained in the genes of Noah, his wife and three sons, and their wives. Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate that the current genetic diversity (of mitochondrial DNA) required at least 150,000 years to evolve from such a small gene pool and that that genetic "Eve" lived in Africa. The “flood” could not have been more than 5,000 years ago, less than 4% of the required time. The archaeological record of native North Americans demonstrates a continuous presence on this continent for at least 10,000 years (20,000 years for the northernmost reaches) and genetical profiling indicates separation from Semitic peoples more than 100,000 years ago. Similar records exist for Australia (50,000 years in residence) and South America (15,000 years). These inconvenient facts absolutely preclude the occurrence of a worldwide flood in the last 5,000 years.

Finally, consider the ark itself. The dimensions quoted in the story describe a vessel 450 ft long (300 cubits), 45 ft across the beam, and 45 ft from keel to top, made completely of wood and sealed with pitch. The sad fact is that a 450 ft all-wood hull was beyond the technical skills of even 19th century shipwrights. The problem arises from the intrinsic strength of wood. Even the strongest known woods are not strong enough to build a buoyant 450 ft hull. To believe that a shepherd living before the dawn of the Bronze Age could have built such a vessel is ludicrous.

So, by far the most plausible understanding of the nature and history of the Biblical account of “the Flood” begins with Abraham’s (or his descendants’) appropriation of the mythical Sumerian story of King Ziusudra (a story that itself may have had a kernel of truth at the heart of it). Along the way, the story was enhanced and embellished with mystical and miraculous elements that transmuted the characters into Hebrews and the story into propaganda to illustrate the Hebrews’ righteousness and god-favored status by enhancing the power of their god through the scale of his miracles in support of his chosen people. But in the process of exaggeration to make their religious/political point, they transformed a possible heroic tale to one that in the light of modern geographic, geologic, zoographic, mathematic, genetic and engineering knowledge must be relegated to purest fantasy.

This pattern of appropriation of a past historical event, interjection of Jewish heroes, and enhancement for religious/political purposes can be seen to be repeated in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses and the Exodus, and of Joshua and the battle of Jericho, among others. In every case, they were attempts by a small tribe wandering in a hostile land to make itself less vulnerable by casting a giant shadow. Having uncovered these many instances of such corruption of truth to serve political necessities casts an enveloping shadow of skepticism across all the Old Testament miracles as well as the Hebrews’ chosen people status.

Ellis14

I thought the Yahweh ~ Elohim distinction only occured in the creation account. Many thanks for the insight, you've clarified things a great deal and told me a lot I didn't know.

Doctor X

The distinction between the E writer and the P writer--who both used "Elohim" until the Moses-burning-bush section--became apparent when scholars recognized "doublets" or repititions in the Elohim material. Furthermore, the P writer has a particular style that is distinct.

--J.D.

mindaika

[Only loosely on topic]

A while back in this thread, someone mentioned the myth/story of Abraham & Isaac, 'whereun an angel appeared and commanded Abraham to slay Isaac.'

In a book I'm reading, the author states "At this point Abraham must ask two questions: First, is this really an angel? And second, Am I really Abraham?"

Humorous as well, but the point is: How do we know anything? Today, I read an article about industry using the "no scientific proof" angle to push it's interests. Since there is no "proof" or even consesus (only 1 scientist must dissent to break consesus), they can claim basically anything they want.

Any way, the point is: science does not deal in absolutes. One of the key aspects of a good theory is that is must be falsifiable: that is, there must be something that can prove it wrong. Another is simplicity. For example, astrology is not a good theory because every apparent contradiction has a special caveat. Is there something that could prove evolutionary theory wrong? Yes. God (Buddah, Allah, Yaweh, or Hector the Steak Guy) could appear and say "Look Sam! I made the earth!" Is there anything that can prove God wrong? Apparently not.

I forgot where I was headed with this... just trying to stir up the thread some I guess.

capnkirk

How many of you are aware that the Islamic faith believes (as is written in their scripture) that the angel commanded Abraham to sacrifice ISHMAEL (not Isaac)?

This substitution should be expected, I guess, but it still illustrates how stories get spun in 'scripture' to meet the needs of the followers. I mention this not to defend either version against the other; IMHO, they are both mythical.