John A. Broussard

Now we're really in hot water.

Much of recent bible scholarship is concentrating on the true meaning of the hebrew words in the OT. Imagine what they're going to have to face if hebrew is not the original language of the OT.

Sheshbazzar

Before a misunderstanding proceeds further, I am not implying that Hebrew was not the original language of the Torah, the Five Books which are specifically attributed to Moses. (Deut. 31:24-26)
But the consideration was your statement;
with the attendant implication that writing had not yet been invented in NOAH'S time, a position which Archaeological discoveries and research has long since, and a hundred times over proved to be false.
Now with regard to those documents that were most assuredly written down in other languages prior to the time of Moses's writings, even if tablets were found that read word for word identically with the Genesis account as attributed to Moses, and those documents were proved to pre-date Moses, those documents would not, and could not be accepted as "THE Torah", Because the only legal or legitimate Torah is specifically limited to that Covenant which was made with Israel in the wilderness under the leadership of Moses.
Thus any previous and older writings no matter how similar in style or content, are not acceptable substitutes.
Even as with the U.S. Constitution that was officially signed in 1776, no previous writings of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, or others, no matter how eloquent, or how similar in style, composition or thought, can qualify as "THE Constitution of The United States of America", and again any facsimile that attempted to "correct" any "errors" in spelling, grammar or punctuation, would not be a valid legal document, as it would not be truly representative of the actual writ on which the founding fathers had agreed, and had fixed their John Hancock's to.

John A. Broussard

Before we go much further, could you give me "NOAH's time," which presumably would also include the date when the universal flood occurred.

Thanks, much.

Sheshbazzar

I am quite sure that you are aware of the timeframes provided by Ussher and others, that are accepted with minor variations by most scholars.
This timeframe is the "setting" for the "story" of Noah and the Flood.
I provided an oblique reference to this in this earlier post in this thread;
And I am willing to extend that "timeframe" by hundreds of years in either direction, because as I also earlier stated, It is impossible to assign a precise date to an event that never took place. The story exist as a part of a much larger narrative, which came into being and exists, not to serve as a science or geology textbook, but as a body of literature composed to inspire mankind, something that it has very effectively done, and is still effectively doing.
So please feel free to provide all of the "proof" that you can come up with that there were no written languages circa 2000-3000 BCE.

Now that I've complied with your request, you may extend to me a similar courtesy, to what approximate dates do you assign The Epic of Gilgamesh?
Thanks, Sheshbazzar

John A. Broussard

I think we've straightened out the matter.

As long as you hold that what was written was intended to inspire and not to inform, the 2000-3000 date looks fine to me. Gilgamesh was undoubtedly written much earlier, and I"m sure that the oral tradition goes much, much further back into the past.

Roller

What I meant, of course, is that YHWH did not proclaim any such laws in the Bible... yet. Those laws come only much later.

Sheshbazzar

Of course prior to the (alleged) formal giving of the Laws of YHWH through Moses, with their being written down, "and put in the side of the ark of the covenant of YHWH your Elohim, that it may there for a witness against you",(Deut.31:24-26) Humanity, and the "Children of Israel" were not totally lacking in social and religious laws and regulations prior to Moses. (see note below)
In a similar fashion as to how the stories that were incorporated into the Biblical narrative were drawn from, and modified from earlier sources, it is entirely reasonable to expect that most of these laws were likewise sourced and modified.
(Unless you want to take the inerrantist position that Moses started with a clean sheet, and that YHWH really did tell him exactly what to write.)
While there admittedly remains the possibility that Moses was just an extremely creative writer and "invented" out of thin air almost all of these laws and statutes while "on the fly", however such seems unlikely, and even more unlikely that he would have been able to induce many followers to accept so many rules and regulations that they had never heard of before, or were totally unfamiliar with.
And again if we accept that the "P" source in the documentary theory was able to get away with putting these involved laws and statutes into Moses's (and YHWH's) mouth, then those laws must have had a long history of prior acceptance and employment by the priestly class, again pointing to these laws having arisen out of earlier sources with modifications and additions to adapt them to the Yahwist cause and cult.


Note
Notice how far prior to its formal requirement under the Covenant instituted under Moses, that the law of circumcision was required by YHWH, and was evidently also being practiced by various other religions and cultures.
This becomes all the more the interesting in that with all of the detailed regulations regarding upon whom, when, how, and why "circumcision" was to be performed, That Moses, never performed any circumcision, and indeed actively prevented a single one from ever being performed during the entire 40 years of his leadership (Joshua 5:2-7) thereby nullifying every command regarding the practice from Gen. 17:9 forward, even those laws that ostensibly had came from his own lips and were written down by his own hand; effectively rendering void thereby the entire corpus of YHWH's laws, because sans the rite of circumcision, the Covenant(s) were not at all entered into, and were not in effect.

ISVfan

If you look at it logically you realize that plant life could survive seeds could be buried and then thrive after the water decreased. Or God could have just put more plant life on the earth. It is an interesting question. But then again we are still finding new plant species today in the Amazon and certain dense forest so there really was no way for Noah to gather all the plants on board the ark.

ISVfan

There is quite a bit of evidence for the flood. For instance Creationist believe that the polar ice caps were actually tropical before the flood. And we have found under the layers of ice fossilized tropical plants. Also how did a boat get on top of MT. Arat? Did they build it up there for fun. There is evidence that points to a flood.

Amaleq13

Discussions about Noah's Ark and the Flood in this forum should be restricted to the relevant biblical texts. Discussions about the scientific evidence belong in E/C.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator