Mageth

Split from E/C.

RBH
E/C Moderator


Flood Stories from Around the World

About all that the various flood myths have in common is considerable amounts of water, and typically some people surviving in one way or another. Which is not surprising at all, as that is what floods are. Beyond that, they vary greatly in detail. The commonality, the univeritality, of the "catastrophic flood" experience is sufficient to account for the similarities. Floods happen, so it's not necessary to posit that there must have been one flood to account for all the myths.

Another answer, assuming that all the flood myths disseminated from some single root myth (which is a possibility; another, perhaps more widely accepted explanation is multiple sources that in some cases disseminated regionally), is that there was some much earlier myth from which the Biblical and other myths all derived. Since the Biblical myth appears later than some other more-or-less similar flood myths, the latter is the more probable.

The Biblical account was recorded some 1000 years after the Sumerian myth from which it appears to have derived, from which it appears to have inherited its basic story line with considerable modifications. (Note that it appears that the Biblical flood account is two different versions of the Flood myth that were merged at some point).

And there are other flood myths which predate the Biblical myth or, again assuming there is some ancient root myth for all the flood myths, branched off long before the Biblical myth was recorded (e.g., the Native American myths). The Native Americans were in the Americas long before the Pentateuch was written.

Again, you are grossly overstating the similarities among the world's various flood myths. They also "consist of differences", in other words.

And it's interesting that you call the Biblical account "guarded", when there's some pretty strong indications that it's actually two different versions of the story that were merged. One indication of this is that in one place it speaks of "seven" of clean animals and in another it speaks only of "two" of clean animals.

Another case of pot, kettle, black. You oversell similarities in the various flood myths (and deduce from this that they must all be "unprotected" versions of one original flood account, and that that orginal account must be the Biblical account) but are apparently "retarded" in your ability to recognize that the fossil record shows very clear evidence of common descent.

Commonalities among some of the flood myths INDICATES that at least some of the myths MAY share a common source. Please, state things in more correct terms.

No, we're not talking about "factual events and personages". A Global Flood as recorded in Genesis is not a "factual event", nor are the people recorded therein "factual". To establish them as fact, you need a helluva lot more than the fact that they're stories recorded in an ancient text, and that some other cultures have more-or-less similar accounts in their mythologies.

Not one of the flood myths from around the world has been "corroborated", and not one is "undisputed", and that includes the one we find in Genesis. Nor is the "broad framework corroborated and undisputed.

Roughly analogous basics can be found in some other flood myths, yes, including Sumerian myths that predate the Biblical account. But then, many flood myths differ greatly from even those basics (many do not include a "ship", or a family, or animals, for example).

Even so, floods happen. Some people survive. It's not uncommon for some of them to survive a flood on boats of one kind or another.

That's simply not a unique scenario that requires one source event as an explanation. It's possible that similar events happened at one time or another in many different regions, resulting in different sources for the regional myths.

And, bottom line, the Biblical account records a global flood. There is absolutely no geological evidence that indicates that such a flood has happend over the last tens of thousands of years. Add to that the impossibility of a flood such as that described in Genesis, and various other factors, and this whole discussion is rather pointless anyway. Such a flood as the one recorded in Genesis simply did not occur, and could not have occurred.

Demonstrably not true.

There is an example of something that is not demonstrably true.

No, it's not. It would be called an alternative hypothesis to explain the evidence. I.e., positing that floods have similarities (lots of water and some people surviving) is sufficient to explain what similarities we actually do see in the various flood myths is an alternative hypothesis.

What's dogmatic, BTW, is to assert that the "origin source" is, must be, the Bible, and that that source was "protected" while other accounts weren't and to use various insults to denigrate anyone who does not agree with your dogmatic assumptions.

Bzzt. Wrong.

Funny; I might say something quite similar about those that believe in the literalness of the Genesis myths (creation and flood).

If you'll read what I said above, you'll see that I did much more than "assert contrary to facts and logic". And your "facts" are questionable at best, and your logic fails as well.

Interesting that you accuse me of using a strawman below...

Where is the evidence for the Global Flood as described in the Bible? Geology has certainly found none. Nor has archaeology. Nor anthropology. The argument from the similarity of world flood mythologies fails miserably as evidence.

I'll "spam" you again: There is no evidence that supports the Biblical Flood account. None. Nada. That stands until you actually produce some.

You originally said "Worldwide Flood accounts were recorded because a Flood happened." I thought the Biblical account had them "obviously" all drowned but the eight on the Ark. But you implied in that statement that there were people recording different accounts of the flood.

Perhaps just an example of poor phraseology on your part...

My statement was not circular.

Considering all the evidence presented for the Biblical Flood account, both pro and con, and in light of the absence of evidence from geology, anthropology, etc to corroborate the account, and on top of that the physical impossibility of the events described therein (there simply ain't enough water, it's not possible for it to rain that much that fast, etc etc) it is evident that such an event never happened. (You have presented no evidence that successfully supports the "facts" of the Biblical flood - your "argument from similarity" fails miserably in that regard). Therefore, it's a myth. That's what we call supernatural accounts of events that never happened.

Really? Because I was not aware of that, if it's supposed to be "well known". I don't automatically deem "anything which supports a miracle" to be a myth. I would consider it evidence, and take it into consideration. If it does not hold up, if it does not support the "miracle", then I will say so.

The Flood Account from the Bible is one example of a "miracle" for which the evidence simply is not there (there is no geological evidence to support the Flood), or does not hold up to scrutiny (as does not your argument from the similarity of myths).

What makes things myths to me is when they are not demonstrably true or are demonstrably untrue, and thus are deserving of the label "myth". Many of those have "miraculous" or supernatural themes or elements, but that's not necessary.

To rise above the "myth" label, it's necessary for those claiming they are true to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, and for that evidence to hold up to scrutiny.

You simply haven't done that for the Flood, nor has anyone else who's argued for the truth of the Biblical Flood account. Thus, it remains a myth.

The question is, what else should anyone conclude based on the evidence, or lack thereof, in regards to the Biblical Flood?

To help you out, I'm an atheist, and I'll repeat it: The Flood Account being a myth has nothing to do with protecting "the validity of atheist worldview" (sic).

It's true, so it can't be a strawman. There are a lot of theists that believe the Biblical Flood story to be a myth.

This is laughable. I don't perceive Genesis as having any "weight of credibility" at all. That should be rather obvious.

How comic. And kind of sad, really. (And how was what I said "seeking Biblical support", anyway???)

No, it's really saying that I've not seen any evidence that supports a Biblical miracle. You haven't presented any to me. Nor has anyone else.

I don't know, since I've not seen any evidence that supports a Biblical miracle (outside of the stories someone wrote down a long time ago claiming they happened - which are not evidence that supports the truthfulness of themselves).

What evidence? You, like so many, claim to have "voluminous evidence", but when pressed it's sorely lacking.

If you've got evidence that falsifies the atheistic worldview, please present it.

That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I take that back; it's now the second stupidest thing I've ever heard.

This jewel was brought to you by someone that believes Noah had a magic cloak he inherited from Adam!

Only to the terminally gullible. The rest of us swallow what ancient people wrote down with a grain of salt, and look for objective ways to corroborate what they wrote down.

You're quite confused. A fossil would be objective evidence. And the fossil record tells its own story, which we fortunately are able to read.

It's late, and I've already waded through enough bullshit to want to wade through the bullshit in the above paragraph.

Though that last statement ("even though they spend every waking moment corrupting the written text of the Bible for obvious reasons") makes my top three lists of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

badger3k

Let's see. Perhaps because given human nature, and the limited knowledge of the time, there are very few possibilities for details. The myths that have such a flood have to explain several things, namely: how did people and animals survive (or how were more created)? The flood and the survival were usually seen as a reward or promise by some deity.

Let's look at a few. The Navajo have one. In their First World, the Insect people find their world flooding, so they fly up until the find a hole in the sky that leads to a second world, where they continued the tale through three other lands. Now the only resemblance is that the people were "sinning" and the gods warned them to stop. When they didn't, a council was held and the decision was to end the world. (from Raymond Friday Locke, the Book of the Navajo). Sounds like Noah to me. Where did Noah fly to again?

I can't find any flood myth in the Norse mythology, exceptpossibly for Ragnarock (IIRC, but maybe not - I remember fire was involved). Nor can I find one in the Greek mythology I have.

An Australian aboriginal myth has the flood coming from the mouth of a frog, with humans seeming almost incindental (here.

From American Indian, the story of Prarie Falcon and the flood (here, and it looks to me on a quick read that the only similarity is that of a mountain, with Dove looking for people (rather than land, but it's the same bird).

The myth of the Coos people (NW USA), has people climbing to the highest land, and animals arriving in pairs here

The babylonian Deluge story (go down a bit - here) and here.

The Popul Vuh's flood text, which is...interesting, but sounds nothing like the biblical flood (here).

Here's one from the Inca (here). It appears that there are multiple stories, with some having survivors, and others having none, with Viracocha making men afterward).

Ok, I used older sources mostly, and all can be seen at the Sacred Texts archive through the links. From that general search, I found very little that fits with the idea that most regions had myths that paralleled the Biblical account. The closest that can be said is the Babylonian/Sumerian myth (surprise). If you have more sources, please post links or give the books (author and title are usually sufficient to get them from a library). I am most interested in this vast similarity.
Um, nope, not on my research and my memory covering mythology over 37 years of life.

Well, some cultures had worlds destroyed by fire, and sometimes there never was a flood. Some of the myths related above had people saved by climbing to mountains, or even flying through a hole in the sky (a stargate?)
Afraid not. Many disagree or even have no similarity (although I can guess that some kind of connection will be made by you)
Since we've seen no evidence for this "common denominator", the conclusion is dubious at best.

Wait - the ones who accept the existence of God are rational? So they are really irrational...which means they deny the existence of God? Or do the people who believe in God admit they are being irrational, since the belief in God is apparently rational...?

Exactly why I believe in Herakles. Obviously the vast amount of ancient reports on him are true.

I guess any way to rationalize away the evidence.... Actually, since many of the creationists claim to use many of such "evidence" as the supposed human footprint in the dinosaur path...well, they are manipulating evidence then? Do we see some honesty here or is it just wishful thinking?

badger3k

I spend time looking up individual myths, and it's collected in the FAQ! I went to the Noah's ark page (I have it bookmarked but only scrolled through it) but didn't see a link (just to a book reference). Gah! I gotta fix my bookmarks, and go into that site in more detail than I have been...

Monad

I find it astonishing that anyone would want to try and justify a callous act of mass murder on behalf of their "god". It's the same with the Sodom and Gomorrah episode and countless others. These were stories that helped propel me on the path towards Atheism in my early teens - I decided that if these stories were true then this "god" would have to be an evil, hideous and self serving monster and would not be worthy of worship in any sense. I think that's why most sensible Christians don't believe they are literally true and see them as metaphor or parables or even quaint folk myths of some sort. Who wants to worship someone who casually wipes every single human being and animal off the face of the world apart from the one family cowardly enough to prostrate themselves before such a monster?

WILLOWTREE

3145 BC source: Rutherford, Book III Ancient Chronology, (1957) page 672.

Because its true.

WT

Jack the Bodiless

...Which would be nearly a thousand years before the Biblical date.

So Rutherford is a greater authority than Genesis? And what's he basing that date on?

Clivedurdle

3145BC .

WILLOWTREE

They post the accounts for only ONE reason:

Attempting to portray that it means nothing = admission that evidence does not matter.

IOW, evidence is only evidence which supports our pseudo-atheist science.

Yawning about specific similarity in order to discount the irrefutable common denominator evidence.

Here your reply begins by casting all the Flood accounts as MYTH.

IOW, you are admitting that despite the voluminous evidence it still didn't happen because miracles cannot happen because God does not exist = standard atheist philosophy.

IOW, despite any evidence YOUR atheism will just assert the evidence as myth anyway.

You are arguing and defending atheist worldview philosophy in response to voluminous impossible to invent worldwide evidence.

You are saying: Opponent: Such a flood as the one recorded in Genesis simply did not occur, and could not have occurred.

There is the totality of your defense against the evidence = standard atheist beliefs that it is impossible for a miracle to occurr. Therefore, any evidence which supports is not real evidence.

All you are doing is the above through-out your long lengthy post.

Round and round - deny, deny, deny = what medieval religious morons did = what their enemies do now who are in control.

IOW, you retreat to philosophy in response to evidence = dogma.

Atheist Professor Kai Nielson said it doesn't matter how much evidence exists supporting a miracle if the conclusion is an irrational concept (God).

IOW, evidence doesn't matter.

Your post proves this ad nauseum

Excellent example of brazen defiance of all logic.

Further proof that no matter what : "Miracles cannot occurr" one answer fits all "refutation".

Stale predictible atheist presupposition written as settled fact.

Brazen assertion discounting similarity evidence for obvious reasons.

IOW, no matter what, atheist worldview will be protected via blatantly defective logic.

Similarity in stories is spectacular evidence whether you admit it or not.

<edit>

It demands they do.

Not a matter of opinion.

The only barrier here is the protection of your worldview at the expense of truth.

IOW, similarity is "scientific fact" when fossils are the subject, but when reports produced by human beings across the world are found consistent the common denominators will be yawned at only because the implication proves a major Biblical claim which if true falsifies ToE in its tracks.

I understand you deliberately trying to appear calm tactic of asserting the evidence contrary to its obvious meaning and implication.

Attempt to assert Genesis is not factual despite the voluminous evidence.

Again, you are just synonymously repeating atheist philosophy and asserting it to refute the voluminous facts.

Text of antiquity were written to preserve facts that would otherwise be lost.

IOW, you are simply asserting history reports are not true only because your theory and worldview is on the line.

Your quote above is once again standard atheist philosophy/excuse making.

Your quote above really says evidence does not matter.

Brazen reversal of logic = enraged dogma artist defending atheism despite the evidence.

The existence of the accounts makes them corroborated and undisputed.

Biblical predates Sumerian = long established fact embraced by everyone but atheists - no surprise.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

Click on the above link and scroll down a little.

The Chart and its facts can ONLY be explained by saying a Great Flood happened, a family and animals were spared on a ship, and a Deity was in control.

It is impossible to assert everyone worldwide decided to invent the same untrue myth with all these common denoms.

This is spectacular evidence - irrefutable.

Atheist/evo denial/discounting proves the Romans 1 wrath of God penalty claim = either way the Bible is proven true.

Here are more links that all say and prove ONE thing:

The common denoms worldwide are a fact.

This is abundant evidence proving the common denoms.

Atheists using brazenly bad logic just assert contrary as their defense = evidence does not matter.

But literally a few fossils scattered around Africa and elsewhere are asserted to be proof that humans evolved = sweetheart exemption to normal scientific standards that abundant evidence determines facts.

Pure hypocrisy and obscene rebellion against the God of the Bible endlessly packaged as science defended by philosophy.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Flood-accounts.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0311b.htm

Be sure to examine the Chinese characters in this link.

This evidence is beyond spectacular.

Also, did someone say Greek legends lacked a Flood story ? (lol !)

http://www.crystalinks.com/floodstories.html (all four continuing pages).

WT

Monad

So it's OK for this god of yours to be a mass murderer then?

badger3k

Well, we're still waiting for evidence of commonality within the various myths. When pointed out the fact that many have no similarity except a flood was involved, you argue back that there is more in common. Show it.
Please show the similarities.

Which indicates that the chart was made based upon the assumption that the flood is true, not the other way around. Please back up your assertion that the Sumerian civilization is younger than the Hebrew. We're talking Sumerian, not Babylonian. Big difference. (here). Note that the Sumerians were approx 3500 BCE, while the Babylonians were 16th-6th century BCE (here).

Further, since most archaeologists are probably Christian (given the preponderance of the religion in Western society), I highly doubt that only atheists believe that the Bible is not as old as other civilizations. Most scholars put its creation around 1000 BCE or so, although there is debate on that (the oldest I am aware of puts it at roughly 1450 BCE). Clearly a lot younger than Sumerian civilization.

Further, the myths you've stated have no sources and are only 35 in number. How many myths are there that are not related? How many flood myths in total? How many civilization lack any myths at all relating to floods?

Why aren't the myths I've included present on that chart? Why aren't the talkorigins myths given on that chart? Counting the links gives 262 myths. So if they didn't include those, does that mean that there are 228 flood myths that do not relate?

Actually it is refutable. Flood myths are common because floods occur the world over. Wherever there is water, there are floods. Same with fire. There are many civilizations that have the "world" destroyed by fire. ANother common occurrence.

I do like the viracocha legend they provide, brothers who survive with their llamas, who repopulate the earth...I'm not sure, but somehow, I doubt that we come from human/llama crossbreeds.

No, one website is not enough. Provide some more of the imformation I suggest above, then we can evaluate it.

Considering your lack of knowledge on mythology and archaeology, you shouldn't be laughing too hard. Since I was the one who missed the Deucalon story, I can respond to that - I was looking at the creation myths in another book, and didn't bother with Plato (since that is where the story seems to have been related to re:a quick google search).