Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jedi Mind Trick · 05-04-2012, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

This forum is heavy into Hjesus

Not enough of these flood myth legend debates here.

100% myth? or a historical core?

Im betting no one can reasonably dispute that Noahs legend originates in Mesopotamia.

Im betting no one can reasonably dispute that Mesopotamian's migrated to Israel after 1200 BC bringing these earlier legends with them.

Im betting no one can dispute the fact there are multiple flood legends originating from Mesopotamia, the exact same place Noah is said to originate from.

The oldest of these flood legends is a river flood where a man goes down the Euphrates on a barge loaded with livestock and good's where he lands next to a hill and burns a animal sacrifice.

heres the kicker

There was a real man Ziusudra mentioned on the kings list, this is the same man in the legend

The flood is real. The Euphrates flooded in 2900 BC after a 6 day thunderstorm on a already swollen river. this flood devistated the flat land surrounding the river.

no flood legends exist in the area previous to the attested flood, and many afterwards.

Noahs flood solved.

I do believe the mesopotamian myths are the source of the Noah myth. I think it has a historical core, perhaps Ziusudra is the closest to the truth, but Noah is largely embellished.

sotto voce · 05-04-2012, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

I do believe the mesopotamian myths are the source of the Noah myth. I think it has a historical core, perhaps Ziusudra is the closest to the truth, but Noah is largely embellished.

There's not much point to the story, then.

Jedi Mind Trick · 05-04-2012, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

I do believe the mesopotamian myths are the source of the Noah myth. I think it has a historical core, perhaps Ziusudra is the closest to the truth, but Noah is largely embellished.

There's not much point to the story, then.

Yeah, that's sort of why the hebrews embellished it, don't you think?

sotto voce · 05-04-2012, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

I do believe the mesopotamian myths are the source of the Noah myth. I think it has a historical core, perhaps Ziusudra is the closest to the truth, but Noah is largely embellished.

There's not much point to the story, then.

Yeah, that's sort of why the hebrews embellished it, don't you think?

Nobody can embellish nothing.

Jedi Mind Trick · 05-04-2012, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

Yeah, that's sort of why the hebrews embellished it, don't you think?

Nobody can embellish nothing.

Who said it was nothing? The Ziusudra epic held no gravity for the hebrews so they worked it into their own story. What's your point?

sotto voce · 05-04-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Nobody can embellish nothing.

Who said it was nothing?

You.

Jedi Mind Trick · 05-04-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

Who said it was nothing?

You.

No, that was you who said there was no point. Look, I'm not into bandying wits with someone like you. :wave:

funinspace · 05-04-2012, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

While attempts to dismiss the remains of the Ur flood as merely windblown sand are unsubstantiated and probably unsubstantiatable, the two "scientific" examinations of materials from the Ur flood stratum are, by modern standards, vague and inconclusive. The same situation prevails at Kish and Shuruppak (Raikes, 1967, pp. 52-63). In all probability, the finds do represent floods, but the exact character of those events—fluvial or marine, rapid or slow deposition, unitary or episodic—remains unknown. The hydrology of southern Mesopotamia is very complex. Renewed excavation and modern scientific techniques could probably solve many of these questions, but current political and military conditions would seem to preclude any such activity in the near future. Until the situation changes, there are no compelling grounds on which to conclude that the Flood story found its ultimate beginning in an actual event that has been identified at Kish and Shuruppak or anywhere else in Mesopotamia.

I disagree with said person.

no one really disputes the attested flood of 2900 BC. As far as I know you only have one person [MacDonald] stating he's not sure about he flood. Everyone else is fine with the data.

MacDonald isn’t questioning the existence of the 2900 BCE flood, he is questioning the ability to tie the fable to this one flood.

As far as I know, Samuel Noah Kramer never firmly tied the flood fable back to this one dated flood of 2900 BCE. And he did like comparing/dissecting Biblical parallels. In summary, I don’t see your surety in the archeological world.

Author unmentioned, but appears to be a fairly professional site:
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLi...tamiaSumer.htm

Quote:

The Sumerian king list also mentions a great flood, and excavations in Iraq have shown evidence of a flood which left deposits at Shuruppak, Uruk and Kish somewhere between 2900-2750 BC. The king of Kish, Etana, supposedly founded the first post-diluvian Sumerian dynasty: 'after the Flood, the kingship was handed down from Heaven a second time, this time to the city of Kish which became the seat of kingship.' The flood might have been no worse than that experienced in south-western England during summer 2007, but to a purely agrarian society it might have seemed like the end of the world.

Jona Lendering:
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood5.html

Quote:

This suggests that the rulers before the Flood can be dated to Early Dynastic I, and the Deluge, accordingly, to c.2750. The Šuruppak flood fits this date, and it is perhaps not a coincidence that the hero of Eridu Genesis, the Epic of Atrahasis, and the Epic of Gilgameš is a king of Šuruppak. It is likely, therefore, that the event that is behind the myth of the Great Flood can be dated to the end of Early Dynastic I period.

sotto voce · 05-04-2012, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

Who said it was nothing?

You.

No, that was you who said there was no point.

So who built an ark? The animals?

All you've got is a flood that went up, then went down.

That, Mind Trick, is...

nothing!

Quote:

Look, I'm not into bandying wits with someone like you.

No surprise there.

Jedi Mind Trick · 05-04-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

No, that was you who said there was no point.

So who built an ark? The animals?

If there's any truth to the story it's more likely closer to the Ziusudra epic. A raft with a few animals...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

All you've got is a flood that went up, then went down.

That, Mind Trick, is...

nothing!

No, it just isn't the extremely unlikely story that's presented by Noah. What's simple gets overblown by subsequent peoples. It's not a very difficult concept, now is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Look, I'm not into bandying wits with someone like you.

No surprise there.

Quit goading me, it's against the forum rules you know.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.