MrDarwin

Come on, as others have already pointed out floods happen all the time and given their devastating effect on any community it's not surprising that some of the bigger ones end up in a culture's mythology. The fact that these myths differ in so many details should strongly suggest they don't have a common origin, and are not describing the same real-life events.

Many cultures around the world also have myths about talking animals. So surely that means that animals were a lot more chatty in the past than they are today?

So... anybody care to collect drought stories from around the world? (Although I have no doubt the fundamentalist Christians would twist those to fit the bible, too.)

ps418

Well, if the Genesis story is true, then all of these flood stories are descended with modification from Noah and family. If the Genesis story is true, then there can not be any independent corroboration, because everyone but Noah and family died in the flood. Its not like all these different cultures could have experienced the flood, survived it, and then wrote independent accounts of it. Another point to keep in mind is that there is little reason to think that the Genesis version itself is original -- a very similar version of the story existed for hundreds of years in Mesopotamia before the days of Moses.

And what reason if any is there to think that this is not dependent on Genesis?

Patrick

Viti

Thanks again guys...I had never been confronted with this before...and finding dates to compare is difficult. One is claiming the Inuits had the Genesis story "when they crossed the land bridge" (claims he has supporting evidence, though can't imagine what that would be )

Working with myths and oral traditions has its own set of difficulties for me because I can't slam down a date of origin. Didn't mean to sound like I am stupid or believe any of their crap...just trying to find the best way to argue it.

Jimmy Higgins

YOu can't. Take all the evidence to the table you want, it just doesn't matter. These people think the world is only 6000 years old! There is no reasoning with them. There are few questions that have been asked to them that they haven't yet "answered".

The funny thing is that we have all these flood narratives, yet how many of these come from cultures that claim the earth is merely 6000 years old?

River

-this article is by a well known scientist named Maurice Bucaille


The Narration of the Flood Contained in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an gives a general version which is different from that contained in the Bible and does not give rise to any criticisms from a historical point of view.

It does not provide a continuous narration of the Flood. Numerous suras talk of the punishment inflicted upon Noah's people. The most complete account of this is in sura 11, verses 25 to 49. Sura 71, which bears Noah's name, describes above all Noah's preachings, as do verses 105 to 115, sura 26. Before going into the actual course taken by events, we must consider the Flood as described in the Qur' an by relating it to the general context of the punishment God inflicted on communities guilty of gravely infringing His Commandments.

Whereas the Bible describes a universal Flood intended to punish ungodly humanity as a whole, the Qur'an, in contrast, mentions several punishments inflicted on certain specifically defined communities.

This may be seen in verses 35 to 39, sura 25:
"We gave Moses the Scripture and appointed his brother Aaron with him as vizier. We said: Go to the people who have denied Our signs. We destroyed them completely. When the people of Noah denied the Messengers, We drowned them and We made of them a sign for mankind. (We destroyed the tribes) of Âd and Tamud, the companions of Rass and many generations between them. We warned each of them by examples and We annihilated them completely."

gcameron

I don't see how multiple flood stories constitute any more evidence for a Biblical Flood than a single flood story would do.

Here's why: if the Flood really happened as described in the Bible, everyone died except Noah and his family. So the Flood story must have had only one source; so any stories located in other traditions *must* have come via post-flood cultural diffusion. They could not count as "independent observations" of the flood, since all besides Noah & Sons who saw it would be dead.

So, since cultural diffusion *must* be the case, then I don't see much of an advantage over a non-Biblical model, in which a modest flood (i.e., some have hypothesized the Black Sea filling in) is the source for all subsequent stories. Either way, the story must spread; it can't have been observed at multiple source-points. We must then only account for the exaggeration of a modest flood into a world-swallowing one. But it's not like myths and legends ever exaggerate...

gcameron

Whoops, sorry Patrick -- you made exactly the same point and I was too lazy to read it.

Kuu

I do not agree with this. Though there are legends that are only variations of stories that missionaries introduced there is also the Myth about Tiddalick the Frog.

Tiddalick was an enormous frog the drank all the water causing a great drought and man and all the other animals were thirsty. It was decided that they would have to make Tiddalick laugh and then he would have to release the water. All the animals tried but in the end it was the Eel that managed to get him to laugh (in some variation of the stories it is the platypus). When he chuckled he released strems of water but he started to laugh hard and all the water was released causing a flood.

After the water was released Tiddalick shrank in size until he was only a small frog. His descendants are still around, and in time of drought aboriginals dig them up out of the dry sand and drink the water inside them.

I think this flood story is so unlike the Biblical Flood story that it evolved before missionaries came. The flood was not a punishment, it followed a drought, it explains the water-holding frog, and no-one escaped to the mountains (no big mountains in the part of Australia the story originated in perhaps?)

Kuu

BTW isn't it only natural that there would be similarities between flood stories? Such stories don't even need to be influenced by the Biblical story

I mean what is more natural then to head for high ground in a flood?

And isn't it obvious that if the area is flooding one has more chance of survival if one is in a canoe or boat and many people would use one to reach the high country?

And if one is fleeing a flood it is wise to grab some food to take with you including your precious lifestock?

The fact that the Tiddalick story is quite different can be explained.

1) It comes from a region where the land is quite flat
2) A region where canoes were not used because there were usually no big bodies of water.
3) The aboriginals had no live stock

Duck!

I don't think that ancient Irish Celtic myths have a flood included, although that some of the very early myths have had a flood shoehorned in by later Christian missionaries to make it seem like early Irish settlers were descendants of Noah who settled in Ireland after the flood settled.

Another Christian myth hammered into Irish Celtic mythology is the story that a legendary first century king of Ulster, Conor (or Concobhar) heard a story about an innocent guy called Christ being crucified despite being a swell guy who was the son of God. Conor was so outraged that he apparently hopped onto his horse in full Celtic armour and tried to save Christ but fell over and killed himself.

At least that's the story that I learnt at Primary School. I do think that Christian medieval scribes who were responsible for copying biblical, esp. Gospel manuscripts may have taken poetic license and shoehorned their Xtian mythology into an older established mythology in Ireland. As a results I think that some of the most famous pre 1st millenium mythological writing in Ireland may have been "tainted" by Christian sources.

I do have a set of fanstastically illustrated books by leading Irish mythological artist, Jim Fitzpatrick, which although it doesn't dwell on these flood myths hammed into very early Irish mythology, simply incorporates them as part of a larger mythological traditon and treats the flood as part of that mythology.

Despite it's obvious sources.



Duck!