steve_bnk

Moved from Thundering Legion

Duvduv

I have already explained the fact that both views rely on faith rather than empirical evidence. We both know this to be true.

steve_bnk

You need to change your profile from Orthodox Jew to Agnostic Jew unless you start actually stating something affirmative.

The physical evidence is the physical records of the myths preceding oldest surviving records of the Torah. Plus estimates of the Jewish time scales.

Duvduv

Why do people have to get PERSONAL in exchanges? Why can't discussions be kept on the level of ideas??
I guess Steve that's because you know as well as I that there is no empirical proof and that reliance is on FAITH in the hypotheses of others. You have your faith and I have mine. Pretty simple I would say.

steve_bnk

Hardly a personal attack. Obvious agnostic 'no proof either way' responses as opposed to orthodoxy.

For an orthodox Christian, Jew, or Muslim admitting to any possibility other than the faith seems like an impossibility, a self contradiction.

I do not begrudge you religious faith, on the contrary as a Jeffersonian democrat I believe we are all free to seek truth s we see fit.

The problem I/we have with theists of all persuasions is the attempts to prove faith by debunking science, archeology, and history and when they fail resort to claims of personal attack and the like.

A typical end game theist is to infer us non believers have a faith analogous to religion, which is false. The idea being our rejection of religion is no more supportable than religion, therefore religion in a sense is validated.

The idea being we can not disprove god and scripture, therefore we are no different than theists. The difference is the claim or hypothesis is made by theists, to which we simply say we se eno proof as offered. It is not faith in the non existence of a god, it is the lack of evidence by theists to support their claims...such as Noah and Exodus. Ma

So, do you believe in the Noah tale, even if just by faith? Is it literal to you?

The world is not going to end if you say yes. It is a matter of intellectual honesty. Let us know who you are.

Do you believe Gilgamesh was preceded by the Noah story?

1. Yes
2. No.
3. I do not know it could be either way.

I imagine it can get very uncomfortable when an orthodox of any Abrahamic faith begins to have doubts as to biblical legitimacy or is unable to counter strong arguments.

Duvduv

I am not on trial here. But if you really wanted to engage me personally you would not need to do it on the Forum but in private correspondence. But since you are so interested, yes, the story in the Torah (and in other texts) is the boiler plate of all subsequent stories that evolved elsewhere. You asked me, I responded.

In any event the way you present the issue is highly oversimplified.
If you spent time reviewing traditional Jewish exegesis and commentary you would know that although the general framework of the events of the Torah are known and agreed upon, the nuances and details vary.

For example, there was a flood. Discussion of commentators focuses on whether the flood covered the whole earth or only certain parts of the earth.

Noah lived to be 600. Is this literally 600 years, was it a general lifetime in those days or was it restricted to certain individuals listed in the Torah?
Such areas of inquiry are so large, that one could spend a whole year on this single story and all the aspects involved, using all the exegetes, midrashim, Zohar, commentaries, etc.

But I think this is really a subject for a one-on-one discussion.

steve_bnk

The forum is biblical criticism and history, it is not a chat room, and theism is very much on trial here.

The links provided would say Gilgamesh in the earliest surviving records predates Jews. Noah appears to be an outright plagiarism.


Ok. the question for you is a global or local flood. That woid seem to bring the story into question if it were not global.

If not literal did Noah as Jewish myth inspire Gilgamesh as you cited as a s possibility?

I can assume then orthodox Judaism does not infer biblical literalism?

Tristan Scott

The thing is, unlike Christians, Jews are not afraid to at least stretch their minds a bit when it comes to scripture. They can discuss scripture, even in controversial ways-not fearing excommunictaion or other censure from the consensus-and still maintain their faith. In the Hertz Chumash Rabbi Hertz makes the following suggestion:

Referring to the Gilgamesh story which differs from the Noah story chiefly in the motivation of the gods for causing the flood in the first place, which Rabbi Hertz says that God clears up in the telling of the Noah story.

steve_bnk

You can say the same about Christians and even the RCC to some degree which now allows for evolution. True Christian total biblical literalists are only a small part of Christianity.

Duvduv

When referring to literalism in the Torah, Orthodox Judaism relies on the words of the text in conjunction with the targums and commentaries, Midrash, etc. For example, when Abraham took Isaac to Moriah, the verse says "Take your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac." Now of course we know that this refers to Isaac, but the interest goes beyond that, i.e. why does the verse have to mention 4 elements. The commentaries explain that this is because Abraham responded to God that he had TWO sons, and then, that each son was his ONLY son by a different mother, and then that he loved EACH of them, and then was told it was to be Isaac.

So does the story begin and end with what is written in the Torah? The answer is no.