Message 161 of 320 (631522) 09-01-2011 3:21 PM

quote:

---

I'd like to discuss ancient flood legends worldwide...

---

Were I attempting to "prove" the worldwide flood, and did so through citing widespread flood legends, I would go to Ovid's Metamorphosis:

quote:

---

Then he called
The winds and clouds, and bade them storm the earth
With floods of water; and the thing was done.
All landmarks slid beneath the rising waves;
There was no shoreline; all below was sea.
Some few surviving humans were in boats,
Riding above the roofs where once they dwelt,
Or fishing from the tree tops where the birds
Were displaced by strange creatures of the deep.
All but sea-creatures perished presently;
Some drowned; the rest died for the want of food.

---

quote:

---

From all the human thousands, and these two
Were kindly folk, and lovers of the gods.
Thus seeing, he dispersed the sullen clouds,
And stopped the rains, so the fair sky once more
Was seen from earth. Then Neptune and his son,
The reedy Triton, sounded on their shells,
To rule the rampant sea, and bade it turn
Back to its ordered bed; and it obeyed,
From east to west. Again, there was a shore
To ocean, and the rivers knew their bounds.
From the subsiding waters, hills emerged.
Then after many days, there was firm soil
And growing trees, with leaves still marked by mud.
Earth was restored, but on it nothing moved

---

the entirety of Ovid's flood narrative can be read at: http://department.monm.edu/...en%20flood_story_from_ovid.htm

If I were to set aside all physical evidence for the purposes of discussion, and relied entirely upon the myths and stories passed down through various religions and traditions, I might come to the conclusion that a flood did actually happen.

Which makes sense from the point of view that floods are widespread, can be catastrophic, and through diffusion it makes sense that there would be some overlap in the stories coming from peoples related to each other and from societies that interacted or have some other form of relationship in a given region. Especially when you consider historical flood events that must have had tremendous impacts upon human populations (black sea, expansion of the mediterranean sea, flooding of populated areas in what is now the British channel, etc) and how these narratives might survive and evolve through the centuries in verbal traditions.

What I *don't* understand is how someone can default to the position that these stories are somehow corruptions of the biblical narrative, and not the other way around. Even if we were to accept a world wide flood (purely for the purposes of discussion -- I don't accept it for a moment), why wouldn't the Genesis account be rightfully regarded as a possible corruption of, say, the Etruscan / Latin / etc traditions? Of course this does not mention the likelihood of actual Mesopotamian roots for myth.

The only conclusion I can come to is that, believing the biblical account to be literally true, the defender of the position will warp and generate "evidence" to support their viewpoint while willfully ignoring anything which may lead to a contrary viewpoint. In my mind, those folks are more concerned with worshiping a work of man (the Bible) than any God which may exist.

We can learn a great deal about history through our myths; they can be windows to real events, and studying them can help us understand how our ancestors perceived and dealt with real world events. We use words like "semi-legendary" to describe figures who probably existed, but whose lives have been expanded beyond whatever was real. Noah, or whatever name you come up with, might well represent the real survivor (or survivors) of a catastrophic regional flood, but when you bend history (not to mention the sciences) to fit the brief narrative in a bronze age text, you lose credibility in my mind.

I suppose a valid point is this: even *if* tomorrow we all decided that there was a world wide flood, it would just as much prove the Latin mythos as the Judaeo Christian narrative. The literalist gains nothing from these arguments, and only makes themselves look ignorant, whether in history, geology, or literature.

Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

Message 165 of 320 (631552) 09-01-2011 6:38 PM

Reply to: Message 164 by IamJoseph 09-01-2011 6:09 PM

That 'logic' just doesn't make sense. You are essentially saying that because the legend exists, it must be true.

Where do you draw the line? If your logic holds, Jupiter, Juno and the rest are real beings, no?

Why is it more logical to you that the solution is a global flood and not catastrophic regional flood(s) giving rise to these stories? Or (banish the thought!) possibly just fiction?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Message 167 of 320 (631569) 09-01-2011 7:29 PM

Reply to: Message 166 by IamJoseph 09-01-2011 7:00 PM

That statement is pretty epic. For one thing, how do you address the older Mesopotamian texts which seem to provide a 'source' for the Hebrew texts?

Frankly, the statement is astounding. There are civilizations that have written records from before the time that the Hebrews were even literate (Sumerians, Egyptians, etc) How can these relative newcomers on the ancient scene provide the most credible writings? On what basis can you possibly make that claim?

Sure, the writings have plenty in them that are verifiable (places, certain names, etc), however so do the records of Egypt, for example.

And speaking of that, those records provide evidence of Egyptian writing going way back beyond 3,000 BC -- how could you possibly make that jive with a flood that would have interrupted and wiped out that very civilization, a flood which did not apparently interrupt the cultural development or archaeological record of *any* of the peoples studied across northern Africa, Southwest Asia, or Europe?

We should see obvious signs of migration starting in an epicenter around the mountains of Ararat starting sometime around 4,500 years ago. We see no such evidence; it should be blindingly obvious to archaeologists. Instead, what we have is a consistent pattern of settlement and development. The only way you can make that case is if you dismiss out of hand *all* established methods of dating, and only accept the biblical account and timing based upon a modern, literal reading of *one text*.

Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.