Alternative Creations

Or revealed to the folks from whom everyone else descended from.
The better their record-keeping, the more accurate the transmission of the story, and vice versa of course.
I guess I would focus on any common elements, first. The word, flood, seems to come up alot but having not read all of them in their entirety myself, I would have to see all of what that would entail. Then I would look at what would be testable scientifically.
Re. Egyptian chronology, from what I've read about it, it seems to be in some disarray at the moment, which is scaring quite a few scholars it seems, as most Middle Eastern chronology has been based on the Egyptian timetable. If their dates are off for Egypt, then they are off on everyone else in the region too, including Israel.

So are you admitting Christianity has no lock on the truth? It seems you are.

I've posted this before but I remember reading the first part of the "Book of Buddha". That is the part that contains the teachings of the original Buddha from around 700 BC. The teachings were strikingly similar to those of Jesus. Things like love your neighbours and your enemies were totally consistent with what I believed as a Christian. I was left with the feeling that the first Buddha was a true prophet of God.I believe that the Christian faith is the truth but that does not mean that other religions are all wrong.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Well, obviously the word "flood" doesn't appear in these myths, including the original Christian myths.The word "flood" in an English word which has certain meanings. Similiar words with similiar meanings have been translated for us to mean "flood", but as with any translation, it speaks more of the translator than the text.I'm riffing here, I am not a linguist but --
The Babylonian word for "flood" could mean "bathe" or "wash away with water" (something more akin to our idea of a tidal wave).If the person who was translating these myths was a Christian monk, he might find "flood" a good English translation. If the person translating these was from modern Indonesia, they might think "tidal wave" a more suiting translation.Commonality of terms is a tough one.But more importantly, you said - This implies that there is a standard against which you are testing. If the have better record-keeping, then their story is closer to and if poorer they are farther from .

​

What I'm interested in is how you would determine what is the standard and what is a deviation from the standard?

​

In other words if I gave you two stories that were identical except for one thing, one said it rained for 40 days and another said it rained for 60 days. Obviously these two are closely related. But which record keeper is "better" and therefore closer to the "truth".

​

This only gets trickier the more differences you find.

​

Forget Egyptian chronology, try Babylonian, which also predates the Judeo/Christian mythology. Is it more accurate since it's closer to the begining of time? If not, why not?

​

Are you settling on the Christian Flood story as an arbitrary truth and on what grounds?

Is it not also possible that the lessons common to Buddha and Christ are simply the best common sense way to live in groups with other people?

I don't think that your point here really contradicts what he was saying. In fact, you two seem to have strong common ground.Often we get so involved in a discussion that we fail to see where we agree. Saying that the first Buddha's teachings were true, similiar to Christ's, and that they are the best common sense is certainly great ground to share.

Obviously, I meant the idea of a Flood, I do realise these stories were not originally in English, sheesh!!! I was just using the Flood as an example, I have heard of a number of Flood myths from around the world, but obviously there could be other things to look for too in creation myths. For example, if only one Flood story had a seaworthy boat in it, that story might be more likely to be original than the ones without one. Little things like that can be helpful.
However, C.S. Lewis, who was very familiar with myths as it was part of his job as a professor to study them, said the more myths you read, the easier it is to tell the difference between a historical tale and a myth. Historical documents have details in the them that myths wouldn't have, myths have a pattern to their stories for drama's sake that historical documents often don't have.
Babylonian predates Judeo/Christian mythology huh? The start date I've seen for Babylonia is about the 18th century B.C., Abraham lived around 2150BC. Abraham was the beginning of the Hebrew people specifically, so not sure where your figures are from.

How do you figure? By your thinking, wouldn't a story with no boat predate any story which included one.You can't be suggesting that the reason the Christian Flood story is older is because it contains a boat one which the story teller could have sailed.That's like saying that Cannonball Run 3 takes place before the Cannonball Run 1, since there isn't any engine trouble in Cannonball Run 1.Here's some stuff on Babylon Since Babylon is mentioned in a tablet from 23rd cent BC, it's reasonable to assume that it existed before that tablet was etched, and therefore to assume that it's mythology predates it's existance.

Basically we agree but I'm not sure that loving your neighbour is always common sense. How do you do at loving your neighbour who for one reason or another is making life in the neighbourhood not all that it could be. I would suggest that it seems like common sense because we have had written on our consciouness the concepts of right and wrong, and of good and evil.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

So we agree that there are common teachings in some mythos, but back to my original question.Do Creationists discount the myths of other cultures (particularly those that conflict with their account) and on what basis do they claim spiritual superiority over those other religious texts?

I consider myself a creationist because I believe that we are a created universe but I'm not a Biblical literalist so I'm not sure that you would consider me a creationist. I'm quite happy to accept that we could have been created through the process of evolution.Personally I'm inclined to think that the vast majority of myths are based on some actual occurence and that these stories were passed down throughout the oral history of many groups. I contend that when it comes to reading religious texts then we have to look for the lesson that there is for us in the text no matter what our faith is.Where actual differences between religious texts occur, such as the deity of Christ, then it is simply a matter of faith. In the end however I believe that what is important to God is the condition of our heart and not our theology.This message has been edited by GDR, 09-10-2005 10:49 PM

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Sorry you didn't understand my post, to clarify, I meant a seaworthy boat as opposed to an unseaworthy one!!
Re. the last point, this article by this person might be worthy of notice - you may have a point about what I said [(1) below], but you have some hurdles for your view [(2) below] also.
I think [(3) below] is the correct view, having given it more thought (been away from apologetics for quite some time, need to refresh my memory lol).
After all, Nimrod, the founder of Babylon (Gen. 10) and Abraham (Gen. 12) were descendants of two different sons of Noah, seperated by about a century, not much between them at all:
"Three possibilities of relationship between the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis are commonly discussed: (1) that the Epic derived from the Genesis account; (2) that the Genesis account used the Epic as its source; and (3) that both accounts depended on a common source.
The first possibility”that the Epic account derived from the Genesis account”has been discounted because of the dates of the extant copies of the Epic and Genesis. The original compilations of the Epic are older than the original compilations of Genesis. Few scholars would consider this theory credible.
Therefore, lets look at the remaining two popular theories about the relationship between the Epic and Genesis.
The second hypothesis”that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic”has significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows: change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious; write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent; change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved; specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race; add their descendants’ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records; add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds; improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world; specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood; redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating; change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical; specify seven days interval between each test flight; and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic.
Therefore, despite the many similarities between the two accounts, it would have been inconceivable to rewrite the Epic to the Genesis account, the more reliable one, unless the author was not only ethical, creative and logical, but also had enough knowledge about zoology, biology, physics, naval architectural skill, botany and ancient ethnic histories. If one does not accept the Genesis account as an historical record, there is no escaping the fact that an heroic effort has been undertaken to make that account appear to be historical.
Hermann Gunkel can only explain these facts by positing a long history of rewriting:
If a man such as our narrator became acquainted with the Babylonian material, filled with the most crass mythology, he would have only felt disgust. Furthermore, a comparison of the Babylonian and the very different Israelite narratives teaches that a long history must lie between the two.1
The third theory”that both accounts descended from a common origin”is the most plausible one. The Epic was likely derived from the Sumerian story which was probably based on an historical event, though distorted. On the other hand, according to the specifics, scientific reliability, internal consistency, the correspondence to the secular records, and the existence of common elements among the flood traditions around the world, the Genesis account seems to be more acceptable as an accurate historical record. If all human races are descendents of Noah’s three sons, the survivors from the universal Flood, and the two accounts had derived from the same historical event,2 the reason the accounts have many similarities is explicable. As K. A. Kitchen states, it is likely that “The Hebrew and Babylonian accounts may go back to a common ancient tradition, but are not borrowed directly from each other.”3 Even though the Genesis account was written in Hebrew which was used later than Akkadian in which the Epic was written, the historical event of the Flood was much earlier than the publication of the Epic.
Henry Thiessen writes-
First, it is known generally that a considerable portion of the people could read and write as far back as the time of Hammurabi; that genealogical tablets and lists were known in Babylonia centuries before Abraham; that it is possible that Abraham carried cuneiform tablets containing such records with him from Haran to Canaan; and that in this manner Moses may have come into possession of them. Whether because he had access to such records, or because he had only oral tradition, or because he had only a direct revelation from God, or because of a combination of these, conservative scholarship has always held that Moses wrote Genesis.4
Even if Moses had used some source materials which are not extant today, the process of his gathering and compiling them to write Genesis would certainly have been possible, [given his education in Egypt].5 Thus, after investigating the differences between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, it seems reasonable to conclude that the flood account in the Epic is the story which lost historical accuracy and was distorted, whereas the Genesis Flood account is the accurate historical record of the Flood event."
References
1. Gunkel, p. 73.
2. Barton, p. 331.
3. Kitchen, p. 90.
4. Thiessen, p. 51.
5. Vos, p. 44.
About the author-
Nozomi Osanai earned her M.A. writing “A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis” as her thesis while attending Wesley Biblical Seminary in the USA, where she also studied Akkadian. She has also studied at Japan College of Social Work, where she earned her Bachelor of Social Welfare, and Tokyo Biblical Seminary and Kobe Lutheran Theological Seminary where she earned her M.Div.

okay, first off, gotta use "peek" feature to see the code people are using to box quotes and such. Also, please break up text with enter key to help seperate ideas. Big blocks of text are often hard to decipher.Here's the points broken down - Why do few scholars consider this theory credible? They offer no explaination for this statement. The point here basically is that there are differences between the two stories. It goes on to excruciating detail about what the differences are. But, speaking as someone who's just gone through a year of rewrites on a screenplay, it's just pen and paper.As for the points that the author of the Noah account would have to have knowledge of zoology, biology, physics, naval architectural skill, botany and ancient ethnic histories - that simply doesn't follow.Where in the Noah account is there anything that approaches zoology/biology beyond the "two of every animal". What physics are needed for the Noah account? What naval architecture? What botany? And why would they need a knowledge of ethnic histories?You don't need any of these things to write what's there. The flood story is very short and very sparse on specific detail. Huh? Why would it be inconceivable? Also, why is the Genesis account hte more reliable one?Isn't the point of this essay to "prove" that the Genesis account is the more reliable one? You can't very well prove something by simply stating it. Okay, this isn't a bad start for this section. What? Where's the evidence for this? What are these "common elements among the flood traditions" that they are talking about? What "scientific reliability"? What "secular records"? They haven't sited a source or even given an example.Frankly this entire essay looks like it's written as a justification for believing the Noah story over other stories, but does not give any evidence as to why that should be so.Perhaps if we look to source material from outside of the region it would be clearer.Many Native American creation stories involve floods, but no boats. Certainly no, two of every animal. Often the animals are completely unaffected by the floods, or in some cases actually bring the floods. Also, in several cases, it's the animals that save the people from the waters.Clearly, these stories are not decended from the Christian myths, as these people would have been seperate from Noah and his kin for roughly 8,000 years prior to the flood.Do we discount these stories of creation in favor of Biblical Creation, and if so, why?

Or, if you remove personal bias, we know what works best for us as a species and we project that onto our imaginary deities.Why add the silly idea of an old man in the sky?

Whoever told you that the Christian God was an old man in the sky??? The Creator God exists beyond the created universe, God is infinite, eternal, all-knowing and all-powerful, unlike the universe...at least that's what the Bible says about God...where do you get your info from???