Is belief in God or the Bible necessary to believe in a massive flood.

quote:

---

What got me thinking is this: even if you do not believe in the innerancy of the Bible, you still have to consider that before it was a religious book, it was a historical manuscript, and that it talks about a major flooding-water event in the recent past. You also have to consider that other cultures around the world talk about a similar event, such as the gilgamesh epic (no matter which one came first).

---

That is not entirely true. It is a mistake to speak of the Bible as a single work and even if some parts are histories, others are not. Genesis is more myth and legend.

quote:

---

Now this is the thing. Is it possible to explore the idea of a major cataclysmic water event in the past regardless to the fact that the manuscripts have become a religious book ?

---

It depends on what sort of flood you're talking about. The flooding of the Black Sea was talked about as a possible origin of the story, although work done since then indicates that the flooding was slower and less catastrophic than originally thought. An exceptionally severe local flood is possible, of course.

quote:

---

This idea first came to me when reports started coming out a couple of years ago that such a major (almost planetwide) event may had happened on Mars. But it seems that this possibility is somehow unacceptable in the case of the earth.

---

Assuming that your interpretation of the Mars data is correct (and that may well not be the case) I'll tell you the difference in one word. Evidence. There wouldn't be any suggestion that such an event had happened on Mars unless evidence had been found. That evidence is NOT present on Earth.

quote:

---

Once again, I do not want piles of evidence for or against such an event, just discuss if you can believe in naturalism and still accept the idea of such an event as possible.

---

Without leaving physical evidence that it had happened ? No.

quote:

---

I didn't mean to present the OT as a single work, but since what we are talking refers almost solely on genesis and the other writings of Moses, than it is pretty much a single work.

---

Well there aren't any writings of Moses, and you won't find anything resembling real history before Judges (and even that is more legend than history).

quote:

---

And didn't he also use the same verbs tenses in genesis than in other historical acounts in the OT ? (I don't know **** about verbe tenses in hebrew though lol) I'll look that up, but I think that at least from the semantic aspect of it, genesis was written as historical.

---

Verb tenses can't distinguish between history and myth or legend. Almost all myths and legends are about the supposed past, and are written in the past tense.

quote:

---

Well from what I remember (that mars story is 2-3 years old, and so pretty far in my head) what they observed on mars to come to this conclusion is only landscapes and geomorphology not unlike the ones we see here on earth.

---

You mean the landscapes and geomorphology is like that produced by a flood. That's why they say that a flood caused it. So all you have to do is find similar features formed in Earth's recent past, on the scale for however big a flood you want.

quote:

---

Maybe in english they can't, but in hebrew you can distinguish poetry/figurative from historical accounts.

---

In English it is certainly possible to distinguish poetry from prose. But that doesn't mean myths are written as poetry.

quote:

---

Obviously verb tenses can't prove if this is really history or just a myth. But it can tell you if, for the author who wrote it down, it was meant to be history or myth.

---

*If* you are right about there being a clear distinction in the syntax - and if the author even made a clear distinction between the two,

quote:

---

I had seen a research o nthis in the past, and the % of genesis being written as historical narrative was something like 99,947% (I'll try to find that)

---

If that figure is correct it pretty much disproves the assertion that there is a clear distinction. Because Genesis is much more than 0.53% myth.

quote:

---

Seems to be produced by a flood, so much that they compare it to the grand canyon! ? (Mars – Facts and Information about the Planet Mars)

---

Only because they are both big valleys. It's not as if there is any sort of detailed comparison between them.

quote:

---

Hebrews use special grammatical forms for recording history. Genesis (even 1-11) has this same as Exodus, Joshua, Judges, etc. Which shows that the author who wrote it recorded it as history.

---

Then that proves that this "special grammatical form" can be used for writing myths.

quote:

---

Allegory or myth would not have been written in the same grammatical form as historical records.

---

Since - if your assertions are true - myths obviously WERE written in this grammatical form your own evidence proves your claim to be false.

quote:

---

Its not just about the verb tenses. t involves pretty much every aspect of semantics

---

So you were wrong to point at the verb tenses as the key difference.

quote:

---

Maybe I misexpressed myself, but that % is not the % of historical text compared to figurative text. It is the % that the author would have written it down as if it was historical compared to thinking it was figurative.

---

As I said before you're still assuming that the author made a clear distinction between myth and history. That's not a safe assumption when dealing with ancient writers.

quote:

---

I'm done for the night, last comment and then to sleep. Isn't your reasoning a bit circular ?

---

No. Your assertion is false to fact. There's no circularity involved.

quote:

---

1. I know Genesis is a myth

---

We know that PARTS of Genesis are myth. But this is a clear fact.

quote:

---

2. We can recognize hebrew historical/figurative texts by its grammar. This is shown to be true throughout the hebrew manuscripts

---

This is an assertion. And for it to be shown to be true we need a way of identifying myth independently of the grammar. But your whole argument is based on assuming that the grammar is the only way of telling the difference. So if there is any circularity it is in your argument.

quote:

---

3. Genesis is written with a historical grammar

---

This is your assertion. It may or may not be true.

quote:

---

4. Thus this type of grammar can be used to write a figurative/mythological text, since I know genesis is a myth

---

Assuming your assertion about the grammar used to write Genesis 1-11 is correct, that is a clear fact.Now if you want an example of circular reasoning, look at this:

quote:

---

1. We can recognize hebrew historical/figurative texts by its grammar. This is shown to be true throughout the hebrew manuscripts

---

So how do we tell that none of Genesis 1-11 is myth ? According to you, through the grammar ! So it is not shown to be true "throughout the Hebrew manuscripts" without assuming it to be true.

quote:

---

Saying that it was viewed as history by the author doesn't make it more, or less, history. It simply means that he thought it was history when he wrote it.

---

Which suggests only that the author did NOT distinguish between myth and history.

quote:

---

Its not really an assumption, it more of a result of seeing the clear grammatical pattern of historical records

---

Yet if the author saw Genesis 1-11 as entirely historical it is clear that he did NOT distinguish history from myth.

quote:

---

I don't even understand wy we are arguing on this, either way it doesn't affect anything in the debate.

---

Because you want to insist that the Bible's flood story must be accepted as a purely historical account and not as the myth or legend it so clearly is.

quote:

---

This is not the point I am trying to make lol ... I'm not saying that it must be accepted as historical. I'm saying the author thought it was historical, it does not prevent anyone from interpreting it as mythical.

---

But you do use this assertion - which you have yet to support - to try to suggest that the flood was a historical event.

quote:

---

Indeed it would be circular reasoning if I had said that the grammar was the only way to identify a text as historical (always according to the author).

---

The problem is that you need to show that myths would not be written using this form. We have some pretty clear myths in Genesis 1-11. These are a valid counter-example - and your only argument to the contrary so far depends on the grammatical form. And that is circular.

quote:

---

However, I said no such thing. Other hebrew texts have been identified independently to be historical. Good examples are 1-2-3 Mccabees, which reports the jewish rebellion against the greek empire.

---

It is logically fallacious to point to basically historical texts written in this form as an argument that ONLY historical texts are written in this form.

quote:

---

If I understand this correctly, you think he did not know what was a myth and what was history ?

---

No, I'm saying that it is possible that he did not make a clear distinction between myth and history.

quote:

---

So he would have considered the egyptian myths he encountered as history also ?

---

If he believed them, then yes, he may have done so. If he did not believe them then he may well have seen them as fictions or superstitions.

The real question here is whether the grammatical constructs denote something at least resembling history in the modern sense or whether they are also used for folk tales, myths and legends. On the evidence so far it seems clear that the latter is the case. If so, we can give no weight to the grammatical constructs when trying to ascertain the nature of the account.

quote:

---

In any case, I don't even know why we are debating this. The very vast majority of hebrew scholars (to not say all of them) assert that Moses viewed genesis as real history, as the James Barr quote I put earlier says. Even Josephus viewed Genesis as history, since he put it in his book of antiquities of the Jews ... which is a history book.

---

And if so, they clearly did not differentiate between myth and history.

quote:

---

If it is fallacious, then you should be able to falsify it.

---

That makes no sense. The point is that the argument is logically fallacious. You can't show that "All A are B" just by producing a few examples of "A" that are "B".

quote:

---

You have to prove independantly that Moses viewed Genesis as myth, but still used the historical grammatical structure.

---

No, I don't. Remember your argument is that we should believe that the flood story is basically historical, rather than a myth. If the author (who wasn't Moses) did not distinguish between myth and history and wrote clearly mythical accounts using the grammatical form supposedly diagnostic of history then we simply cannot make that assumption. You claim that all of Genesis 1-11 is written in this form and thus myth is written as "history". Therefore we cannot conclude that the flood is not a myth based on the grammatical form.

quote:

---

If you don't have a counter example, you can say ''but you could be wrong!'' all you want, but it won't have much weight.

---

I don't say that. I say that you have failed to produce a valid argument to support your assertion. I don't have to assume that your assertion is true just because I don't know enough about the subject to refute it.Here's an example of a myth - which, according to you, is written as history : Genesis 2:4 - 3:24. Which is sufficient to prove the point I am actually making.

quote:

---

We're saying the same thing: they viewed their myth as history

---

Which means that I was correct from the start. The Flood story appears in a book that is more myth and legend and therefore cannot be assumed to have any but the most remote historical foundation.

quote:

---

It never was about if it is a myth, or if it is history. It is about if they viewed it as such.

---

No, that is wrong. It was about whether we should consider it to be likely to be history and not myth. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

How can you say ''that is wrong'' when I could quote myself at least four times saying exactly this in the discussion.

---

Because that was never really the point at issue. In my reply to the OP I pointed out that Genesis was a book of myth and legend rather than a historical account. Whether the author believed the myths and legends in Genesis doesn't change that point.Indeed, when I pointed out that the author may not make a distinction between myths and history you argued against it. Now your position implicitly assumes that the author did NOT make that distinction !You have been changing your position in the course of this argument and your new position concedes that my original point was correct.

quote:

---

In the OP, all I said was that if the author viewed it as history, then that it COULD be history. Not that it SHOULD ...

---

That isn't true. You made no mention of the author's opinions at all. You said: And it isn't true that Genesis was a "historical manuscript" before it was religious. It was always more religious than it was a history in the modern sense. It's a book of myth and legend even if the author happened to believe them.

quote:

---

Hey, I think Moses was the author, that he did make a distinction between what he thought was myth and what he thought was history, and that was why he used the historical grammar to describe it.

---

You're assuming that he made that distinction, but you've only produced evidence against that assumption. And, of course, you've provided no reason to think that the "historical grammar" was not used for myths.

quote:

---

My position didn't changed

---

It certainly has. My essential point is that Genesis is a collection of myths and legends - that in itself is enough to refute your argument in the OP. And you're not addressing that point at all, so it seems that you have - at the least - accepted that you cannot argue against it..

quote:

---

I just acknowledge that you can think otherwise because I don't have enough knowledge to prove that Moses did make the distinction between myth and history. I hate to do any sort of call to authority, but I think this because since I am no hebrew scholar, I can only trust the very vast majority scholars.

---

Then please provide some evidence that the "vast majority" of scholars do agree with your argument in the OP. So far you've provided zero evidence for that. (You do know that the Barr quote only deals with the interpretation of Genesis 1 ? It certainly doesn't provide any support for the idea that the author of Genesis made a distinction between history and myth or for the argument in the OP).Here's one opinion from bible.org - a Christian site. Did they consult the same "experts" that you did ?

quote:

---

Genesis was written as a record of the history of the jews since creation.

---

So far you've provided no evidence of this. Even if it were true the fact that it is in fact a collection of myths and legends still invalidates the points in the OP.

quote:

---

Moses thought this was real history, and so has the Jewish people up to Josephus. His works are very reveiling on this. He did not write a ''myth's and legends of the Jews'' book, nor a review of ''Jewish religion''. He wrote a History book, his intention was to record the history of the jewish people, and surprisingly he included the creation, the flood, the exodus, etc. He did not make any distinction between this and the rest of their history such as the deportation to Babylon, or the Mccabee rebellion against the greeks. Did he mistake myth for history ? Maybe, but that doesn't hcange that his intentions was to write a history book.

---

Alternatively he did not make a clear distinction between myth and history. The mere fact that he included clearly mythical - and legendary - material in his "history" argues for this.

quote:

---

You correctly quoted me from the OP, I never wanted to argued if Moses mistook a mythical account for a historical account, which really, is besides the point. The point is that he thought it was history, and recorded it as history. His intention was it to be taken as historical and not mythical EVEN IF he had mistaken myth for history.

---

Then my refutation stands. Because the author's intent is not enough to support your argument.And in answer to your latest post it is generally accepted among Bible scholars that Genesis was assembled by a Jewish priest, likely around the time of the Babylonian Exile. However there is quite a lot of disagreement over when.

quote:

---

My point was only this: if the author of genesis thought it was real history, then it leaves us the possibility to test it to see if it is true. But if the author thought it was a myth, then there is absolutely no reason for us to think it could be history.

---

I completely disagree with that. In this case there appears to be no good reason to privilege the author's assessment over anyone elses. As I have already pointed out, by your own claims, the author treats mythical and legendary material as equally "historical".Equally you believe that my assessment of the story as a myth or legend is likely wrong. But if I wrote a book describing it as such you wouldn't take that as any less reason to take it seriously.
(Although the creation of the rainbow is clearly a mythic element, so I don't see how anyone could regard the story as at all likely to be completely historical).

quote:

---

BTW, theology is not the same as mythology.

---

That wasn't the point I was making. Your assertion in the OP was that Genesis was NOT written as a religious book. If it is primarily theology that assertion is completely false.

quote:

---

Here are some people that I know of who spoke on the intention of the author to record history: James Barr, Dr. Andrew Steinmann, Dr. Robert Mccabe, Dr Ting Wang

---

Which doesn't show either that they agree with your initial point or that the author distinguished history from myth.

quote:

---

Dr. Clifford Wilson also said this which is pretty compelling:

​

I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen

---

Which tells us only that Dr. Clifford Wilson is highly biased. The mainstream of archaeologists working in the region have a far different view of the accuracy of the Bible.

quote:

---

I know there is a tendency to invalidate every aspect of the bible, but I mean at some point you gotta say that the Jewish people do have a history and probably did keep a record of it. if you start saying ''the jews never were in egypt'',''Moses never existed'', ''David never existed'' etc. then at some point you have to replace it with something. you can't just say, well the Jewish people were actually a small tribe in the desert who invented themselves a history

---

Actually we don't have to take a specific point and say "all books written after here are history" or "all books dealing with this period or later are history". Each book should be taken on its own merits.We can be pretty sure that the Exodus never happened as described. Nor did Joshua's conquest. We can be reasonably sure that at the least the achievements of David and Solomon have been exaggerated to a significant degree, and their existence is not certain. Instead of simply looking at the Bible, the historical and archaeological evidence has to be considered.

quote:

---

I mean, no one questions Julius's Caesar Gallic wars even though we have a total of only 10 documents speaking about it, with the oldest one being 1000 years after the event.

---

There's a huge difference between the date of the oldest surviving manuscript and the date of original composition. The Gallic Wars is a first-hand account - the flood story isn't. There's a huge difference in the evidence surrounding the Gallic Wars and that surrounding Noah's Flood. If you care about the truth, you can't ignore those facts.

quote:

---

But everyone seems to question the jewish account of their own history, even though they have a shitload more manuscripts and very accurate methods of transcribing it.

---

Because number and age of manuscripts is NOT the most important factor. Christian apologists like to emphasise it because it's one where the Bible scores well. And in doing so they reveal their bias.

quote:

---

thats not quite right

​

if we want to find out how the Jews viewed the writings of Moses, we can determine it by looking at the teachings of Jesus (a jew)

---

But for the purposes of this discussion we don't particularly want to know the views of Jews living at the time of Jesus. They are even less relevant than the views of the author. (And Jesus is only one Jew so looking at his views - even assuming that the Gospels accurately convey them - is even less useful).So, your objection is a complete irrelevance.

quote:

---

The truth is that neither he, nor his jewish listeners, viewed it as a myth.

---

If they didn't recognise it as a myth or legend then that says more about them than it does about the story.

quote:

---

What makes you say that the exodus never happened as described?

---

Despite the fact that it was supposedly a huge event - to the point of implausibility - it is invisible to history and archaeology. It simply doesn't fit.

quote:

---

there is evidence in Jewish traditional customs such as the Passover celebration which is still celebrated today.

---

That isn't significant evidence. Celebrations change, and so do the stories behind them.

quote:

---

An Egyptian historian, Ahmed Behgat, has published a book charging that "during the Exodus ancient Israelites smuggled gold out of Egypt and used it to make the golden calf." His research into ancient Egyptian archives has led him to conclude that Israel should pay Egypt $40 billion.

---

There was a similar story about a proposed lawsuit posted here a few years ago. The guy pushing the story claimed that there was evidence form Egyptian records - but it wasn't true. The only source was the Torah. If there was real evidence it wouldn't be obscure.

quote:

---

There is also an ancient egyption poem about a Pharaoh Ni-maat-Re that says in part "Fight on behalf of his name . . . There is no tomb for a rebel against his majesty, and his corpse is cast into the water." As all ditties do, this one would have been based on an actual event.

---

Ni-Maat-Re is better known as Amenemhat III. I don't know how you get the idea that rebels against his rule would be denied a tomb and their bodies dumped in the river is any support from the Exodus. Especially as under every chronology and dating I know of (even David Rohl's) Amenemhat III lived well BEFORE the supposed date of the Exodus.

quote:

---

Seeing there is some evidence for the historical exodus...it makes it very possibly based on fact and not a myth.

---

Given that you have helped demonstrate the LACK of evidence I'd say that you've helped prove my point.

quote:

---

Now to say that David and Solomon may not have been real people you must have some pretty solid evidence for such a claim. What is it??

---

On the contrary - what I need is a LACK of good evidence for their existence. And we've got that !Your references to archaeology all deal with later events or things that have little bearing on the accuracy of the Bible.

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

Because number and age of manuscripts is NOT the most important factor. Christian apologists like to emphasise it because it's one where the Bible scores well. And in doing so they reveal their bias.

​

and yet the age of fossils IS the most important factor in determining science matters and evolutionists dont mind using it as a strong basis for their evidence.

---

You're not making any sense here. Your point (which as written is complete nonsense) doesn't even try to deal with the facts I pointed out.