Evidence for the Biblical Record

May I ask, JonF, how much evaluation effort you put into this as well ?You do know you quoted Bill Jefferys, departement of astronomy at Texas university who's grand-father was a chinese missionary who is criticizing the work done by Dr. Ginger Tong Chock, who received her PhD in chinese art study from Stanford (chinese writing is included in art).Considering this, and also that the studies of these chinese characters were done by other native-speaking chinese people, I will ask a question (so as it does not become an argument from authority on my part): How much have you read on the subject, particularly the research done by Dr. Tong Chock ? I consider that reading from both sides of an issue would be one of the most basic ''evaluation skills'', as you call them.

Not to be picky but, is 'hero' strictly masculine in english ? Because you put an emphasise that Nuwa was a women, when they don't really precise the gender in the creation paper.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------And also, did you get access to the references they give in order to do such a harsh critic ? Because all I see in the wiki article is a very summary version of a myth that is probably much, much longer than that. Furthermore, there seems to be no contradiction (A and non-A) between the two, as the paper accentuates the impact of the flood on humanity (repopulation), while the wiki article focuses on the impact of the flood on the earth (tilted sky etc.). This doesn't make a contradiction--------------------------------------------------------------------------Lastly, in the very wiki article you linked, I found this reference:

quote:

---

4) (179 - 122 BC) author: Liu An, book: Huainanzi, chapter 6: Lanmingxun (覽冥訓), account: "Nwa Mended the Sky" detail: In remote antiquity, the four poles of the Universe collapsed, and the world descended into chaos: the firmament was no longer able to cover everything, and the earth was no longer able to support itself; fire burned wild, and waters flooded the land. Fierce beasts ate common people, and ferocious birds attacked the old and the weak. Hence, Nwa tempered the five-colored stone to mend the heavens, cut off the feet of the great turtle to support the four poles, killed the black dragon to help the earth, and gathered the ash of reed to stop the flood. Variation: The four corners of the sky collapsed and the world with its nine regions split open.

---

This seems to indicate that there is a variation of the myth, and as a matter of fact the creo paper mentions the splitting in nine regions. So it is possible they are talking about this variation of the myth.All this to say that I find your 45sec research to be of the very lousy kind, particularly not worthy of permitting you such harsh remarks and accusations.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Okok, I was thinking maybe 'hero' was strictly pluriel in english.Anyways there are plenty of flood myth's where the protagonist is a male, but with other differences from the biblical account. You'd expect this to happen with a couple thousands years of divergence.

Of course, so since both positions are expecting to find differences in the account, then just pointing those out will never be conclusive for either side.The area where the two positions make different predictions is in the similarities. If the stories haven't got the slightest thing to do with one another, as you said, then there shouldn't be more similarities then the occasional random look alike.On the other hand, if the stories have the same origin, then you would expect to find some disturbing similarities between the two.

As you said, there are a lot of flood stories around the world. And I wouldn't expect every single one of the thousands of them to trace back to the same single origin.And so by taking the Navaho flood story, for example, (which I don't know) and the hebrew flood story, and compare them and find no similarities, all you have proven is these two don't have a single origin. You can't just extrapolate that conclusion to all flood myths everywhere.I should get the story of the cri Indians that live here in Quebec, I know one of my friends made a presentation in his history class at university about it. THis one had striking similarities.

I never said the historicity of the flood could ever be proved by comparing flood myths from around the world. As you said they could just share the same common myth as origin.But I think that this, added with other cultural factors pointing to a common origin (such as constellations) could make a compelling case for a ''tower of babel'' type origin to ancient cultures around the world.

I don't know if it is the ame myth from the same tribe, but the person I knew had access to the historical documents of the time, and he had made the point (with the support of his teacher) that this myth predated the christian missionaries.Genesis does not mention Muskrats, but look at the role it plays in the story. Wissaketchak makes a great raft, brings aboard pairs of all animals and birds, the water covers the highest mountains. He then sends a first animal, a duck, to search for earth. It finds none. He then sends a muskrat to look for earth, and comes back with slime. This slime is moulded by Wiss and grows, and grows, until it becomes the whole earth and the animals can once again come back on firm land.Noah makes a big ark, and brings along pairs all animals and birds and the flood covers the highest mountains. He then sends a crow to look for land. He then sends a first animal, a crow, to look if for earth. He finds none. He then sends a dove to do the same, and on the second trip it comes back with a branch. Noah then knows that the waters had receeded, and as they continued to withdraw, the ark landed on a mountain and he let the animals once again come back on firm land.The core of the story is the same. The boat, the pairs of animals, the water covering the mountains, the man sending out animals etc.There are also changes, different animals being sent out, different type of boat, different stuff being brought back, etc.As I said earlier, the differences are to be expected in both cases. If they trace back to the same original Myth 4k years ago, changes are to be expected. I would add that these changes would be cultural, local adaptations of the myth. Cree don't know what a dove is, so it becomes eventually replaced by a muskarat. etc.If these are two unrelated myths about floods, then changes are also to be expected. But I think it hard to believe that in this case, the core of the myth would bare so much ressemblance.

Sorry, I didn't intend to say I had premissionary historical documents. Maybe it was my wording.Anyways, the documents I was referring to are the ones written by a Jesuite from the very first batch that arrived. In it he writes about this particular myths and is atonished at the similarities with Noah's flood. As I said, my friend while making this myth his work subject had adressed the case of christian influence on the myth and his teacher had supported his conclusions that the version this particular myth had written was the original one that predated christian influence. (If I remember correctly, he also had access to later version of the myth in which the christian influence was clearly visible) This is almost a Red Herring since we were adressing the case of the Cree Myth, not the Sumerian one and it's dating vis-a-vis the Biblical account.But you are partially right, the same study of similarities/differences let's us know that the Sumerian myth and Biblical account have a common origin (either an original myth or original event.) I am amazed at how you can take the differences and derive independency, but all similarities you can just excuse.See what I did there ?Anyhow, do you not agree that in both case;, independent origin i different cultures or common origin seperated by 4kyears in different cultures, we would expect to have differences ? Of course, but why a worldwide flood ? Why cover the highest of mountains ? Why take a pair of each animal ? Why one man and not the whole tribe ? Maybe I am too used to seeing pigeons in the city I can't imagine them in the woods hehe.But if it did inhabit the forest back then, it is far from being a refered animal in indian culture. Unlike the Beaver,bear,caribou, wolf, duck, etc. (and the muskarat)

Maybe, but I doubt an anthropologist would accept that as an answer considering the depth of similarities which are much more then superficial. Not only that, but that these core similarities are shard by flood myths around the world ? It would be so because all humans think of the same thing when creating a 'flood myth' ? This is tagging the human mind with a lot less imaginative power then it really has, in my opinion.Just look at the complete differences in other unrelated myths, how they explain the creation of the world, or lightning and thunder, or the afterlife. Or anything else. In all these cases we see the great imagination of the different cultures of the world, yet when they would talk about a flood, they would all be limited by the main frame of a guy who builds a boat, brings aboard pairs of animals, worldwide flood comes, then eventually sends an animal look for land, then another, and when the second one brings back something in his mouth, it would mean the earth is coming back, and animals can once gaain go on firm land.You may believe that if you want, but I find it totally unreasonable.

This is all by memory from a couple of years ago, and I will try and get access or at least reference to the documents.Also, I do think the Cree were the first that they met, at least here in quebec. Could not tell about the US. The story is a different tale here, starting with JAcques Cartier instead of Christopher Columbus.But history class is also very, very far. I beg to disagree. The similarities are much more present then can be accounted for by random, independent experiences of different floods by different people. If this does not constitute evidence for you, then you are putting a burden on evidence that no Anthropologist or historian would. This isn't a hard science. Are we talking about the same tribe here ? Here is the map of the morning dove habitat: And this is the cree: They don't really overlap a lot.Now I may be wrong because I don't know if this is a map of where they were at the time or if it is their modern location. I looked but didn't find anything other then that.But in any, it is an extremely side issue because it wouldn't prevent them from changing the dove to a muskarat in the mythEdited by slevesque, : No reason given.