Scientific falsehoods heard from adults during my childhood

^I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but I was referring to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Biblical book of Genesis.

 

I truly don't see why this is bothersome, though--that sounds to me like a case of getting bent out of shape over nothing. We're talking about a pretty small geographical distance between Babylon and Israel, so if there was any cataclysmic event in the general area, I would expect all "players" in the region to have an account of it in some form or fashion. What changes from culture to culture, though, is the theology and the message that is intended to come from the story. That perspective on the events in question is what is most important to me...that someone else recorded the same events is not a problem.

 

Because to them, the Bible is the ONLY accurate and truthful recorded account of ancient history. Anything that conflicts with it is heresy. I kid you not, there are people like that to this day, some of whom are members on this board. One even claimed there is no way any of the stories passed down by oral tradition could have been embellished or otherwise changed as "orators were held to a strict code of accuracy".

 

I do take the Bible as the primary account, albeit less literal the further back you go (those accounts of events before written language are the most poetic/non-literal, but as you move forward from the invention of writing I ascribe more credence to the details of historical accounts, to the NT which is the most detailed of all, as there's been a long tradition of historical writing by that point, especially given the Greek influence). There is still, to my mind, very important truth to be drawn from these early accounts, but getting hung up over the small details is not that helpful. I don't see why other sources should not exist for the same events. Given the cataclysmic nature of some of the things described, one would expect them to make a major impression on people in the area. A major flood in a desert area certainly strikes me as one of those events.

Though I have yet to read the Epic of Gilgamesh, it is my understanding that the theological bent and the lessons it is intended to convey are of a different sort than the Biblical account...and that is enough to set the two accounts apart, as far as I am concerned. But the fact that both cultures HAVE an account of this--not a problem.

 

Gilgamesh is a terrific story; however, there are also two versions of it as well. You're also probably not aware that the most zealous of Christianity *insist* that any other tale of a Great Flood was purloined from the Biblical text.

 

Not sure how that's supposed to work, considering the Sumerians and Babylonians had writing first...

I'm sure, though, that pre-literate cultures talked with each other, so interchange could've flowed in both directions during that time. Not sure we'd ever be able to determine what happened when, in strictly oral tradition, of course--and like I said, I am not particularly bothered to find out because it seems like exactly what we would expect. How each culture felt about those events, and what revelations one versus the other had about the meaning, of course, is bound to be different, and to me that's the crux of the matter.

 

That doesn't make sense as an argument.

It would make sense if they were insisting that all such tales had a common historical origin and that the Bible's was the "true" interpretation of those events. But the way you say it makes it sound like they're just yelling "plagiarism!"

 

Lindley--are you referring to John Picard's post? A little confused here because it sounds like you're responding to JP, but your post happened after mine.

My post is closer to your second argument...I believe that there is a common origin, an event that set all of the cultures in that area talking, but I do regard the Biblical interpretation as prime.

 

There's also a version of the flood story in Greek mythology, the tale of Deucalion and Pyrrha. Like the Hebrews, the Greeks got it from the Babylonian/Sumerian version. After all, Mesopotamia was not only where Western civilization began, it was a region subject to frequent floods. So naturally the civilizations there would've had flood myths, and naturally their ideas, including their lore, spread to other cultures of the region.

Oh, that's rich. Oral cultures don't even have the same concept of accuracy that we have today in the age of print. To them, truth was a relative thing, more about feelings and ideas than facts and figures. It was the idiom of the culture to invent fictitious tales in order to convey allegorical messages. For instance, the story of Solomon and the two women arguing over the baby, with Solomon telling them to cut the kid in half? Never happened. It was political propaganda. Solomon was attempting to take the throne from its rightful heir, and the allegorical message was that he (the fake mother) was willing to see the kingdom (the baby) torn asunder and that if the legitimate king (the real mother) really loved the kingdom (baby), he'd give it up to keep it whole.

Not to mention that the Bible has been through many different translations and there's no such thing as an exact translation from one language to another. Not to mention that the King James Version was probably one of the most inaccurate Biblical translations ever, partly due to flawed sources and partly due to deliberate bias on the part of the translators (for instance, censoring all the sexy stuff out of the Song of Solomon).

 

Chrisotopher not to sound like I'm disputing you but could you tell a bit more about the flood in Gilgamesh, it's likely that the version I read was a shortened version or some such but I don't recall any flooding in it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth

 

The flood wasn't in the proper narrative as I recall, but he sought out Utnapishtim to find out the secret of immortality, having come face to face with his own after his common law husband died because he threw beef parts at the anthropomorphic personification of heteronormativity.

 

Goodness gracious, when I hear that description, I can definitely say I was right about "different theological bent"!!!

 

Ah thank you, guess I'd better try and track down a more complete copy

 

Gilgamesh is the original Hero's Quest archetype. Fantastic story, and it is a shame we do not have the complete text.

 

^At least, it's the earliest one we have documentation of.

 

Yes. That was to be implied and inferred.

 

According to Wikipedia, the earliest Flood myth is Sumerian rather than Babylonian, and predates the latter by a thousand years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myths

The Sumerian version of "Noah" is named Ziusudra rather than Utnapishtim.

The source is Wikipedi, though, and I'm certainly not an expert.

On topic, I have several relatives who insist in the literal truth of the Bible, and, due to my scientific leanings, I am completely persona non grata to them.

 

^No doubt, but the Babylonian version is likely the most direct antecedent of the flood myth in Genesis.

Sorry to hear about your relatives. It's sad that so many people use God, an entity that's supposed to be infinite and all-encompassing, as a justification for excluding anything outside their own narrow boundaries.

 

GMC (uh-oh, THAT coincidence was not what I intended!), sounds like a major lack of tolerance on both sides there. Someone needs to quit arguing, and realize that stopping arguing doesn't mean they've lost.