Gilgamesh And Noah's Ark

[SWIM]

From the epic of gilgamest, written in 2600 BC:

 

‘O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:

 

Tear down the house and build a boat!

Abandon wealth and seek living beings!

Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!

Make all living beings go up into the boat.

The boat which you are to build,

its dimensions must measure equal to each other:

its length must correspond to its width.

 

Utnapishtim obeyed:

 

‘One (whole) acre was her floor space, (660’ X 660’)

Ten dozen cubits the height of each of her walls,

Ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck.

I laid out the shape of her sides and joined her together.

I provided her with six decks,

Dividing her (thus) into seven parts.’ …

 

Some VERY similar similarities eh?

[Astreja]

Yes, it's a very old story.

 

I think it's actually a dramatization of one particularly bad year on the Euphrates river: Heavy rainfall and flash floods killed a lot of people, and someone who owned a large barge managed to save some people and domestic animals.

[Guest debtor2grace]

Everyone loves a good Babylonian epic...yeah, from the mythopoeic language of Genesis 1 to the familiar story of the flood, there's a lot in the early Old Testament that strongly reflects the extant worldview of the era. Any second year Bible student at a reasonably progressive Christian college could tell you the same. (At the end of the Epic of Gilgamesh, there's even a snake that steals the source of eternal life from the hero.)

 

What significance do these commonalities represent? You can look at it a couple of ways, I guess - laugh at it, use it as an argument against there being any truth in the mix. Taking these truthisms in stride, I take some pleasure, even comfort, from these common strains in world myth.

 

Then again, being young and unorthodox, I can roll with a good deal that a conversative individual wouldn't touch...

[par4dcourse]

Everyone loves a good Babylonian epic...yeah, from the mythopoeic language of Genesis 1 to the familiar story of the flood, there's a lot in the early Old Testament that strongly reflects the extant worldview of the era. Any second year Bible student at a reasonably progressive Christian college could tell you the same. (At the end of the Epic of Gilgamesh, there's even a snake that steals the source of eternal life from the hero.)

 

What significance do these commonalities represent? You can look at it a couple of ways, I guess - laugh at it, use it as an argument against there being any truth in the mix. Taking these truthisms in stride, I take some pleasure, even comfort, from these common strains in world myth.

 

Then again, being young and unorthodox, I can roll with a good deal that a conversative individual wouldn't touch...

The significance is that the bible is nothing more than a colledtion of re-hashed myths from previous religions. Jebus is just a blatant refabrication of the Horus story, and many before. Of course, xtians like to pick and chose which tidbits to believe and which to ignore. The whole thing is a stinking pile of refuse and has caused more suffering for mankind than any other source.

Your turn.

[SWIM]

The significance is that the bible is nothing more than a colledtion of re-hashed myths from previous religions. Jebus is just a blatant refabrication of the Horus story, and many before. Of course, xtians like to pick and chose which tidbits to believe and which to ignore. The whole thing is a stinking pile of refuse and has caused more suffering for mankind than any other source.

Your turn.

 

Hit the nail on the head! That's the whole point, these are all re-tellings of the same story. Since gilgamesh is believed to be *very* pre-bible, who ripped off this story? No.. gasp... not not the old testement writers...

[florduh]

Oh no! That means the Bible isn't the inerrant word of the one true god!

 

So why base a narrow-minded religion on it and try to force feed it to the world? It's fuckin' MYTHOLOGY, and largely plagiarized at that.

 

- Chris

[The-Captain]

Of course alot of christians look at this as confirmation of their own myth rather than plagiarism of another.

[Grandpa Harley]

C.S. Bloody Lewis' bloody 'beautiful dreams' bullshit....

[sojourner]

SWIM

 

Your last several posts on the common themes between the bible and other myths I have kept and thank you for them

 

I have read Acharrya's (not sure if that is her spelling) book and some other web pages in the past but these posts have it all listed out so condenced and orderly. Did you do them or are you pasting them ?

 

sojourner

[Grandpa Harley]

Acharya S does cover some of this, but I've not actually seen this verbiage before...

[Guest debtor2grace]

The whole thing is a stinking pile of refuse and has caused more suffering for mankind than any other source.

Your turn.

 

While I agree there's been terrible things done in the name of religion - there's no need to ennumerate them, I assure you I'm quite aware of history - I'd also like to affirm that there is (and has been) a degree of good in humanity as a result of individual and communal Christian committment. There's some genuine altruists out there that do a deal of good as a result of their understanding of Jesus. The Gospel message is decent enough and solemn in a way that makes crude defamation pretty crass. Given the premises / worldview I'm operating under, I'd say the depraved nature of humanity is the cause of suffering - we corrupt a good thing, and find it impossible to carry the ideal from paper to action. Wherever there are people, there are deceivers, cruelities, and those who take advantage of others to achieve their own ends.

 

Is it blatant dishonesty to apply a discriminating filter to what I've chosen to regard as "holy writ"? True, I reevaluate canon and adjust my understanding of "inspiration"...I'm open about it, though, and I think there's a worthy and functional end to be found here. I certainly think it's a glaring (and common) mistake to treat certain passages, especially the creation account, in a literal way. Mythopoeic...I love that word, it implies room for a satisfying degree of flexibility.

 

And no one rightly hangs their faith on Genesis anyway. Naw, the NT is where it's at...some good, solid ethics, extrapolated theology that is open to good deal of interpretation, and an unattainable ideal coupled with the hope of eternity. Whatever else you might think of it, it's not nonsense. There's some valid appeals there. Whether it rests on real assumptions is an unanswerable question, at least for now.

 

C.S. Bloody Lewis' bloody 'beautiful dreams' bullshit....

 

Yes sir, exactly. Why so hostile? If he's nothing and his ideas are nothing, just ignore what (to you) is a futile (and annoying) attempt to intellectualize / romanticize the faith.

 

As I said before, there are realities in the texts of world myth that need to be recognized - and dealt with on some level if one is desirious to build a working Christianity. The way I see it, embracing it gives the opponent less ammunition. (Ultimately, I don't actually want to relegate the faith to an entirely irrational sector - indefensible and impossible to disprove as well [though it can be made fun of]. But in the meantime, it's pleasant to read and think about comparative myth...beautiful dreams indeed. The God that I believe in could touch world history in such a way as to leave evocative strains in pagan stories.)

[par4dcourse]

While I agree there's been terrible things done in the name of religion - there's no need to ennumerate them, I assure you I'm quite aware of history - I'd also like to affirm that there is (and has been) a degree of good in humanity as a result of individual and communal Christian committment.

And a great deal of good done by individuals who felt no need for "divine" inspiration or belief in the supernatural. Even the golden rule predates jesus by centuries.

Is it blatant dishonesty to apply a discriminating filter to what I've chosen to regard as "holy writ"?

Yes, it is. If you have to apply a "filter" to it, it's hardly a "holy writ" is it?

And no one rightly hangs their faith on Genesis anyway.

Why? It's the beginning of your holy writ and many xtians would disagree with leaving anything out. And who decides which parts to leave out?

[Guest debtor2grace]

Yes, it is. If you have to apply a "filter" to it, it's hardly a "holy writ" is it?

 

Well, I think there's a bit of a problem with a non-hierarchical view of 'canon' to begin with...putting Chronicles at the exact same level as John for instance. You'd expect a defensive little people group to inject a bit of nationalism and biased slant to any historical account, especially one that included God. I don't think "inspired" means "dictated."

[Grandpa Harley]

Why John and not Thomas? (hint: Irenaeus, that's why... and a vested interest in Petrine Pauline canon...)

 

As to why the venom of C.S. Bloody Lewis? Since half of Christendom seems to think he was at the last bloody supper, that's why... If one is going to invoke someone, Campbell is a better body to invoke, since he wasn't trying to validate any religion, simple contextualise....

[Telesmith]

Debtor-

 

And how the hell do you decide what parts are inspired? Do you get a warm feeling in your tummy? Maybe God comes down and whispers it in your ear? Oh, the privilege! Interesting that you are a better arbiter on inspired texts than the fathers of the church. Further, what exactly DO you find inspired in the bible that is exclusive to it?

 

The more I read from your keyboard the more I'm getting the feeling that your beliefs are oh so convenient to keeping your God fetish. A statement of faith would be nice i.e virgin birth, resurrection, CANONICITY, eschatology ect. I suspect we'll get tired of chasing you around the court while you distance yourself from everything you can't babble into ambiguity. Forgive the annoyance. You remind me of my former self and quite frankly it makes me wanna puke. You would be annoyed too if you had to read your own wishy washy hokum.

[SWIM]

Yes, it is. If you have to apply a "filter" to it, it's hardly a "holy writ" is it?

 

Well, I think there's a bit of a problem with a non-hierarchical view of 'canon' to begin with...putting Chronicles at the exact same level as John for instance. You'd expect a defensive little people group to inject a bit of nationalism and biased slant to any historical account, especially one that included God. I don't think "inspired" means "dictated."

 

 

 

Well, in this thread, and my other about mythras, it's pretty clear that the bible is FULL of plagiarism from other religions. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the whole noah story is just a rip off. Similarities to the "culture of the day" blah blah blah etc etc is bullshit, and if it occurred nowadays there would be lawsuits involved.

 

You take a rack of books all dumped together by the early RCC, pick an choose what *you* think are truth, discard the rest, then you act like you actually think you have some sense... Funny how blind people still involved in this SUN GOD religion defend it with all their might, yet have no real LOGICAL defense, nothing that would stand up in court.

 

Soj, Mostly these two were pastes, the data anyway, commentary was mine.

 

This was in the other thread about Horus:

 

Horus

 

* Was born of the virgin Isis-Meri in December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

* His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

* He was of royal descent.

* At age 12 he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

* Was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iaurutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" (John the Baptist) who was decapitated.

* He ad 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "AAn" (the two "Johns").

* He performed miracles, exorcized demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris") from the dead.

* Horus walked on water.

* His personal epithet was "Iusa" the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was called the "Holy Child."

* He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

* Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

* He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, was resurrected.

* Titles: Way, the Truth the Light; Messiah; God's Anointed Son; Son of Man; Good Shepherd; Lamb of God; Word made flesh; Word of Truth.

* Was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.

* He came to fulfill the Law.

* Was called "the KRST" or "Anointed One."

* Was supposed to reign one thousand years.

 

 

OK, now there is EVEN more to this story, the question arises as to WHY are these stories similar? Why choose this theme?

 

I am going to make another thread about that soon, but here is a HINT the answer is in "astrology"...

[Guest debtor2grace]

Why John and not Thomas? (hint: Irenaeus, that's why... and a vested interest in Petrine Pauline canon...)

 

As to why the venom of C.S. Bloody Lewis? Since half of Christendom seems to think he was at the last bloody supper, that's why... If one is going to invoke someone, Campbell is a better body to invoke, since he wasn't trying to validate any religion, simple contextualise....

 

So I'm a bit at the mercy of the wisdom of the Church fathers. Can't argue with that. I said "John" because that's my favorite Gospel. Campbell - do you mean the co-founder of the Church of Christ?

 

Right. Well, Lewis is a comfortable friend who says things that feel right, but I know his approach rubs some people the wrong way.

 

Debtor-

 

And how the hell do you decide what parts are inspired? Do you get a warm feeling in your tummy? Maybe God comes down and whispers it in your ear? Oh, the privilege! Interesting that you are a better arbiter on inspired texts than the fathers of the church. Further, what exactly DO you find inspired in the bible that is exclusive to it?

 

The more I read from your keyboard the more I'm getting the feeling that your beliefs are oh so convenient to keeping your God fetish. A statement of faith would be nice i.e virgin birth, resurrection, CANONICITY, eschatology ect. I suspect we'll get tired of chasing you around the court while you distance yourself from everything you can't babble into ambiguity. Forgive the annoyance. You remind me of my former self and quite frankly it makes me wanna puke. You would be annoyed too if you had to read your own wishy washy hokum.

 

Telesmith -

 

You make some good points, some accurate personal jabs. Yes, I dance around the difficult areas. I'm not willing to give up the faith because of my personal experience (not empirical, not something I can bring in), and I don't want to go crazy with cognitive dissonance. I'd just like to believe there's a third option - well thought-out Christianity that yields a meaningful life and gives sustainable hope. I'm young, my beliefs are very much "in flux" and right now I'm having to deal with the difficult issues, one by one, using whatever decently honest methods are possible.

 

I take Job, Jonah, Luke, John, Romans and John 1 to be most meaningful. The rest of the NT does not present a major problem, I'm good with it. The rest of the OT I regard with suspicion, but I might get back to a cordial relationship with it at some point in time. That is, if anyone can explain the genocide to me!

 

I believe in God; the nature of God, as I understand Him, is that He is ultimately just or fair and has done right by creating.

 

I believe in Jesus, the Incarnate God, who represents both a historical reality and an uncreated, eternal existence. I am not sure how to take the various understandings of the Atonement in the Cross, but in some valid sense He is my Savior. He is a comfort and an ideal to me.

 

Miracles don't bother me; I seldom think about the Virigin Birth. The resurrection is essential - and if God exists, then He is capable of bypassing natural laws to do these things. I expect to meet my Lord at the end, whether at the end of my life or the culmination of creation (I don't look for details on the end-times).

 

I enjoy written human works and see something of God's hand in reason itself. I have hope for life and of doing God's work, lending a hand to both spiritual and humanitarian aid. I realize this isn't that thorough, but I haven't time now. I'll try to be less ambiguous and dodgy in later posts. I apologize for the annoyance; I realize that although y'all actually enjoy having a target (some of you, anyway), I am an intruder here.

 

I am going to make another thread about that soon, but here is a HINT the answer is in "astrology"...

 

I'll keep reading. Despite my flippancy, it IS difficult...

[Kratos]

I guess it still comes down to whether you believe man evolved in different places around the world independently or whether you believe in creation and a common beginning and heritage in all. If all of mankind shares a common ancestry, it would not be surprising to find a common oral tradition. So, if the flood took place say 4000 BC and mankind dispersed from that single family, they would all go out knowing what happened. This account would be passed down orally and the names might be changed along with some of the particulars, but the central themes would remain the same.

 

I personally see no benefit in trying to build or destroy faith in God based on stories that supposedly took place so far back in antiquity that nothing can be proven. Being a universalist, I am encouraged by the fact that our oral traditions are so similar. It shows that all were being taught the same lessons as part of the plan for all to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

Aren't paradigms fun? LOL

 

John

[Brother Jeff]

well thought-out Christianity

Well thought-out Christianity is an oxymoron. If you do that, you'll become an ex-Christian.

 

As far as the genocide in the OT goes, well, the OT God is evil! He is a murderous, genocidal maniac who makes Hitler look like a choir boy by comparison!

 

Would you still be "good" with the bible if you knew that most of it was written by anonymous authors? Relevant link:

 

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/biblea...sis.html#author

 

God is a myth. There is no evidence for his existence. Jesus is a myth. There is no evidence for his historical existence, much less his alleged magical undeadening (resurrection). Miracles are impossible and don't happen.

 

I expect to cease existing at the end. That is, after all, what happens to everybody at the moment of death. All of the religious mythology in the world can't change that fact. Enjoy this life while you have it. It's the only one you'll ever have! Glory!

[The-Captain]

Hey Debtor, glad you've taken taken a liking to vernacular

 

Jospeh Campbell is an author of books dealing with the psychology of belief and comparative mythology (and other things). One of my favortites.

 

Jospeph Campbell According To WIkipedia

 

No condescension intended, but you remind me of myself at the end of my christian days, albeit better educated and more dedicated to believing.

For a second there I thought that list of favorite books was stolen from my old bible reading notes.

 

Belief in God is a hard subject for me. I for one dont have it and feel no need for it and I think that is for the best. But then some people like you seem to be happier for it, and better for it. But I have to wonder is it God you really believe in or is it morals and values? Thats how it was for me, I loved some of the ideas and values espoused by religion not the literal frameworks of god and salvation and the numerous atrocities commited in his name. Eventually with religion I believe those become a stumbling block, overriding what good can be had. Better to call the good parts philosophy and move on to better things.

 

Maybe Antlerman will swing by so he can better explain were Im going with this by saying "Im a better Christian, now than I ever was when I believed in God". Or whatever he says to that effect.

[Aqua Kitty]

Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh, wither rovest thou?

 

The only line in the epic poem that sticks with me. But as I also recall, this poem was also in part responsible for my deconversion.

 

 

So this one goes out to Gilgamesh, where ever thou rovest. Keep it up, dude!

[Grandpa Harley]

I guess it still comes down to whether you believe man evolved in different places around the world independently or whether you believe in creation and a common beginning and heritage in all. If all of mankind shares a common ancestry, it would not be surprising to find a common oral tradition. So, if the flood took place say 4000 BC and mankind dispersed from that single family, they would all go out knowing what happened. This account would be passed down orally and the names might be changed along with some of the particulars, but the central themes would remain the same.

 

I personally see no benefit in trying to build or destroy faith in God based on stories that supposedly took place so far back in antiquity that nothing can be proven. Being a universalist, I am encouraged by the fact that our oral traditions are so similar. It shows that all were being taught the same lessons as part of the plan for all to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

Aren't paradigms fun? LOL

 

John

 

Why does a single point of evolution, followed by waves of diaspora and migration not figure in this? or worse, predicate an act of 'creation'. Simple, intellectual dishonesty could be the issue, but who can say?

 

And as a response to 'benefit', I personally see no benefit you defending your poisonous faith here but it doesn't stop you.

[SWIM]

I guess it still comes down to whether you believe man evolved in different places around the world independently or whether you believe in creation and a common beginning and heritage in all. If all of mankind shares a common ancestry, it would not be surprising to find a common oral tradition. So, if the flood took place say 4000 BC and mankind dispersed from that single family, they would all go out knowing what happened. This account would be passed down orally and the names might be changed along with some of the particulars, but the central themes would remain the same.

 

 

What part of thousands of years difference did you not understand? Gilgamesh came first, making the noah story the "hand me down".

 

A "common oral tradition" is NOT the word of god, thus the genesis story is NOT the word of god, but only a story, just like the jesus myth is only a hand me down story, but hey! You are starting to understand my point!

[par4dcourse]

I personally see no benefit in trying to build or destroy faith in God based on stories that supposedly took place so far back in antiquity that nothing can be proven

But that's exactly what you're doing. NONE of the wholly babble, or any of it's claims, can be proven. Here's where nearly every xtian argument breaks down to "you gotta have faith" and that's where we collectively reply "no, I don't."

Jeff, I grabbed the "well thought out christianity" phrase as an oxymoron and was ready to reply when I read further and saw that you had already done so, quite well I might add.

[Kratos]

I guess it still comes down to whether you believe man evolved in different places around the world independently or whether you believe in creation and a common beginning and heritage in all. If all of mankind shares a common ancestry, it would not be surprising to find a common oral tradition. So, if the flood took place say 4000 BC and mankind dispersed from that single family, they would all go out knowing what happened. This account would be passed down orally and the names might be changed along with some of the particulars, but the central themes would remain the same.

 

 

What part of thousands of years difference did you not understand? Gilgamesh came first, making the noah story the "hand me down".

 

A "common oral tradition" is NOT the word of god, thus the genesis story is NOT the word of god, but only a story, just like the jesus myth is only a hand me down story, but hey! You are starting to understand my point!

 

Like I said, if the flood was an actual event and took place in 4000 BC and Gilgamesh was written 2600 BC and Genesis 1500 BC, this could reflect a common oral tradition that had changes through the years of being passed down. There are a lot of "ifs" in either explanation for the commonality in the two stories. Too many to determne if they were commonly passed down oral traditions from a common ancestry or plagerizm on the part of the one whose book was written last. A moot point that supports whichever view of creation you hold as most likely true.