CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Recently someone tried to tell me the Bible was full of bull because the Giglamesh Epic and some other texts. Like "they mention the flood before your religion, so see, your belief fails" and all this junk.

Now...can somebody tell me if any of this is anything to be concerned about? Deep down I have a feeling it really means nothing, I mean...the texts of Israel go way, way, back, plus how many things has the Bible mentioned that it took us years to figure out were true? I'm pretty sure there's a passage about the earth being a sphere in space (anybody have that verse?), yet humans were too idiotic to figure that out for years.

So can anyone well schooled in this explain? Would check online, but I'd hate to run into some dorky atheist site in the process.

Plus just because I brought it up while explaining myself...anyone else have some cool Bible verses? Yanno, things that Israel knew about even though they shouldn't have? Stuff that nowadays we know through science, but back then they only knew because of God? I always find that stuff fun to read, but it's not exactly easy to remember it all. ^^;

Also while I wrap this up, big apology for all my annoying threads. Unfortunately my mind never stops working, so I always have something new popping up.

Momo-P (post: 1208553) wrote:Recently someone tried to tell me the Bible was full of bull because the Giglamesh Epic and some other texts. Like "they mention the flood before your religion, so see, your belief fails" and all this junk.

The fact that the Akkadian and Sumerian flood myths both predate and form the source material for the Noachian flood myth should not be taken to mean that "the bible is full of bull". Like other bible stories such as the origins story of Genesis (parts of which seem to be based on the Enuma Elish), the point is not so much their historicity, but what they mean about man's relationship with God and with his fellow man. To paraphrase Wilde, your friend has placed too much importance on events and not on what has happened.

The Hebrew culture emerged from the cultural and religious matrix of the ancient near east which was dominated by a succession of non-Hebrew empires. Their interaction with these people and with their other neighbours provided the mythopoetic framework from which early Judaism emerged. However this was not simply syncretisim, and the Hebrews did not merely passively absorb what they found. Rather, we find their borrowings from other cultures to be dramatically changed in what they mean.

Now...can somebody tell me if any of this is anything to be concerned about?

Does it alter the central tenents of Christianity? No. It may require you personally to reevaluate how you approach scripture, but it does not negate your faith. For that matter, such interpretative approaches have long been held by Christianity's most influential theologians.

Deep down I have a feeling it really means nothing, I mean...the texts of Israel go way, way, back,

They go way back, but are long predated by the writings of other cultures. The Hebrews were never a dominant cultural force in the region, and other civilizations were much older.

plus how many things has the Bible mentioned that it took us years to figure out were true? I'm pretty sure there's a passage about the earth being a sphere in space (anybody have that verse?), yet humans were too idiotic to figure that out for years.

Well no. At best such passages are an exercise in the twisting the meaning after the fact. The reality is that such vague and quite poetic passages fit better with the dominant Mesopotamian cosmology of the time. It ought also to be noted that prior to the discoveries of scientists, no theologians argued for anything similar based on their interpretations.

Actually, that has to be the stupidest refutation of beliefs I have ever seen. If multiple different sources make the same claim, its likelyhood (if not plausibility) increases. That's straight logic. Remember, the Jews descend from Abraham, who himself was a Sumerian before being called by God to live apart from the locals. And Sumer is the earliest known human civilization on record, arguably "The first after the flood." That they share the ark story should be reassuring to its credibility.

I agree with both Technomancer and Fish. To add to the discussion, however, I will leave you with this link.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

Here is the summary for those not interested in reading the whole thing:

Although there are a number of similarities between the accounts, the vast majority of similarities would be expected to be found in any ancient flood account. Only two similarities stand out as being unique - landing of the boats on a mountain and the use of birds to determine when the flood subsided. However, both of these similarities differ in important details. In addition, there are great differences in the timing of each of the flood accounts and the nature of the vessels. Why these details would be so drastically changed is a problem for those who claim that the Genesis flood was derived from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

There are a couple possible explanations for the existence of multiple ancient flood accounts. One - that Genesis was a copy of Gilgamesh - has already been discussed and does not seem to fit the available data. The other possible explanation is that the flood was a real event in the history of mankind that was passed down through the generations of different cultures. If so, the Gilgamesh account seems to have undergone some rather radical transformations. The story is a rather silly myth that bears little resemblance to reality. In contrast, the Genesis account is a logical, seemingly factual account of a historical event. It lacks the obvious mythological aspects of the Gilgamesh epic.

Beh, I wouldn't be worried about Gilgamesh, or any one story that predates the bible yet has similarities. However, it does concern me that there are a ton of them. Noah, Issac, Moses, Joseph, Jesus... Most of them originating from Egyptian folklore. And even the bible makes it obvious that the Israelites had a difficult time letting go of their Egyptian heritage, "Give us meat!".

In fact, the Biblical accounts are not based on previous mythology, but stem from the fact that such an event did occur. The simple fact is that any significant event will be recorded multiple times, and by multiple people. Various cultures had various forms of remembrance of this event.

The Flood reads as a pretty significant event. It wasn't exactly a secret, after all. A better question is how Moses wrote all that history - verified history - with accuracy exceeding that of the surrounding sources. (Remember, they're the books of Moses, not of Abraham. Moses saw God's back, the past, but not God's front, the future, so when God revealed the past to Moses, he started "In the beginning".)



Remember, if two newspapers print the same AP article, the one that went to press later fails, right? Even if the second one can do miracles?

Although I am not a believer in literal Genesis, for reasons that I think will lead to discussions not appropriate to CAA and probably in violation of CAA rules, I fully agree with the literalists above who say that this sort of 'refutation' is complete nonsense. A decent lawyer could pull these arguments to pieces in seconds, and it would take a mere high-school level debate team no more than a few minutes. These guys need to take a class in rhetoric and logic, I'm afraid.

The fact that Sumerian writings predating Hebrew writings have similar stories in no way means they are more accurate or original, for the simple reason that we have no way to judge how much they themselves might have been distorted by their own religious beliefs. The Sumerian accounts are full of acts of their own gods... does this mean they are equally valid or invalid? No, it simply means they were written from a very different viewpoint than the Judeo-Christian standard we are familiar with. Those who believe in the Biblical accounts are in no way discredited by this sort of 'evidence'.

The others have written well in this thread. The fact that Hebrew culture comes from Sumerian culture should make it no surprise that Hebrew mythology bears a striking resemblance to Sumerian mythology. As said, it lends itself to more credibility, not less.

Others have spoken well on that topic leaving me only this to respond to:

Momo-P (post: 1208553) wrote:Also while I wrap this up, big apology for all my annoying threads. Unfortunately my mind never stops working, so I always have something new popping up.

A heart that thirsts for knowledge is a most wonderful thing. Do not be so self conscious that you fail to drink from the wisdom and knowledge of those around you. Listen to everything with an open mind seeking the truth and you will find it. Those afraid to seek it never find it.

Even your goofy friends have wisdom to share, even if their ability see truth is clouded by their own desires. (I'm not so sure about knowledge, though. It seems to me they are just parroting their favorite talking points from the History Channel shows that have been playing over the last few weeks. I recommend watching the History Channel, too, then you will know what they will bring up next.)

EricTheFred (post: 1208619) wrote: A decent lawyer could pull these arguments to pieces in seconds, and it would take a mere high-school level debate team no more than a few minutes. These guys need to take a class in rhetoric and logic, I'm afraid.

True, but the same can be said of many Christians as well. That "godandscience" article wasn't any better in its analysis of the arguments.

The fact that Sumerian writings predating Hebrew writings have similar stories in no way means they are more accurate or original,

There was an idea floating around for example that the original flood story could have derived from the Black Sea flood which would have happened much earlier than the advent of Sumerian civilization. I'm not sure how credible that idea is, since there are plenty of other ways in which stories of catastrophic floods could have originated.

Technomancer (post: 1208894) wrote: That "godandscience" article wasn't any better in its analysis of the arguments.

I am glad you found it thought provoking.

ich1990 (post: 1209047) wrote:I am glad you found it thought provoking.

It certainly provoked something!

The fact that Abraham may have carried such stories out of Chaldean Ur
with him or that the scribes who edited the Old Testament in Babylon may have been influenced by their cultural surroundings does not change the importance of the stories.
Has the clone of Khaless told Worf,"Does it really matter if I am the real
Kahless or his clone?"
In the end even myths like Giglamesh can help to strengthen and deepen our faith if we know how.