The Bible as Literature: The Noah/Flood Story

[The Comedian]

Our next selection is Genesis 6-8, which details the Noah and flood story.

Post away. I'll add my comments on this topic a little later.

[YesNo]

Two things stand out for me on reading this:

1) There weren't 2 of each species, as I was used to thinking, but 7 pairs of each species in the ark.

2) After they left the ark, some of each of these species Noah burnt as sacrifices.

[papayahed]

Two things stand out for me on reading this:

1) There weren't 2 of each species, as I was used to thinking, but 7 pairs of each species in the ark.


That surprised me too. There were only two of the unclean species right?

[OrphanPip]

I just don't find the flood story all that interesting, it's not even unique to the Bible, appearing in the older Epic of Gilgamesh as well.

It reminds me of this Isabella Rossellini video though:

http://greenporno.tumblr.com/post/1649260239/noahs-ark-episode-andy-byers-took-it-to-the-next

[BienvenuJDC]

That surprised me too. There were only two of the unclean species right?

Yes, that is true. The only reason that there were 7 pair of the clean animals is that they sacrificed them as Yes/No said.

[YesNo]

I just don't find the flood story all that interesting, it's not even unique to the Bible, appearing in the older Epic of Gilgamesh as well.

It reminds me of this Isabella Rossellini video though:

http://greenporno.tumblr.com/post/1649260239/noahs-ark-episode-andy-byers-took-it-to-the-next

I enjoyed the video. And when the sacrificing time comes after the flood waters leave, I'd like to sacrifice the mosquitoes.

I don't find the flood story interesting either, but what I think is interesting is that the story is supposedly part of J's original text which started the whole thing. But who knows what she originally wrote?

What some consider to be J's text was translated by David Rosenberg as The Book of J. Harold Bloom's commentaries are in there.

[Haunted]

So men are sons of God, but women are only daughters of men? And what exactly is uncleaned beasts?

[Jassy Melson]

It's debatable whether the flood episode in the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the Bible's account.

The literary merit of the flood story in the Bible is excellent; whereas the account in the Epic of Gilgamesh is crude and fragmented--the writing I mean. The account in the Bible reads smoothly. Whoever wrote the Bible's accouht of the flood was an accomplished writer.

[weltanschauung]

Two things stand out for me on reading this:

1) There weren't 2 of each species, as I was used to thinking, but 7 pairs of each species in the ark.



one pair representing each elohim. there are 7 elohim, which in greek mythology would be the equivalent to the seven original planets: sun, mercury, venus, moon, mars, jupiter, saturn. yeah i know, sun and moon arent planets, but im not classifying, just mentioning.

[weltanschauung]

in hebrew mythology it would be the 7 demiurgs, the archangels that built the world:Mikael, Gabriel, Shatqiel, Baradiel, Shachqiel, Baraqiel (Baradiel), Sidiel (or Pazriel),

and in the christian gnostic mythology it would be: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel (Phanuel), Barachiel, Sealtiel, Jehudiel

the seven elohim are:Iao, Sabaoth, Adonai, Ouraios, Eloi, Astaphaios, Achamoth

well, you get the point

[MystyrMystyry]

Those dudes were just obsessed with the number seven (the highest of the single numerical primes) and looked for 'seven' in everything. Seven days of the week! It's a miracle! Seven planets! It's a miracle! Seven prophets! It's a miracle! Seven plagues! It's a miracle!

Julian Barnes' History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters has a great account of what it might've been like to be on the Ark, but I'm not going to spoil it for you.

The fact that the myth appears in Gilgamesh is due to it being one of the collected tales of the peoples of the region. (How many peoples? Seven? It's a miracle!)

Or it wasn't a myth at all, and had a profound affect on those who experienced it. I mean a flood's just a seasonal occurence, but when it does actually rain for forty days and you don't know anything about Earth shifting on its axis or pole inversion or can't even be sure where rain comes from...

There had been an Iceage thousands of years before the invention of writing, and there's no mention of it anywhere, not even in cave paintings.

No, I think to a desert dwelling people who were more accustomed to droughts and duststorms, the opposite very wet hardship would have had to made you think 'Why does our God hate us so much?'

[Drkshadow03]

I noticed a lot of people mention the 7 animals. But if you read closely right before the seven animals, God commands Noah to bring two pairs of each animal only. Later the narrative again assumes there are only two pairs of animals.

"And of all that lives, of all flesh, you shall take two of each into the ark to keep alive with you; they shall be male and female" (Genesis 6:19, JPS translation)

"Of every clean animal you shall take seven pairs, males and their mates, and of every animal that is not clean, two, a male and its mate" (Genesis 7:2)

"Of the clean animals, of the animals that are not clean, of the birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two of each, male and female, came to Noah into the ark, as God had commanded Noah" (Genesis 7:8)

"They came to Noah into the ark, two each of all flesh in which there was breath of life" (Genesis 7:15)


"Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking of every clean animal and of every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar" (Genesis 8:20)

If read it all as one unified story, the flood myth contains a lot of contradictions.

Of course, I think there are actually two flood stories here that switch back and forth between their narrative in a pattern: Story A, then part of Story B, part of Story A, then part of Story B, etc. The ending of one of the stories occur at the end of Genesis 8, while the end of the other version occurs at the beginning of Genesis 9. Yes, there are even two endings.

This also explains why God repeats a million times, that yes, he plans to destroy the earth with water as if we don't believe the first three or four times he tells Noah. Of course, he probably only tells him twice per a narrative, but since these are two stories spliced together, it sounds like he is repeating himself. Each story has slight variants from each other in other little details.

In one story, the main reason he destroys the earth seems to be that humans are copulating with other divine beings (angels), thus alluding to Genesis 3 and the fear that humanity could become divine by eating from the tree of life. This theme consistently repeats itself throughout Genesis and other parts of the Bible (humans are not meant to be divine like God, and bad things happen to them when they try to surpass their limitations). He does connect this to a more general: therefore, the people were evil and wicked.

In the other version of the story, the main reason seems to be a much more general people are just evil and wicked and the earth has become corrupt, without much of a specific reason.

The presence of two stories suggests that these stories originally circulated orally before they were recorded and two different traditions, if not more were written down. Whoever redacted this narrative must have felt both stories were authoritative for different reasons.

The sacrifice at the end of Genesis 8 almost undoubtably is part of the 7 animal version of the narrative. It says he specifically kills one of each clean animal, which means an animal he is allowed to eat (it's kosher) and sacrifice to God. The seventh animal that is sacrificed represents the sabbath and the end of "new" creation at the end of the flood, while the other six go off to mate and repopulate the earth.

The other ending gives us the origins of rainbows (God's bow in the sky as his symbol of the new covenant with humanity).

I agree with Orphanpip. The narrative seems to have a relationship to the flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This idea pretty much has mainstream acceptance in academia in Biblical Studies, Judaic Studies, English courses that cover the Bible as Literature.

There is the obvious major similarity that they are both flood stories in which God or gods destroy the world because of humanity's wickedness and chose to save one survivor.

Both Utnapishtim and Noah release ravens and doves to see if the earth has tried. Utnapishtim releases one additional type of bird, and the order is reversed I think in the two narrative of which bird is released when.

Like the many deities in the Babylonian narrative, we are told God finds the scent of Noah's sacrifice pleasing. The Babylonian narrative has the deities squabbling, while this narrative has God promising never to destroy everyone again.

The Babylonian version takes part of a larger epic. It's almost like a mini-story/side-story that relates only through its theme of life and death and its interactions with the main character to the larger story of the epic. The biblical version seems to stand on its own more as a story in its own right. It functions as part of a larger theological history. It has the feel of a continuous mythological history, like we are progressing linearly through time, while the Babylonian story is a character talking about his past (an event that already happened).

Interestingly, nobody mentioned the beginning of Genesis 6:

"When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the divine begins saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them.--The Lord said, "My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years."--It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth--when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown."

What an enigmatic passage! So the children of these divine beings mating with human were called Nephilim, and this mating angered God (probably for the reasons listed above about one of the main running themes of Genesis).

A number possibilities exist to explain this bizarre passage:

1) there really were extra-biblical tales known to the ancient Israelites of the time about the Nephilim, the children of divine beings mating with humans, that have since been lost with the passage of time and were not considered Canonical enough to be included in the Bible, or even might have been forgotten by the time the Bible was being redacted. This would then be a faint cultural memory of lost Israelite mythology.

2)this is a mocking commentary on their neighbors' mythology (Mesopotamian, Greeks, Canaanites), which included human beings who were the offspring of their deities and a focus on great heroes descended from deities. The Israelites in this story present the very idea of such a union as a sin and a heresy that caused the first end of the world by linking it to the Noah flood story.

I had a discussion with JBI a little while back on a thread here in litnet in which he pointed out that Judaism has no tradition of heroes, the one exception possibly being Samson from the Book of Judges (as I argued). Instead we have prophets and messengers of God. So the last line of Genesis 6:4: "They were the heroes of old, the men of renown" is also interesting when we consider this fact.

I think all of this indicates quite explicitly that we should read this as a mocking commentary of their neighbors' beliefs rather than a lost tradition of stories, unless there really is a lost tradition of Israelite hero narratives. This also helps us frame one of their possible aesthetic purposes in the Noah flood myth. If we understand the beginning of Genesis 6 to be an attack on their neighbors' beliefs, what a better way than to follow it up by recasting and rewriting the flood myth of their neighbors in the shape of Israelite monotheistic theology.

[DanielBenoit]

What a wonderful idea for a thread! I think I shall join and comment soon. I agree very much with DrkShadow's comments. I think one of the greatest virtues about the Torah/first five books of the Bible is the great irony and uncanniness of Yahweh/God. I cannot think of a single figure in all of literature that is comparable. We have become so familiarized with these stories that we forget the strangeness and striking originality of them. Just take one of my favorite moments in Genesis when Jacob wrestles with an unknown angel until sundown.

Anyway, I'll re-read the Flood story and comment later.

[YesNo]

Of course, I think there are actually two flood stories here that switch back and forth between their narrative in a pattern: Story A, then part of Story B, part of Story A, then part of Story B, etc. The ending of one of the stories occur at the end of Genesis 8, while the end of the other version occurs at the beginning of Genesis 9. Yes, there are even two endings.

The commentary in The Jewish Study Bible says this about the two stories:


Critical scholars explain the contradiction by attributing 6.19-20 to the Priestly source (P) but 7.2 to the J. Only the latter reports Noah's sacrifice when he emerges from the ark (8.20-21). If there were only one pair of each animal, this sacrifice would lead to the counterproductive result that the species offered would thereby become extinct.

And then there was the "Redactor" (Ezra?) who put it all together.

Based on a Chronology in The Book of J, for what it's worth, J wrote this between 950-900 BCE and P wrote between 550-500 BCE and then the Redactor made the final version around 400 BCE.

[DanielBenoit]

I should also like to mention that if it's okay with Comedian, can we go in chronological order? Like maybe have a reading group on Genesis and then Exodus, idk. I was recently planning to re-read anyway. I would love to see a discussion here on the stories of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.

[weltanschauung]

Those dudes were just obsessed with the number seven (the highest of the single numerical primes) and looked for 'seven' in everything. Seven days of the week! It's a miracle! Seven planets! It's a miracle! Seven prophets! It's a miracle! Seven plagues! It's a miracle!


The fact that the myth appears in Gilgamesh is due to it being one of the collected tales of the peoples of the region. (How many peoples? Seven? It's a miracle!)



if you wanna look at it as just some kind of amazing repetitive and naive coincidence, you'll be missing out on a lot. but suit yourself
:)


I noticed a lot of people mention the 7 animals. But if you read closely right before the seven animals, God commands Noah to bring two pairs of each animal only. Later the narrative again assumes there are only two pairs of animals.

If read it all as one unified story, the flood myth contains a lot of contradictions.

Of course, I think there are actually two flood stories here that switch back and forth between their narrative in a pattern: Story A, then part of Story B, part of Story A, then part of Story B, etc. The ending of one of the stories occur at the end of Genesis 8, while the end of the other version occurs at the beginning of Genesis 9. Yes, there are even two endings.

This also explains why God repeats a million times, that yes, he plans to destroy the earth with water as if we don't believe the first three or four times he tells Noah. Of course, he probably only tells him twice per a narrative, but since these are two stories spliced together, it sounds like he is repeating himself. Each story has slight variants from each other in other little details.

In one story, the main reason he destroys the earth seems to be that humans are copulating with other divine beings (angels), thus alluding to Genesis 3 and the fear that humanity could become divine by eating from the tree of life. This theme consistently repeats itself throughout Genesis and other parts of the Bible (humans are not meant to be divine like God, and bad things happen to them when they try to surpass their limitations). He does connect this to a more general: therefore, the people were evil and wicked.

In the other version of the story, the main reason seems to be a much more general people are just evil and wicked and the earth has become corrupt, without much of a specific reason.

The presence of two stories suggests that these stories originally circulated orally before they were recorded and two different traditions, if not more were written down. Whoever redacted this narrative must have felt both stories were authoritative for different reasons.

The sacrifice at the end of Genesis 8 almost undoubtably is part of the 7 animal version of the narrative. It says he specifically kills one of each clean animal, which means an animal he is allowed to eat (it's kosher) and sacrifice to God. The seventh animal that is sacrificed represents the sabbath and the end of "new" creation at the end of the flood, while the other six go off to mate and repopulate the earth.

The other ending gives us the origins of rainbows (God's bow in the sky as his symbol of the new covenant with humanity).

I agree with Orphanpip. The narrative seems to have a relationship to the flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh. This idea pretty much has mainstream acceptance in academia in Biblical Studies, Judaic Studies, English courses that cover the Bible as Literature.

There is the obvious major similarity that they are both flood stories in which God or gods destroy the world because of humanity's wickedness and chose to save one survivor.

Both Utnapishtim and Noah release ravens and doves to see if the earth has tried. Utnapishtim releases one additional type of bird, and the order is reversed I think in the two narrative of which bird is released when.

Like the many deities in the Babylonian narrative, we are told God finds the scent of Noah's sacrifice pleasing. The Babylonian narrative has the deities squabbling, while this narrative has God promising never to destroy everyone again.

The Babylonian version takes part of a larger epic. It's almost like a mini-story/side-story that relates only through its theme of life and death and its interactions with the main character to the larger story of the epic. The biblical version seems to stand on its own more as a story in its own right. It functions as part of a larger theological history. It has the feel of a continuous mythological history, like we are progressing linearly through time, while the Babylonian story is a character talking about his past (an event that already happened).


I had a discussion with JBI a little while back on a thread here in litnet in which he pointed out that Judaism has no tradition of heroes, the one exception possibly being Samson from the Book of Judges (as I argued). Instead we have prophets and messengers of God. So the last line of Genesis 6:4: "They were the heroes of old, the men of renown" is also interesting when we consider this fact.

I think all of this indicates quite explicitly that we should read this as a mocking commentary of their neighbors' beliefs rather than a lost tradition of stories, unless there really is a lost tradition of Israelite hero narratives. This also helps us frame one of their possible aesthetic purposes in the Noah flood myth. If we understand the beginning of Genesis 6 to be an attack on their neighbors' beliefs, what a better way than to follow it up by recasting and rewriting the flood myth of their neighbors in the shape of Israelite monotheistic theology.

you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_with_Sources_Revealed

which i have, i will quote a part of the introduction so that you have a clue as to why i am mentioning it:

"For centuries, scholars from many backgrounds have worked on discovering how the Bible came to be. They were religious and non religious, Christians and Jews. Their task was not to prove whether the Bible's words were divinely revealed to the authors. That is a question of faith, not scholarship. Rather, they were trying to learn the history of those authors: what they wrote, when they wrote, and why they wrote. The solution that has been the most persuasive for over a century is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. The idea of this hypothesis is that the Bible's first books were formed through a long process. Ancient writers produced documents of poetry, prose, and law over many hundreds of years. And then editors used these documents as sources. Those editors fashioned from these sources the Bible that people have read for some two thousand yearrs.
(...)
The basic hypothesis is: These biblical books were assembled from sources.

The process of identifying the biblical sources took centuries. the process of refining our identifications of these sources has been ongoing, and it continues to the present day. Initially, it was a tentative decision based on simple factors: where the name of God appeared in the texts, similar stories appearing twice in the texts, contradictions of fact between one text and another. Accounts of this early identifying and refining may be found in many introductions to this subject and in my "who wrote the bible?" The collection of evidence here is not a review of that history of the subject. It is a tabulation of the evidence that has emerged that establishes the hypothesis. It is grouped here in seven categories, which form the seven main arguments for the hypothesis in my judgement.
1) Linguistic
2) Terminology
3) Consistent Content
4) Continuity of Texts (narrative flow)
5) Connections with other parts of the Bible
6) Relationships among the sources: to each other and to history
7) Convergence

(to finish)

I have seen it claimed that such doublets are a common phenomenon in ancient Near Eastern literature. That is false. No such phenomenon exists. Doublets are not common in Near Eastern prose because there is no Near Eastern prose, in the form of either history-writing or long fiction, prior to these biblical texts. It is not even common in Near Eastern poetry. The poetic text that comes closest to the qualities of the biblical text that we are discussing here is the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the Epic of Gilgamesh is a composite of several sources. It is a demonstration of composition by combining sources in the ancient Near east, not a refutation of it.(...)"


anyways, i own this book, and have read it over 10 years ago, but i strongly suggest that if you really want to have a serious overview of this whole conundrum, you should at least take a look at this great work, before formulating all kinds of naive assumptions. i guarantee you will be shocked. and when i say "you" im obviously not putting Drkshadow03 on the spot, i just mean anyone who is reading this thread and is intrigued by the topic.


http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/101.gif

[Drkshadow03]

you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_with_Sources_Revealed

which i have, i will quote a part of the introduction so that you have a clue as to why i am mentioning it:

[. . .}


anyways, i own this book, and have read it over 10 years ago, but i strongly suggest that if you really want to have a serious overview of this whole conundrum, you should at least take a look at this great work, before formulating all kinds of naive assumptions. i guarantee you will be shocked. and when i say "you" im obviously not putting Drkshadow03 on the spot, i just mean anyone who is reading this thread and is intrigued by the topic.


http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/101.gif

Actually, I'm still not sure why you're mentioning it. I am well aware of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis and know there are variants.

Quoting myself from the now locked thread where The Comedian announced the creation of this group (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=983986&postcount=19):


"Any discussion of the Bible as literature always has in mind the documentary hypothesis (JEPD). Since it recognizes that there is minimally four writers for the Torah, writing probably during different time periods and with slightly different theological and ideological viewpoints, there are going to be some contradictions in material. I agree with JBI; it's the ultimate literary anthology book. If Wordsworth wrote one poem in a poetry collection and then another poem that contradicted his emotions and feelings in the same collection, I don't automatically think that constitutes grounds for dismissing the poetry collection. Just because different writers between books contradict each other doesn't necessarily mean this speaks against its literary merits."

Are you disagreeing with me about something? Or are you just mentioning it for the group's knowledge? I'm genuinely confused.

[L.M. The Third]

So men are sons of God, but women are only daughters of men? And what exactly is uncleaned beasts?

I've always understood this to mean intermarriage between the descendants of the godly Seth and the descendants of Cain. I can't give you definitive proof though.

Leviticus 11 outlines the laws of clean and unclean beasts. I realize that the Levitical ordinances were given after the flood story, but this could have several explanations. Some people believe that only after the flood did God permit the eating of flesh, so this could be the first instance where God makes a demarcation, through His instructions to Noah. Taking a less inspirational view, this could have been added to the flood account (admittedly a common "myth" in many cultures) by someone zealous for the health laws.

[YesNo]

you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_with_Sources_Revealed
...
The solution that has been the most persuasive for over a century is known as the Documentary Hypothesis. The idea of this hypothesis is that the Bible's first books were formed through a long process. Ancient writers produced documents of poetry, prose, and law over many hundreds of years. And then editors used these documents as sources. Those editors fashioned from these sources the Bible that people have read for some two thousand yearrs.
...
you should at least take a look at this great work, before formulating all kinds of naive assumptions.
Thanks for the reference to Richard Elliot Friedman's book. I'm looking for someone other than Harold Bloom as a reference.

Harold Bloom does have something interesting to say about Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (as opposed to the Authorial Hypothesis that claims that Moses was the sole author):



Unfortunately these grand savants were all Hegelians, and like Hegel, they saw Israelite faith as a primitive preparation for the sublimities of the true religion, high-minded Christianity, a properly Germanic belief purged of gross Jewish vulgarities and superstitions.


So the original 19th century Documentary Hypothesis may have been motivated by an anti-Jewish, pro-Christian bias, but today, I don't think it supports any Christian bias either.

As far as forming "naive assumptions", I suspect we can't avoid doing that, but here's trying!

[weltanschauung]

Actually, I'm still not sure why you're mentioning it. I am well aware of Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis and know there are variants.

Quoting myself from the now locked thread where The Comedian announced the creation of this group (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=983986&postcount=19):



Are you disagreeing with me about something? Or are you just mentioning it for the group's knowledge? I'm genuinely confused.

i dont know if im disagreeing, i didnt read what you wrote, just bits. its too long. and i also didnt read some other forum whatever. just mentioning. so i dont get it,what are you guys discussing? just the story itself?
but for goths sake, this is not meant to be an insult.

[weltanschauung]

Thanks for the reference to Richard Elliot Friedman's book. I'm looking for someone other than Harold Bloom as a reference.

Harold Bloom does have something interesting to say about Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (as opposed to the Authorial Hypothesis that claims that Moses was the sole author):



So the original 19th century Documentary Hypothesis may have been motivated by an anti-Jewish, pro-Christian bias, but today, I don't think it supports any Christian bias either.

As far as forming "naive assumptions", I suspect we can't avoid doing that, but here's trying!

im sorry if i come out as agressive, its just that im like that, but i didnt mean it that way. what i meant to say is that, the number 7 is not just a randomly picked repetitive number. if you actually check out the nature of things, you will see that the number 7 is a tangible part of our reality.
there are 7 colors in the spectrum of visible light, 7 notes in the musical scale, 7 days a week (lunar), 7 sins, etc etc, and this is apart from all the mistical references to the same number such as the angels, the demiurgs, the sirens, the seals, and all of that which we are familiar with.

anyway, this is something you might rejoice with if you feel bored or something Theosophist, June, 1880 (http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/NumberSeven.htm)

[Drkshadow03]

i dont know if im disagreeing, i didnt read what you wrote, just bits. its too long. and i also didnt read some other forum whatever. just mentioning. so i dont get it,what are you guys discussing? just the story itself?
but for goths sake, this is not meant to be an insult.

I didn't think you were insulting me, but I was confused why you were quoting my post.

We are discussing the story (and other Bible stories) as literature, which entails in part focusing on the story itself, at least in part. I think bringing up authorship in such a discussion is certainly relevant though.

[weltanschauung]

hmmm, okay. id have to read the whole thing then.

[YesNo]

anyway, this is something you might rejoice with if you feel bored or something Theosophist, June, 1880 (http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/NumberSeven.htm)
Everybody likes 7 it seems. I like to think it is because we have 10 fingers and 7 is the largest prime number less than 10.

The burnt sacrifice that Noah makes of the clean animals keeps coming back to mind especially because Yahweh loved the smell. There's something politically incorrect about that, although I'm not sure I can say exactly what it is. I do enjoy the smell of meat on a grill.

And this sacrifice is in J's version not P's version of the event. Harold Bloom does seem to suggest she was the wild one writing "fresh" and the rest of the authors had to tone her down. I am beginning to find some disagreements with Bloom which makes me think I've started to understand what he is saying. Basically, he seems to like J a little too much. I wonder why she bothered writing this at all? There was no Lit-Net competition to enter. What were the motivations? Surely, she wasn't trying to consciously write Genesis.

[OrphanPip]

Since Noah doesn't seem to be inspiring much discussion.

How bout we do the story of Joseph next, Genesis 37-50. It's a longer one, and should provide for more discussion.

[YesNo]

Since Noah doesn't seem to be inspiring much discussion.

How bout we do the story of Joseph next, Genesis 37-50. It's a longer one, and should provide for more discussion.
It looks like we could expand into Genesis more. Maybe just open a thread on the entire book of Genesis itself, but restricting it to the part about Joseph is OK with me.

The more I read Bloom's commentary on J, the more I get mixed feelings about J's intent in originally writing these stories. These threads have been a good place to try on ideas.

[Drkshadow03]

Since Noah doesn't seem to be inspiring much discussion.

How bout we do the story of Joseph next, Genesis 37-50. It's a longer one, and should provide for more discussion.

I'd be game for Joseph.

[DanielBenoit]

It looks like we could expand into Genesis more. Maybe just open a thread on the entire book of Genesis itself, but restricting it to the part about Joseph is OK with me.

Great idea, for I wouldn't want to overlook Jacob. . .

[OrphanPip]

Great idea, for I wouldn't want to overlook Jacob. . .

Ya, but Jacob never inspired a so-so Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.

[Drkshadow03]

Ya, but Jacob never inspired a so-so Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.

"I look handsome, I look smart, I am a walking work of art . . . "

"Close every door to me. Keep those I love from me. Forget all about me, and leave me to die!"

"Those Canaan days we used to know, where have they gone? Where did they go?"

:D

[L.M. The Third]

"I look handsome, I look smart, I am a walking work of art . . . "

"Close every door to me. Keep those I love from me. Forget all about me, and leave me to die!"

"Those Canaan days we used to know, where have they gone? Where did they go?"

:D
Huh?
:shocked::eek6::yikes:

[Drkshadow03]

Huh?
:shocked::eek6::yikes:

They're lyrics from the Andrew Lloyd Weber musical Orphanpip was talking about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_the_Amazing_Technicolor_Dreamcoat).

You can list here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z06vEUfmuMQ), here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfnKmofHLo8&feature=fvst), and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZOWrk61Zl4).

However, if you'd prefer music to go with our current story, you can click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqDJQc2gTv8). :D

[L.M. The Third]

They're lyrics from the Andrew Lloyd Weber musical Orphanpip was talking about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_the_Amazing_Technicolor_Dreamcoat).

You can list here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z06vEUfmuMQ), here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfnKmofHLo8&feature=fvst), and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZOWrk61Zl4).

However, if you'd prefer music to go with our current story, you can click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqDJQc2gTv8). :D

Yes, I realized that was what the quotes were from. I was just expressing how strange I found them... Thanks for the links. I'll listen to the videos later, but I'm not too fond of musicals.

[SFG75]

Excellent discussion up to this point, very insightful points have been brought up for thoughtful consideration. I too, have heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh flood and how the Bible "copies" it. That link is a bit tenuous as we must remember that "correlation doesn't prove causation." While they appear to be related, it would be a mistake to assume that they necessarily are simply because both stories mention a flood. Ted Cabal and other apologists have also pointed out that the flood is the main story in the Genesis account, while it was more of a side note in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Chapter 6's emphasis on the corruption of mankind brings several interesting points to consider. the "sons of god...daughters of men" reference can be interpreted as angels taking human women for wives, a "corruption" of marriage that was punishable by God. It could also be argued by other sources, that the followers of God began marrying the daughters of Cain. Theological debates on matters like this are excellently covered through The MacArthur study Bible which I have, definitely a ton of great material if one is inclined to shell out the money.

I have to say that Chapter 7 is one of my favorite to read, I just love the account of the flood, as well as the scientific debate about it. I was quite unaware about the flood occurring from above, as well as below. The "fountains of the deep" and "the floodgates of the sky" hypothesis is fascinating to look at, though it far from proven that holding that amount of water in the atmosphere is far from proven. I have also heard of others arguing that the other was covered in a "mist" and that perhaps this was the water from above.

Interestingly enough the Hud from the Koran mentions the flood and also has a line where it is also stated that the water came from above and below. In 11.044, Noah asks Allah to stop the rain from the sky and for the earth to swallow up the water. Also interestingly enough, the Hud contains passages about Noah losing a son who thought he would be safe scaling up a mountain, and that he was unrighteous. Genesis 6 mentions Noah's three sons, but as far as I can gather, not one of them is mentioned to have been crushed in the flood.

[YesNo]

Excellent discussion up to this point, very insightful points have been brought up for thoughtful consideration. I too, have heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh flood and how the Bible "copies" it. That link is a bit tenuous as we must remember that "correlation doesn't prove causation." While they appear to be related, it would be a mistake to assume that they necessarily are simply because both stories mention a flood. Ted Cabal and other apologists have also pointed out that the flood is the main story in the Genesis account, while it was more of a side note in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Chapter 6's emphasis on the corruption of mankind brings several interesting points to consider. the "sons of god...daughters of men" reference can be interpreted as angels taking human women for wives, a "corruption" of marriage that was punishable by God. It could also be argued by other sources, that the followers of God began marrying the daughters of Cain. Theological debates on matters like this are excellently covered through The MacArthur study Bible which I have, definitely a ton of great material if one is inclined to shell out the money.

I have to say that Chapter 7 is one of my favorite to read, I just love the account of the flood, as well as the scientific debate about it. I was quite unaware about the flood occurring from above, as well as below. The "fountains of the deep" and "the floodgates of the sky" hypothesis is fascinating to look at, though it far from proven that holding that amount of water in the atmosphere is far from proven. I have also heard of others arguing that the other was covered in a "mist" and that perhaps this was the water from above.

Interestingly enough the Hud from the Koran mentions the flood and also has a line where it is also stated that the water came from above and below. In 11.044, Noah asks Allah to stop the rain from the sky and for the earth to swallow up the water. Also interestingly enough, the Hud contains passages about Noah losing a son who thought he would be safe scaling up a mountain, and that he was unrighteous. Genesis 6 mentions Noah's three sons, but as far as I can gather, not one of them is mentioned to have been crushed in the flood.
I marked the parts in bold that interested me.

The Hud clearly was written after the Torah and it is likely that Mohammad modified the original version to suit his purposes. It is harder to tell if the flood mentioned in Genesis was based on an earlier story, perhaps something the Hittites were aware of. My suspicion is that it was.

I also wonder where all the water came from. It had to cover all the land. Perhaps the land sank under the weight of the water much like it did with the glaciers. Or perhaps it is just a story. Or a story of an event less global that happened long ago.

Thanks for giving this thread some new life!

[OrphanPip]

Biblical "science" is rather intriguing just from a sociological perspective, in that the shoddy processes of a priori assumption and weak application of intellectual rigour that goes into those studies seems to engender support amongst the same people who resist the rigorously tested and supported theory of evolution. A global flood like that mentioned in the Noah story is an impossibility, and there is no physical evidence of any flood ever having happened. Small scale flash floods do occasionally happen, so it is easy to understand how societies with primitive understandings of the natural world could develop a story of a global flood, or how a story of a regional flood could become exaggerated over several generations.

The fact that Gilgamesh and Noah mention floods isn't what people base the theory that the Noah story takes from the previous. The fact is that the story is found throughout the region, in roughly the same form, and that the Gilgamesh story is older than the Noah one. You can do this with essentially any myth, at least as far back as the beginning of literate culture. That's what the field of comparative religion is largely based on. Religions borrowed from each other like mad in antiquity.

Edit: fyi I'd still be interested in discussing Joshua, which is a story that I think has more literary merit than Noah, if someone wants to start a thread on it.

[SFG75]

Thanks for the kind response YesNo. I am a member of several book forums and I have to say that I have to come here if I want a rich discussion, the others serve more of a social function for me. It's great to see a place where some in-depth conversations can be had.

Yes, the covering of all the mountains does necessitate the stretching of credulity, no doubt about that. From what I gather from the MacArthur study Bible, atmospheric conditions were completely different back then. It is alien to us as things are drastically different now. While I understand the concept of a "thermal blanket" of water surrounding the atmosphere, I have a problem swallowing it realistically. It has been proffered that volcanic explosions due to the separating of the earth's crust, could have punctured such an atmospheric phenomenon, unleashing giant floods. The wellsprings from "below" is also an interesting item to look at. To interpret the reading, you can't help but glean from the reading that there was a ton of water under the crust below the waterbed. It is also interesting to note that there are over 270 flood narratives. Christian apologists would argue that this is grounds of proof of the Noahic flood of course.

[OrphanPip]

Yes, the covering of all the mountains does necessitate the stretching of credulity, no doubt about that. From what I gather from the MacArthur study Bible, atmospheric conditions were completely different back then. It is alien to us as things are drastically different now. While I understand the concept of a "thermal blanket" of water surrounding the atmosphere, I have a problem swallowing it realistically. It has been proffered that volcanic explosions due to the separating of the earth's crust, could have punctured such an atmospheric phenomenon, unleashing giant floods. The wellsprings from "below" is also an interesting item to look at. To interpret the reading, you can't help but glean from the reading that there was a ton of water under the crust below the waterbed. It is also interesting to note that there are over 270 flood narratives. Christian apologists would argue that this is grounds of proof of the Noahic flood of course.

Well samples from glacial ice would suggest that atmosphere conditions 5000-10,000 years ago were relatively the same. You have to go back a few million to have major differences, although climatic changes have occurred more regionally.

I've read the idea of an atmospheric blanket of water before, except such a thing would be physically impossible, if there was that much atmospheric water, human beings would be suffocating. If it were somehow held up in the air away from ground levels, how did it not turn to ice? The idea is scientifically untenable.

[SFG75]

Sorry that I missed your reply just before mine OP. When people post close in time, that happens, quite annoying when it happens to you.


The fact is that the story is found throughout the region, in roughly the same form, and that the Gilgamesh story is older than the Noah one. You can do this with essentially any myth, at least as far back as the beginning of literate culture. That's what the field of comparative religion is largely based on. Religions borrowed from each other like mad in antiquity.

Perhaps a narrative about a flood is a common thread. I would be able to buy into that rationalization. At the same time, it cannot be definitively proven who borrowed a story from who. The atheist argument fails on that point, perhaps the only point that does.


I've read the idea of an atmospheric blanket of water before, except such a thing would be physically impossible, if there was that much atmospheric water, human beings would be suffocating. If it were somehow held up in the air away from ground levels, how did it not turn to ice? The idea is scientifically untenable.

On this point, I would definitely have to agree with you. Talkorigins is a great website that contains a TON of information on creationist claims. You can find the relevant points about the water canopy here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH401.html) To me, the onus is one the believer to establish proof of antediluvian conditions through the fossil and plant life records.

[Jassy Melson]

What I find interesting about the flood story is that cultures all over the world have legends and myths about it. How is this possible, if there is not a grain of truth to it?

[OrphanPip]

What I find interesting about the flood story is that cultures all over the world have legends and myths about it. How is this possible, if there is not a grain of truth to it?

Those broad statements neglect the subtleties though. Some cultures have flood myths that involve gods destroying a village, many cultures have flood stories to explain the origin of the oceans. In the Middle-East you get the Global Flood myth in particular.

Myths about floods are very common, because floods are a common occurrence.

"Babel myths" about gods creating the different languages are incredibly common as well. Yet, we can trace quite accurately the divergence of languages and identify how they are related and have changed over time.

Edit: It should also be noted that many cultures that had flood myths didn't actually believe them as literally true.

[Jassy Melson]

That still doesn't explain why so many cultures all over the world had myths and legends about worldwide floods, not just local floods.

[SFG75]

That still doesn't explain why so many cultures all over the world had myths and legends about worldwide floods, not just local floods.

Some Christian apologists have argued that all the other 269 flood stories are latter year recollections of "the flood" mentioned in Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written roughly 2150-2000 B.C.E. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh) while Genesis was created around 1450-1405 according to the MacArthur study Bible. This in and of itself may not be significant. Genesis could have existed in oral tradition or on written text before this, we just don't know it yet. On a different level, OP already answered the question.


Myths about floods are very common, because floods are a common occurrence.

Geography does determine religious text to a certain extent. The rules of trade and legal dealings mentioned in Leviticus or the Koran are directly related to the economy of the people. Marriage rights and inheritance laws are to prevent tribal strife which could have tore the community apart, not to mention conflicts over property jurisdiction(i.e.-whose child is this?) which would have necessitated the need for laws regarding marriage, children, and divorce.

[YesNo]

That still doesn't explain why so many cultures all over the world had myths and legends about worldwide floods, not just local floods.
The flooding of the Black Sea 7500 years ago might be an explanation for some of the stories: http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news165.htm

This would be a local flooding, however, but massive. Then stories of the event spread.

[SFG75]

As literature, I have to say that chapter 6 to 8 is a good read. I prefer the creation story in chapter 1 quite frankly, there is something majestic and powerful about it. The description of the flood rains from above and below makes for an impressive imaginative picture in one's mind. Say what you want about science, but the Hebrews were not too bad when it came to literature writing.

[YesNo]

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written roughly 2150-2000 B.C.E. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh) while Genesis was created around 1450-1405 according to the MacArthur study Bible.
The chronology in David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom's The Book of J dates the earliest part of Genesis written by the Yahwist (J) at 950-900 BCE. But who knows?

Interpretation is itself a story.

[OrphanPip]

The chronology in David Rosenberg and Harold Bloom's The Book of J dates the earliest part of Genesis written by the Yahwist (J) at 950-900 BCE. But who knows?

Interpretation is itself a story.

The Bloom dates are more widely believed I think, since they are based on evidence.

The 1453 date is held by fundamentalist Christians and some conservative Jewish people because they believe the earliest books were written by Moses. However, this is no where near the broadly accepted dating of the book.

The reason for dating the earliest parts to the 900-800 BCE range is that those are the times when the historical information in the Bible corresponds to what we can verify from other contemporary sources and from archeological evidence. (Amongst other things like analysis of the language and style)

[libernaut]

There is an interesting interpretation of comparative Flood Stories in the movie Kymatica. You can probaby find it for free online, youtube it or whatever. definitely interesting stuff. The movie as a whole is pretty dumb, but it's good at parts.

[martunia99]

For me the story is symbolic maybe the arc stands for a piece of land that survived and each animal stands for 10 animals and even if it's not symbolic we can always think God made more people and animals after because with the amount of animals really written in the bible it's impossible for them to survive because once the pair has babies their would be no more generations.

[Dark Star]

What I find interesting about the flood story is that cultures all over the world have legends and myths about it. How is this possible, if there is not a grain of truth to it?

I don't entirely dispute the possibility of myths and legends in telling of an accurate history myself; some myths are used as broad time frames to check for geological events and they are occasionally accurate. However, even if we're to ignore the fact that a worldwide flood violates various laws of physics (as noted earlier by another poster), there is simply no evidence in the geological record indicating a world wide flood occurred, and this counts for far more than legends.

That said, has there been any comprehensive comparative study done on cultures all over the worlds and what their myths and legends actually say about a worldwide flood? I ask because I've often heard it said that cultures all over the world have stories about a worldwide flood, but no one seems to know who any of those peoples are, where they came from, or where one can find a transcript or oral documentation of those stories.

[YesNo]

I've recently read Stephen Mitchell's Gilgamesh. Mitchell made the Gilgamesh story seem more entertaining than Rosenberg's translation of J's work.

Not only was there a flood, but also a serpent to tie these two stories together. The flood was a detail in both, however, it made me suspect that the Israelites received this story through the Hittites since Solomon was at least half Hittite being Bathsheba's son.

In looking up Bathsheba, it appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathsheba)


Bathsheba was a daughter of Eliam, one of David's "thirty" (2 Sam. 23:34; cf 1 Chr. 3:5); Eliam was the son of Ahitophel, one of David's chief advisors.

[cacian]

I've recently read Stephen Mitchell's Gilgamesh. Mitchell made the Gilgamesh story seem more entertaining than Rosenberg's translation of J's work.

Not only was there a flood, but also a serpent to tie these two stories together. The flood was a detail in both, however, it made me suspect that the Israelites received this story through the Hittites since Solomon was at least half Hittite being Bathsheba's son.

In looking up Bathsheba, it appears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathsheba)


Bathsheba was a daughter of Eliam, one of David's "thirty" (2 Sam. 23:34; cf 1 Chr. 3:5); Eliam was the son of Ahitophel, one of David's chief advisors.

One has to admit that names such as Bathsheba/Eliam and Ahitophel are some incredible names!!

[YesNo]

One has to admit that names such as Bathsheba/Eliam and Ahitophel are some incredible names!!

They are rather strange names. It didn't occur to me until I looked at Wikipedia that Bathsheba meant "daughter of the oath". The Bat meaning daughter. And then all of a sudden I understood the meaning of those "Bat" Mitzvah celebrations my daughters attended for their friends when they were 12.

Culturally, Bathsheba is linked in my mind with "bath" and the story of David watching her bathing. I see her more like Marilyn Monroe, but she may have politically been more like Margaret Thatcher. After all, she did get David to say that her son Solomon was to succeed him as king when there was likely a more legitimate heir waiting. Also, whatever kept Solomon occupied with concubines and wives, it couldn't have hurt her role as queen mother.

[cacian]

Hi YesNo what are Bat Mitzvah? I have never heard if them?
The story of Bathsheba is rather astonishing. I can't get over the fact that David took the blame all by himself and sparinb Bathsheba the fact that she also committed adultery.
The other thing I find incredible to believe is the bit with the son of David Absalom committing sexual act in public with his own father wives/concubines. Whatever for?
However I do not understand what you mean by this:


whatever kept Solomon occupied with concubines and wives, it couldn't have hurt her role as queen mother.

[YesNo]

A Bat Mitzvah is a Jewish religious celebration that girls around the age of 12 go through. It is like First Communion for Catholics. For boys, it is called Bar Mitzvah. What I just realized (I'm not Jewish) is that "bat" means "daughter" and "bar" means "son". All of a sudden, I understood the meaning of "batsheba".

I find the story of Bathsheba and David interesting. You're right that it doesn't make sense that she shouldn't be blamed for adultery as well. The whole story sounds like it was made up. Why would one want to make up that story? Well, if Solomon really wasn't David's son, one might need a story explaining why he was considered to be a legitimate heir of David.

The queen mother loses her influence once a queen arrives on the scene. If Solomon is busy with many females, this reduces the influence of any one of them and Solomon's mother retains her influence in the court.

[cacian]

A Bat Mitzvah is a Jewish religious celebration that girls around the age of 12 go through. It is like First Communion for Catholics. For boys, it is called Bar Mitzvah. What I just realized (I'm not Jewish) is that "bat" means "daughter" and "bar" means "son". All of a sudden, I understood the meaning of "batsheba".

I find the story of Bathsheba and David interesting. You're right that it doesn't make sense that she shouldn't be blamed for adultery as well. The whole story sounds like it was made up. Why would one want to make up that story? Well, if Solomon really wasn't David's son, one might need a story explaining why he was considered to be a legitimate heir of David.

The queen mother loses her influence once a queen arrives on the scene. If Solomon is busy with many females, this reduces the influence of any one of them and Solomon's mother retains her influence in the court.

How interesting i never thought about the concubines as being a distraction from the ruling idea. A bit like saying whilst the cat's asleep the mice play.
It is a tactic for the queen to keep her position secured. I guess the same would apply to England where if the king to be had many mistresses that would keep away any prospect for a queen to be to come to the throne to replace the present one queen mother by then. That would have been the Princess of Wales Lady Diana had she not been killed. This makes sense now to why many rumours about her death were suspiciously provoked murder/killing.
The king to be Prince Charles is getting on a bit and his present wife is no monarchy descendent so no throne for her. That leaves his mother the present Queen and she is way too old to long last. It makes you think.
Prince Harry is still available but his entourage is less likely to attract any princesses and Prince William is married to a girl next door hardly a threat the throne. To ascend to the throne you have to be a monarch by descendence and at the minute it is not looking for the English monarchy.

[WyattGwyon]

A Bat Mitzvah is a Jewish religious celebration that girls around the age of 12 go through. It is like First Communion for Catholics. For boys, it is called Bar Mitzvah. What I just realized (I'm not Jewish) is that "bat" means "daughter" and "bar" means "son". All of a sudden, I understood the meaning of "batsheba".

Actually, the parallel Catholic sacrament is Confirmation, which is also a rite of passage to religious adulthood. First Communion is usually at age seven.

[YesNo]

Actually, the parallel Catholic sacrament is Confirmation, which is also a rite of passage to religious adulthood. First Communion is usually at age seven.

Yes, I see from Wikipedia this is closer to Confirmation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation

[Nathanial]

Bible is a book which is send by Allah. it is a religious and good book. i faith on this book that it is send by Allah. Allah is one who is king of all universe. thanks

[mal4mac]

So men are sons of God, but women are only daughters of men? ...

Lucky women... I'm a son of God, talk about an absent parent...

[cacian]

Lucky women... I'm a son of God, talk about an absent parent...

how does that formate?
''men is the son of God and women only of men'' says who? the voice of cult?
let's see where is the son born from? a man god? I hardly think that is appropriate. we have already got a virgin giving birth to a prophet god knows how that happened. let's not extend it to man giving birth now please :frown2:
a woman is of the same as a god for it to be a son. god/woman to some kind of link to be able to reproduce.
god and a woman are totally of the same rib. I say how else god ever be? not from nowhere surely?

[FTJohnson]

When I read this part I am sure that I'm one of those people who didn't notice that Noah was the God's servant. But now that I knew God, I believe is not for the person, but to God alone.

[sandracollin]

I like the Noah/Flood Story although it is somewhat disappointing as they would only need 7 pairs of species which is brutal for me but as we know there are times wherein choice should prevail in order to balance things out. I know that some of you might not agree but for me it taught me to appreciate life more.

[AuntShecky]

RE: the story of Noah and the Flood.
There may have been a cataclysmic flood in pre-Biblical times, the memory of which may have passed down through generations as a bit of folklore, until the story became immortalized in the Book of Genesis.

A Hollywood movie which I believe will be released this week is supposedly loosely based on the Biblical story; however, weeks before its release several religious groups have criticized it for taking so many liberties with the Scripture. Perhaps the producer and director believed that the story held contemporary (as well as commercial) appeal, and thus added characters, a dramatic 3-act structure (de rigueur for screenplays), and the magic of CGI.

I have no immediate plans to see the film (at least before it comes out on free cable), but in my increasingly humble opinion, if someone is looking for a spiritual experience, a movie is probably the last place one should look. It is also important to remember that Biblical stories (whether in a popular medium or the Good Book itself) were not meant to be taken literally but rather as allegories conveying universal truths.

[Duikboot]

Oetnapisjtim, a.k.a. Utnapištim or Uta-Napištim (Sumerian: He that found Life), also Atrahasis (Akkadisch: The Wise One), or also Ziusudra (A life of many days).

this character foreshadowed Noah in mythology. And it is not the only lie in the bible that knows a Jekyll and Hyde prior twin.

And when more than half of all Christians in the USA stopped to believe in a literal interpretation of the story of Noach, imagine how many dinosaurs the rest of them stuffed into that poor old wooden boat made of gopher wood only.

You may wonder where noah kept all those trees and plants that could not survive submarine. You may wonder how genderless creatures did survive. How a koala bear survived without eucalyptus, a panda bear without fresh bamboo....the biblical depiction of facts its a travesty of reality...Well, the boat did not even float!! Given the size and material. Give up, religious people. This story is not to be taken literally...so you religious people try it another way....I wonder how you can explain how blood clots, your last stronghold of your mongoloid intelligent design scheme.

how can you honestly in your right mind deny someone Polio-shots because you believe that God can cure that disease once it gtes into your system? Is that the same God who gave 30 percent of all South Africans the aids virus for not fornicating under the king's control without a condom? How do you, as a pope, explain to god/jesus, to have killed more people than Hitler and Stalin did together? By simply stating "diseases are given by god, we must accept them to be gifts..."


Wake up *******s....religious people are tearing up this planet. They think of the Earth as a waiting room. Their only concern is their guilt....because god saw him/her masturbating one day......ooohwoohh....how wonderful..get a life.

god is not alive. WE ARE, so get the **** moving and protect each other.

In days of old, namely 1930-1945, there was some austrian german breed of german shepherds named "Prinz" or "Blondi"...the latter got away and howled at CBGB in some decades after uncle Adolf's regime....The other dogs demanded more blood...

i wonder how much 6 million Israëlian sjekel is in "new German reichmarks"....one, specially a german, must forget about such an amount very quickly.


YOU KILLED US YOU ****ING *******!!! IS THAT NOT ENOUGH IN YOUR SADISTIC MIND? I will ****ing shoot every ****ing german speaking **** I ever come across from now on

[YesNo]

It is also important to remember that Biblical stories (whether in a popular medium or the Good Book itself) were not meant to be taken literally but rather as allegories conveying universal truths.

That's how I view these stories as well.

[lemonorange]

I didn't read all the replies, so I don't know if anyone mentioned the rainbow. I came across an interesting sermon lately.
It said that, the Old Testament being the shadow of the New Testament, it foreshadows what is to come in the New Testament.

The rainbow that is shaped like a bow is now pointing its arrowhead towards God, who will come down and take the wrath Himself.
The first wrath or judgment came upon men in a form of flood, only eradicating (or trying to?) the wickedness expressed through the flesh of men.
The second wrath, the Son of God took it himself on the cross, now fully removing the source of wickedness in men, or "sin."

So just as a story, it is old and can be found in other books, but as a mechanism for foreshadowing the New Testament, I guess it is still unique?

I think all the stories in the Old Testament are incomplete without the perspective of the New Testament anyways...

[YesNo]

It makes more sense to me to say that the Christian New Testament is incomplete without the Jewish Tanakh, not the other way around.

[Poetaster]

That's how I view these stories as well.

Then what universal truths are being conveyed? Take the creation story in Genesis - what is the truth there?

I know I'm an atheist, but please don't take this as a snooty remark. I'm not trying to disparage the bible in any way. This is something that is said a lot but I never really know what it really means, or is really being meant.

[YesNo]

Then what universal truths are being conveyed? Take the creation story in Genesis - what is the truth there?

I know I'm an atheist, but please don't take this as a snooty remark. I'm not trying to disparage the bible in any way. This is something that is said a lot but I never really know what it really means, or is really being meant.

I don't represent any Christian group. I also agree with Harold Bloom that Bathsheba (or at least some very influential female in Solomon's court) wrote the J version of Genesis initially as a story. I don't see this as discrediting Judaism or Christianity although my view of the origin of the text might put me at odds with some of these groups.

So, what is true about the creation story? Well, Genesis claims that the universe had a beginning for one obvious thing. The Big Bang confirms that. However, there is deeper truth which validates the foundation of these Abrahamic religions: the universe is "good" and consciousness was involved in its creation.

[Poetaster]

So, what is true about the creation story? Well, Genesis claims that the universe had a beginning for one obvious thing. The Big Bang confirms that. However, there is deeper truth which validates the foundation of these Abrahamic religions: the universe is "good" and consciousness was involved in its creation.

The universe being good and consciousness being involved in creation is really more of an assumption than a 'universal truth' though, isn't it? I likely picked a bad example, but certain stories to me do not contain universal truths, but maybe things relevant to the people who first read the contents of the bible.

[108 fountains]

I think there are many interesting passages in the Bible that lend themselves to being considered universal truths. My two favorites are

From Chapter 2 of Genesis
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And the first line of John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Both of these passages, like any piece of great literature, can be interpreted in different ways and can be the subject of thoughtful discussions as to what was the intent of the writer. For example, the early Greek version of John 1:1 uses the word “Logos” for “Word,” and logos can mean simply the expression of a thought or the potential for indwelling logic or inward thought itself. Much has been written about both passages, so there is no need for me to expound my personal interpretations here. I’ll just note that - putting aside the debate about the relative merits of believing in God or not believing in God - the Bible as literature does contain some profound ideas worth thinking about.

[YesNo]

The universe being good and consciousness being involved in creation is really more of an assumption than a 'universal truth' though, isn't it? I likely picked a bad example, but certain stories to me do not contain universal truths, but maybe things relevant to the people who first read the contents of the bible.

The goodness of the universe with consciousness as fundamental could be considered an assumption or common sense. However, it is not universally viewed as true. If the religion or metaphysics doesn't accept a conscious, good universe, I reject it as false. In that sense I agree and side with the message in the Genesis creation story.

There are religions that don't appear to me to accept the goodness of the universe. For example, I suspect the goal of some eastern religions to get out of the chain of reincarnation may imply that they don't believe in the goodness of the universe.

Western atheistic Buddhism, specifically as it is described in Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs", also makes me think that consciousness is being trivialized.

Some world views that are often confused with "science" don't consider the world "good" and assume it is possible to reduce consciousness to matter. I don't think this succeeds scientifically, but that doesn't stop the metaphysics from dominating the imaginations of some.

All of these metaphysics or religious perspectives would be opposed to the Genesis creation story, that is, a story of Consciousness creating a good universe. So the story is not something everyone will accept.

[Drkshadow03]

Then what universal truths are being conveyed? Take the creation story in Genesis - what is the truth there?

I know I'm an atheist, but please don't take this as a snooty remark. I'm not trying to disparage the bible in any way. This is something that is said a lot but I never really know what it really means, or is really being meant.

I dislike the term "universal truths" in describing any literature because it carries a large burden (i.e. it must be universal, therefore its idea must be true for EVERYONE!). However, what I think most people mean by this term when they use it is that a work contains important ideas and explores difficult issues involved in human experience that is potentially relate-able cross-culturally, across social classes, and such.

[Poetaster]

Thank you to you both. :)

[Munshie]

The Comedian

I don't know if you are aware that Muslims also have the same story as Noah's flood. The only really significant difference is that while Christians tend to believe it was a global flood, Muslims claim it was a local/regional flood. I presume this avoids some of the criticisms levelled at the fundamentalist Christians who are regularly savaged by evolutionists for some of the serious difficulties thrown up by a belief in a global flood.

[HCabret]

The Comedian

I don't know if you are aware that Muslims also have the same story as Noah's flood. The only really significant difference is that while Christians tend to believe it was a global flood, Muslims claim it was a local/regional flood. I presume this avoids some of the criticisms levelled at the fundamentalist Christians who are regularly savaged by evolutionists for some of the serious difficulties thrown up by a belief in a global flood.
The Flood motif is common in literature from all over the world. The Sumerians have several accounts of a large flood; several of which influences the later Henrew tellings.

[Munshie]

HCabret

You're correct there. Some people argue that the older versions of the sumerians etc. were 'copied'/'borrowed' by the Torah, then the Christian Old Testament and later by the Muslims.

[HCabret]

HCabret

You're correct there. Some people argue that the older versions of the sumerians etc. were 'copied'/'borrowed' by the Torah, then the Christian Old Testament and later by the Muslims.
The Sumerian language is oldest recorded language in the world. Pretty much all literary motifs ultimately derive from ancient Sumerian literature.

[Pompey Bum]

Pretty much all literary motifs ultimately derive from ancient Sumerian literature.

You are at least a bridge too far there, HC. Sumer may have produced the earliest form of writing (depending on what you call writing) but other forms of written language developed independently at around the same time (some would say earlier) in the Indus River valley, and shortly afterwards in the Nile River valley, and later (also independently) in other places, such as China and Meso-America. Because these cultures developed their own literatures, it is incorrect to say "Pretty much all literary motifs ultimately derive from ancient Sumerian literature." And while flood stories of one kind or another occur in many cultures, the closeness in detail between the stories in Genesis and the Flood Tablet are usually taken to indicate some kind of literary (that is, documentary) relationship rather than the simple recurrence of a common literary motif.