The Bible as Literature: The Noah/Flood Story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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. 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFG75

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written roughly 2150-2000 B.C.E. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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)

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Haunted

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

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.

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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poetaster

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poetaster

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poetaster

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.

Thank you to you both. :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

The Sumerian language is oldest recorded language in the world. Pretty much all literary motifs ultimately derive from ancient Sumerian literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCabret

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.