Amujale:


Totally agree with you.

Noah is a ficticious character.

Thank you for including the Iraq flood story, there are over twenty-five flood stories that predates the writing of the Christian bible, the one most people know about is that which the Romans plagerised into Abrahamic text.

musicwriter:


That guy is a very sick person.

I've long suspected he creates many accounts to argue on religion. He've debated me with so many usernames but he always deny he's a christian, in one thread he said he's an Ifa worshiper.

musicwriter:


Yes, they copied the Noah story from Iraq or and India. Then, most of the Jesus story in the New testament is a mix of stories of Buddha (India), Horus (Africa), Dionysus (Greece), Mithra (Iran).

Amujale:


I have given enough proof for anyone to conclude that all the stories peddled by Abrahamic religions are fake, false and counterintuitive.

Noah is a ficticious character invented by first century Romans.

Noah never existed and there are no records of Noah's world getting destroyed by Noah's flood.

That particular story was copied and plagerized into the Christian Bible by Roman aristocrats from various older religious text from all across the globe.

Lets be clear here, first century Roman aristocrats authored the Christian Bible; writing their story in a way that pretends they were present in an earlier time; as though they are writing in the 6th century BCE.

i.e the 17th century B.C.E Gilgamesh flood myth and the epic of Astrahasis one that predates the authors of the Noah story, whereby Enlil decides to destroy their world with a flood because their inhabitants have become too noisy, Ea is said to have warned Ultrapishtim of the impending flood and instructs him to build a boat so that their lives may survive.

There are more than twenty-five different flood myths that the authors of the Christian Bible copied and plagerised from, the Gilgamesh is merely one of them. A

Another is the Hindu Flood legend of Manu.

According to the authors of the ancient Hindu text known as Vedic Satapaths Brahmana, Manu was said to be virtuous; a favourite of Vishnu and had three sons namely:
.Charma
.Sharma
.Yapeti

According to the aurhors of the Christian Bible, Noah was said to be virtuous; also to be a favourite of God and aswell had three sons namely:

.Ham
.Shem
.Japheth

In both versions of the flood myth, both Manu and Noah are instructed to build s boat and fill it with animals and seeds.

After the flood, Noah's Ark is said to have rested on mount Ararat.

Similarly, Manu's boat was described as being perched on the top of a range of Malays mountains.

Both Noah and Manu were then said to repopulate their world.

Since Hinduism predates the author of the Christian Bible, its an accepted fact that they, the authors of the Christian Bible copied and plagerized the Manu story.

And there are more that they copied from to create their Noah flood story.

TAO11:


Having broken apart your so-called "proof" or "evidence" that certain Roman aristocrats were responsible for the story of Noah found in the Christian Bible; and having shown the so-called "proof" to be no more than a made-up absurdity that neither adds up, nor even stand the basic test of common sense; I proceed now to dealing with your second "evidence" which borders on ancient Flood myths, as well as constructing my evidenced-backed argument which leads to the conclusion that the story of Noah is a historical fact.

[I apologize if you find my tone in the foregoing comment quite strong]


You noted as "proof" of your claim that the Flood story of Noah was copied/borrowed from some 25 odd pre-existing Flood stories, including the Flood story of Utnapishtim, of Atrahasis, and of Manu.

To proceed, I like to first separate the wheat (in your foregoing "proof" ) from the chaff. I like to first point out what is factual and what is hypothetical in your foregoing "proof":


(i) It is an established fact that there are several Flood legends (from almost all of the great races of the ancient world) which bears a striking thematic parallel to the story of the Flood of Noah found in the Old Testament.

(ii) It is an established fact that these ancient Flood legends predate the ninth (9th) century BCE.

(iii) In fact, your mention of "more than 25" of these ancient Flood legends is even conservative.

These ancient Flood legends actually run into the hundreds, as shown by François Lenormant (French mythologist and professor of archeology) in his landmark compliation of the world's ancient Flood legends, as found in his The Beginnings of History.


**The foregoing are the facts found in your "proof", while the following is the hypothetical conclusion in your "proof" (and I will demonstrate why):


(iv) These Flood legends which predates the 9th century BCE are the sources from which the story of Noah's Flood was borrowed/copied.


First, to affirm a conclusion of copying/borrowing; from just the simple facts that there is a thematic parallel, and that the ancient Flood myths predate the 9th century BCE (without having to adduce any more fact to sufficiently warrant the conclusion); is to commit the fallacy known in argumentation as post hoc ergo propter hoc, because of the plausibility of another conclusion from the same facts.


The most that may be logically and consistently concluded from just these facts alone (i.e. the fact that there is a thematic parallel, and that the ancient Flood myths predate the 9th century BCE) is a logical hypothesis, rather than a fact which is a final and conclusive.

The hypothesis that the story of Noah's Flood (documented into writing, in an Old Testament's source document, in the 9th century BCE) is perhaps a borrowing from the ancient Flood legends, the earliest known documentation of which is found in a cuineform tablet containing the Epic of Gilgamesh and dated to the 21st century BCE.


This skeptical attitude allows for the formation of an equally plausible alternate logical hypothesis viz.

The hypothesis that the story of Noah's Flood (documented into writing, in an Old Testament's source document, in the 9th century BCE) relates to an actual historical event which not only predates the Epic of Gilgamesh itself, but to which the Epic of Gilgamesh also relates.


Given this foregoing equally plausible hypothesis, it becomes necessary to bring textual, historical, and archaeological evidence (among others) to bear, in order to decide which of the two equally plausible alternative logical hypotheses to accept and which to trash.


(i) The very first evidence which gradually bolsters the alternate hypothesis (while gradually weakening the first hypotheis) is textual evidence, found in the cuineform text of this very oldest known Flood legend (i.e. the Flood story of Utnapishtim contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh):

As legendary as the ancient authors of the Epic present it, it is still quite clear from the text that Utnapishtim was said to be relating the Flood story to Gilgamesh as an ancient Flood story.


(ii) Another major blow to the first hypothesis is an assumption inherent within it. This assumption (which is absent in the alternate hypothesis) weakens the explanatory scope and the explanatory power[/b]of the first hypothesis in comparison to the second.

The first hypothesis fails to account for [b]the origin of these myths themselves --- that is, what is the source of the earliest of these myths from which others were successively influenced.

The first hypothesis simply assumes that the earliest of these myths is based purely and entirely on fiction and imagination.

But modern studies on mythology have shown that while some myths are actually fictional, several others are based on fact. Very often there is a kernel of historical fact that has later been gradually exaggerated and distorted over many years to form the myth.

In fact, the renowned geologist and mythologist, Dorothy B. Vitaliano has demonstrated in her classic and pioneering work Legends of the Earth: Their Geological Origins (1973) that myths and legends which border on geological phenomena (especially those with some global influence) actually have their origins or roots in actual geological-historical events, rather than purely from imagination.

It is easy to notice that this expert submission (which is the result of many many years of tortuous research) is in direct conflict with the inherent assumption of the first hypothesis; while in hadmony with the second.


(iii) The final nail in the coffin of the first hypothesis (which thus affirms the alternate hypothesis as the valid one) lies in the examination of the Old Testament document containing the Biblical account.

It is only logical that any fair and consistent critique of the content of the Biblical account should be preceded by a determination of what the account says.

The authors of the documents of the Old Testament account (although writing in a later century from the cuineform documents of the Gilgamesh Epic) make it quite clear from the text that the Flood story, which their work contains, relates to an ancient Flood event in the days of a certain person whom they called Noah ------ They made no attempt to even suggest that that Flood story about which they write is an event in their own time.

Not only did the authors make it very clear that they were writing about an ancient event; their writing also contains quite detailed numerical information which permits some dating of the ancient Flood event about which they wrote.

The Sacerdotal source document contains detailed numerical data (such as the genealogical data of Gen. Ch. 4, 5, 11, 21 and 25; as well as the date of the Flood's emergence in relation to Noah's birth) which allows the Flood to be situated somewhere in the 22nd century BCE, but not subsequent to 2142 BCE.

It thus becomes clear that from the point of view of the Bible documents itself, its Noah's Flood story is an event from the 22nd century BCE (actually not subsequent to 2142 BCE) ---- An event many many years before the cuineform tablet document of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is the earliest extant written account of the Flood myths.

NB:
It is important to bear in mind that this resulting date of 2142 BCE is despite the fact that the Biblical genealogical data which produced it have been criticized from the standpoint of modern knowledge to have erroneously understated the number of generations (as well as the years separating the generations) from the earliest humans to the first century of the Common Era.

This in effect translates to an understatement of the number of years separating every event in between (including the Flood) from the first century of the Common Era.


In summary:

**It becomes clear that the idea that the Biblical Flood story of Noah was a borrowing/copying, from myths such as the Flood myth of Utnapishtim, is just one of two equally plausible hypothetical conclusion that may be proposed from the facts that the there is a thematic parallel, and that the ancient Flood myths predate the 9th century BCE.

**It has been demonstrated how badly and inconsistently the hypothesis (that the Biblical Flood story of Noah was borrowed from the myths) fared in comparison to the alternate hypothesis that both the Flood myth of Utnapishtim found in the cuineform tablet, and the Biblical Flood story of Noah found in the Biblical documents have their origins in a common prior prominent ancient historical event.

**An examination of the text of the Biblical account shows that it presents the event as having taken place in the 22nd century BCE about a century before the earliest extant cuineform document of the Flood myths.


** Professor Andrew George's remark (in the lecture shared by musicwriter) also clearly agree with my submission here --- that is, the Flood myth of Utnapishtim (contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh) is based on a prior Flood event namely: the Noah's Flood about which the Bible author also obviously write.


Having deconstructed your mythology argument and even making my case from it, I like to proceed to adducing the historical, archaeological, geological, and oceanographic investigations that have been launched specifically in to the story of Noah Flood to prove it's historicity.

This will be the focus of my next post.

Cheers!

musicwriter:


[s]It has become clear to me that something is wrong with you.[/s] You really believe someone called Noah saved all the animals and plants in the world in a wooden boat? [s]If you really believe this, you need to be a slave in a white man's plantation. Because even without evidence; can't common sense tell you that's not possible? Your type of slavery is the exact reason Africa cannot move ahead because your intellect is dead and can only be used to write English. And you're probably somewhere people think you know what you're doing!.[/s]

The professor had told you that ''the Noah Flood story is the Babylonian original'' [s]still you cannot even understand your own writing because you've placed emotion above logic.[/s] He said ''the Noah Flood story... yes, the Babylonian original.'' The Noah story originated in Babylon (Iraq).

[s]Yes, indeed, intellectual slavery is the worst legacy of colonialism.[/s]

Amujale:


Noah is a ficticious character invented by first century Romans.

Noah never existed and there are no records of Noah's world getting destroyed by Noah's flood.

That particular story was copied and plagerized into the Christian Bible by Roman aristocrats from various older religious text from all across the globe.

Amujale:

 17th century BCE Gilgamesh flood myth and the epic of Astrahasis

 Whereby Enlil decides to destroy their world with a flood because their inhabitants have become too noisy, Ea is said to have warned Ultrapishtim of the impending flood and instructs him to build a boat so that their lives may survive.

Amujale:

Another is the Hindu Flood legend of Manu.

According to the authors of the ancient Hindu text known as Vedic Satapaths Brahmana, Manu was said to be virtuous; a favourite of Vishnu and had  three sons namely:
.Charma
.Sharma
.Yapeti

According to the aurhors of the Christian Bible, Noah was said to be virtuous; also to be a favourite of God and aswell had three sons namely:

.Ham
.Shem
.Japheth

In both versions of the flood myth, both Manu and Noah are instructed to build s boat and fill it with animals and seeds.

After the flood, Noah's Ark is said to have rested on mount Ararat.

Similarly, Manu's boat was described as being perched on the top of a range of Malays mountains.

Both Noah and Manu were then said to repopulate their world.

Amujale:


The Gilgamesh flood myth predates the making of the Noah story.

Amujale:

Hinduism predates Christianity, and the Legend of Manu predates the creation of the Noah flood story.

TAO11:

I see that you wish very strongly that there was nothing like Noah's Flood in human history. Well, there is really nothing bad in being enthusiastic, but there should be a limit to which one should fight against reality, otherwise one would be heading for frustration, and one may eventually slip into cognitive dissonance.


Please note that I still owe you one very last culminating argument which (as I have noted) would deal with the historical, archaeological, geomorphological, and oceanographic investigations that have been launched by experts specifically into the Noah Flood story, demonstrating its historicity.

Cheers bro!

TAO11:

I have demostrated the absurdity of the claim that Noah's story borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

TAO11:

The French mythologist and professor of archaeology, François Lenormant has demonstrated in his landmark compilation of the world’s flood legends, The Beginnings of History that the Indian story of "Manu" came from Mesopotamia.

TAO11:

Now, an examination of the ancient Mesopotian Flopd myths, have been seen to show that the earliest extant documented account of the Flood myth is the Flood story of Utnapishtim contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh ---- The oldest and extant documentation of which is dated to the 21st century BCE.

TAO11:
However, the Biblical account of the Noah's Flood story (as I have demonstrated in one of my lenghty replies which I humbly request that you should go and engage point by point) clearly indicates that the Flood event whose account is found in the Biblical documents relates to the 22nd century BCE.
.

TAO11:

All the Flood myths (from across the world) bearing some parallel to the Biblical Noah account..

TAO11:
Dear Amujale:


I have shown that your Roman Aristocrats claim is not only historically erroneous, but actually absurd.

Roman aristocracy, as I have demostrated earlier, is a social class which is unknown in Roman History until during the the Roman Republic (509 BCE -- 27 BCE).

TAO11:

And the Yahvist text has been dated, by experts in Biblical criticism, to the 9th century BCE --- that is, sometimes between 900 BCE and 801 BCE.

How on earth can some Roman aristocrats, living sometimes between 509 BCE and 27 BCE, possibly be responsible for the authorship of a Biblical story which already existed sometimes between 900 BCE and 801 BCE ?? 

Amujale:

Lets assume a writer that is living in 2019, publishes a book and dates it 1005.

Now since the book was advertised as been published 1005 then, all the authors are supposed to have been living in 1005. That is what the Roman aristocrats did.

(a) The Romans authored the bible in the first century and made it seem to the reader that they are authors of an earlier period in time.

(b) The Romans fabricated all of their events.

(c) The Romans impersonated their own authors. They created a character as an author in their own book.

(c) They plagerised from various earlier philosophies from all accross the globe.

(d) The Romans attempt to bastardise real history .i e twisting past events

(e) The Romans impersonated their own characters.

(f) The Romans lied about almost everything.

(g) The Romans acquired all their contexual ideas and typologies from various philosophies from all accross the globe by nefarious means and as spoils of their warmongering.

TAO11:

Another interesting remark, in your comment, which I feel obliged to address is your suggestion to the effect that I am wrong about the date of 21st century BCE for the earliest extant documentation of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

You noted that "according to my source Stephen Mitchell ... the oldest version is dated 2100 BC"; hence you became quite skeptical about the veracity of my 21st century BCE date.

Amujale:

I think both your sources might be making reference to the same text.

Could The Sacerdotal source document your first source was talking about actually be the Epic of the Gilgamesh?

Given the close proximity in numeric value of their dates, its highly probable.

Cheers!

Amujale:


According to my source Stephen Mitchell the poet, and anthologist, the oldest version is dated 2100 BC

Amujale:

I think both your sources might be making reference to the same text.

Could The Sacerdotal source document your first source was talking about actually be the Epic of the Gilgamesh?

Given the close proximity in numeric value of their dates, its highly probable.


Cheers!

Amujale:

Lets assume a writer that is living in 2019, publishes a book and dates it 1005.

Now since the book was advertised as been published 1005 then, all the authors are supposed to have been living in 1005. That is what the Roman aristocrats did.

(a) The Romans authored the bible in the first century and made it seem to the reader that they are authors of an earlier period in time.

(b) The Romans fabricated all of their events.

(c) The Romans impersonated their own authors. They created a character as an author in their own book.

(c) They plagerised from various earlier philosophies from all accross the globe.

(d) The Romans attempt to bastardise real history .i e twisting past events

(e) The Romans impersonated their own characters.

(f) The Romans lied about almost everything.

(g) The Romans acquired all their contexual ideas and typologies from various philosophies from all accross the globe by nefarious means and as spoils of their warmongering.

Amujale:


It seems you arent getting my point here, there is undeniable evidence that proves that first century Roman aristocrats are the real authors of the Christian bible.

Who you think wrote the bible?

1st century CE Roman aristocrats authored the Bible. They made it seem to the reader that they was writing from an earlier time.

For example, The gospel of Mark is said to be written by an anonymous author, yet, there is proof of who is the actual author.

Once thing that is absolutely clear, John Mark was not the author of "The gospel of Mark".

Infact, similar to "John Mark", much of the New Testaments are authored by the Romans impersonating their own invented authors aswell as other aspects that they plagerized from various older text from accross the globe.

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Now can you see what i meant by it being fake?

Amujale:


Yes, c .2100 BC the point is that 2100 BC is the 22nd century as is the date given by the Sacerdotal text.

Best Regards

TAO11:

Having clarified that, did you really just say that [b]the year 2100 BCE is situated in the 22nd century .

TAO11:


..repeating your unsubstantiated claim about Roman aristocrats

You seem so restrained from bringing forward your so-called undeniable evidence which exists somewhere. Bring it forward, that's the point of this discussion.

Amujale:


It seems you arent getting my point here, there is undeniable evidence that proves that first century Roman aristocrats are the real authors of the Christian bible.

Who you think wrote the bible?




1st century CE Roman aristocrats authored the bible. They made it seem to the reader that they was writing from an earlier time.

For example, The gospel of Mark is said to be written by an anonymous author, yet, there is proof of who is the actual author.

Once thing that is absolutely clear, John Mark was not the author of "The gospel of Mark".

Infact, similar to "John Mark", much of the New Testaments are authored by the Romans impersonating their own invented authors aswell as other aspects that they plagerized from various older text from accross the globe.

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Now can you see what i meant by it being fake?


Lets assume a writer that is living in 2019, publishes a book and dates it 1005.

Now since the book was advertised as been published 1005 then, all the authors are supposed to have been living in 1005. That is what the Roman aristocrats did.

(a) The Romans authored the bible in the first century and made it seem to the reader that they are authors of an earlier period in time.

(b) The Romans fabricated all of their events.

(c) The Romans impersonated their own authors. They created a character as an author in their own book.

(c) They plagerised from various earlier philosophies from all accross the globe.

(d) The Romans attempt to bastardise real history .i e twisting past events

(e) The Romans impersonated their own characters.

(f) The Romans lied about almost everything.

(g) The Romans acquired all their contexual ideas and typologies from various philosophies from all accross the globe by nefarious means and as spoils of their warmongering

TAO11:

Wait a minute, do you not realize that what I am discussing with you on is not a "New Testament" story, but a specific story from Judaism which the Jews had centuries before Christianity also came along,  welcomed it, and incorporated it into the "Old Testament"??

TAO11:
"1st century Roman aristocrats authored the Bible" you insist, although without a single shred of evidence.

Have you heard about the archaeological materials called the Dead Sea Scrolls ??  Read-up on that if you haven't.

They are some of the presently surviving manuscripts of the "Old Testament" a significant chunk of which have been dated scientifically to the 4th century BCE.

TAO11:

How did your guys (the 1st century Roman aristocrats) manage to produce those "Old Testament" manuscripts which lived before them in the 4th century BCE ??

Amujale:
 

It seems you are the one that isnt getting it here, the Roman aristocrats that authored the Christian bible and the people that wrote the New Testaments are the same people.

That is to say, the authors of the Christian bible plagerised and fabricated all the contents of the Old Testament, whilst inventing and plagerising content into New Testaments.

The Old Testaments is full of plagerised content from stories and typologies from all accross the world

Hence, the Christian bible was actually a badly written bibliography that the Romans used as a propaganda tool.

TAO11:

As a reminder, I am discussing with you on just one episode among all the episodes featured in the "Old Testament", namely:

The story of the Flood of Noah.

musicwriter:


I think you should stop wasting your time with that guy cause I discovered he's unstable. He argues illogically.

Example; I asked him ''You really believe someone called Noah saved all the animals and plants in the world in a wooden boat? If you really believe this, you need to be a slave in a white man's plantation. Because even without evidence; can't common sense tell you that's not possible?.''

And he replied ''No, I don't believe that; because it is absurd to even conceive of the idea that an obviously finite-capacity wooden boat would carry all the living creatures in the world.''

Yet, he've spent the last two days defending that an event which he admitted did not happen happened!. Isn't such a person supposed to be mad? If I could I'll block him.