₦airaland Forum

TAO11:
All the Flood myths (from across the world) bearing some parallel to the Biblical Noah account..

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

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!

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:
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:
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.

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!

morpheus24:
Again bein involved in Colonial activities does not amount to possessing or administering an actual Colony.

morpheus24:
I don't understand the reasoning here.

Please inform me in what way Yugoslavia played a role in the scramble for Africa. You are simply applying the formula of guilty by association here. The major world powers were the major players in the scramble for Africa, even if other countries played roles in the process of colonization that would be like saying the Nigerians who worked in the colonial offices were also guilty of colonialism because they participated in its administration.

False premise.

Amujale:
Kindly follow the links, most of the links are journals by reknown academics from all around the globe.

From your response, i assume you havent read the content.

For further information reasearch the "Scramble for Africa" and the "Middle Passage", every European country currently existing today played a role in both Colonisation and the Trans Atlantic campaign. Some played bigger roles, i agree, yet they was all in on it.

Theres no piont arguing it out with me, they themselves admit that. Some of the inks are actually written by academics of the given countries in question.

CTPlayer:
Most European countries had nothing to do with it. And prior to it Slavery in Africa was normal. And it still is in many ways.

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).

morpheus24:
You are not that clever. You make a statement about Romania but still provide no direct evidence of the trans atlantic slave trade and that country, instead you mention other countries that were the usual suspects already.

musicwriter:
...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? 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!.

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

Yes, indeed, intellectual slavery is the worst legacy of colonialism.

Amujale:
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.

Amujale:
Abrahamic religious text are based on ficticious characters.

Abrahamic text are not genuine historical documents.

There is not one character in Abrahamic text that can claim to being original, if they wasnt stolen, they was plagerized or fabricated.

morpheus24:
I need the source for this info please

morpheus24:
1.Are you talking about "slavery" in general or Slavery pertaining to Africa?

morpheus24:
By your logic, almost every society has practiced some form of ownership or servitude of another human being...

morpheus24:
Romania!

TAO11:
I want to believe that, unlike musicwriter, you would be able to defend your position and claims, not with emotions, but with evidence, proof, and inference to the best ratiocination: that is, the ratiocination with the greatest explanatory scope and explanatory power.

But I'm afraid you won't be able to, given my experience with you, on one occasion, regarding the historicity of the story of Noah's Flood. You bolted without substantiating any of your numerous claims (even after I repeatedly requested you to). You only repeated the claims and made more claims. Do you remember?

I don't like such discussions where claims are simply been repeated (and more claims made) while proving none, neither with evidence nor with ratiocination

It drains my energy unnecessarily.