Originally posted by finnegan What a fascinating question. One answer was supplied by the great psychotherapist Victor E Frankl and set out in his brilliant book "Man's Search For Meaning." He was able to test his theory and its validity for himself as a Jewish inmate of a Nazi concentration camp, which lends it formidable credibility. We each give our own life its purpose. We should ch ...[text shortened]... n, Roman, Greek, Turkish, British, American) is not quite good enough to fire my imagination.
He was able to test his theory and its validity for himself as a Jewish inmate of a Nazi concentration camp, which lends it formidable credibility. Presumably, because he was in such a tension-filled situation, this acted as a crucible for testing. The presumption, of course, is that his pressure-induced honesty with himself is somehow more pure, more truthful than say, any other consideration.
Poppycock. People lie to themselves all the time, in all manner of situations. After all, you're here looking for answers, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH [b]He was able to test his theory and its validity for himself as a Jewish inmate of a Nazi concentration camp, which lends it formidable credibility. Presumably, because he was in such a tension-filled situation, this acted as a crucible for testing. The presumption, of course, is that his pressure-induced honesty with himself is somehow more pure, ...[text shortened]... all the time, in all manner of situations. After all, you're here looking for answers, right?[/b]
Originally posted by jaywill =============================
No belief or lack of belief provides an answer to these questions.
============================
I find in the Bible plausible explanations of these things. And they are not esoteric elite knowledge. It is plainly expressed for all to see.
...
Nonsense. Is it neither plausible nor provable. It is merely your incapability of acknowledging that you don't know and can't know.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]================================
Well it is. The Sumerian flood story is very similar to the Biblical account in Genesis, yet the Sumerian story pre-dates the Biblical account by at least 1000yrs. So it would seem the Genesis flood of Noah is a rehash of other mythology.
====================================
Why do you think the earlier wr ...[text shortened]... sible that the latter document is more accurate than an earlier tradition cirulating in Sumeria.[/b]
Are you familiar with the Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories? The Eridu Genesis, the Epic of Atrahasis and the the Epic of Gilgameš? All of which pre-date the Biblical account. Have a look at them here.
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html
Would you claim Tim Burtons 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland is not based on the 1933 original?
Originally posted by Proper Knob Are you familiar with the Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories? The Eridu Genesis, the Epic of Atrahasis and the the Epic of Gilgameš? All of which pre-date the Biblical account. Have a look at them here.
http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html
Would you claim Tim Burtons 2010 version of Alice in Wonderland is not based on the 1933 original?
My familiarity with these traditions comes and goes as I barely have time to explore the Bible.
But, we can trade links.
I'll visit what you suggest and you visit what I suggest for you:
Originally posted by jaywill My familiarity with these traditions comes and goes as I barely have time to explore the Bible.
But, we can trade links.
I'll visit what you suggest and you visit what I suggest for you:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gilgy09.html
Sounds a fair deal to me, although it's going to take a while to read through the link you gave me.
This is evidently ridiculously biased. I've just scanned through to the end to look at some of this persons conclusions. The epic of Gilgamesh has the ark ending up on a mountain and so does the Biblical account, yet this person concludes there is no borrowing.
Originally posted by Proper Knob Sounds a fair deal to me, although it's going to take a while to read through the link you gave me.
This is evidently ridiculously biased. I've just scanned through to the end to look at some of this persons conclusions. The epic of Gilgamesh has the ark ending up on a mountain and so does the Biblical account, yet this person concludes there is no borrowing.
On page one of this thread, fifth post, I offered the most plausible explanation for this alleged problem. However, since I posted mine first (by your reasoning here), my take on the issue is the correct one.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH On page one of this thread, fifth post, I offered the most plausible explanation for this alleged problem. However, since I posted mine first (by your reasoning here), my take on the issue is the correct one.
But i'm not talking about which one is correct or which one is false, they're just mythological stories as far as i'm concerned. But it's pretty evident, to me anyhow, that the Biblical flood story is built upon the Sumerian and Babylonian flood stories which preceded it.
Originally posted by Proper Knob [b]Sounds a fair deal to me, although it's going to take a while to read through the link you gave me.
This is evidently ridiculously biased. I've just scanned through to the end to look at some of this persons conclusions.
====================================
The epic of Gilgamesh has the ark ending up on a mountain and so does the Biblical account, yet this person concludes there is no borrowing.
====================================== [/b]
The "mountains [plural] of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4) CANNOT be insisted upon to be a specific mountain, according to some scholars.
An ark landing somewhere on the mountains (plural) of Ararat could indicate a huge land area in square mileage.
Anyway, you have no slam dunk skepticism there. But I have also read through some of your site. And so far it asks for a whole lot of assumptions to be agreed upon up front before one even gets started - the Documentary Hypothesis, which is by no means taken for granted as valid by all biblical scholars.
Originally posted by jaywill [b]====================================
The epic of Gilgamesh has the ark ending up on a mountain and so does the Biblical account, yet this person concludes there is no borrowing.
====================================== [/b]
The "mountains [plural] of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4) CANNOT be insisted upon to be a specific mountain, accordin ...[text shortened]... mentary Hypothesis, which is by no means taken for granted as valid by all biblical scholars.[/b]
An ark landing somewhere on the mountains (plural) of Ararat could indicate a huge land area in square mileage.
True. But you'll notice i said the stories were similar, not an exact copy. That's why the word 'rehash' is used and not the word 'copied'.
There are central themes that run through the Sumerian, Babylonian and Jewish flood myths and each story has slight alterations from the story that preceded it. Do you accept this?
Originally posted by Proper Knob An ark landing somewhere on the mountains (plural) of Ararat could indicate a huge land area in square mileage.
True. But you'll notice i said the stories were similar, not an exact copy. That's why the word 'rehash' is used and not the word 'copied'.
There are central themes that run through the Sumerian, Babylonian and Jewish fl ...[text shortened]... and each story has slight alterations from the story that preceded it. Do you accept this?[/b]
So can it be assumed that you hold that all flood motifs are simply rehashes of the Sumerian account?
An Old Story
20 Apr '10 00:32
Back to Top