1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAbsolutely not. Assuming his numbers are correct (and creationist ones never are) AND include ALL flood legends (which they probably don't), the ones with high agreement are necessary components of ANY flood myth (survival was by means of a boat that ended up on a mountain - who would have thought?). And I realize that you rarely bother to read other people's posts with any degree of care, but the "proto Flood" hypothesis is perfectly consistent with 66% or less of Flood legends having similar details. What I said is that a quite a few Flood myths bear NO such resemblance, which your numbers verify.
[b]Flood stories are common, but not universal and many flood stories that do exist do not have much resemblance to the one presented in the Bible.
Here's a great example of why those who converse with you spend a lot of their time shaking their head--- not only in disagreement, but in disbelief. Amazingly different conclusions were reached in J. Per ople were spared (p. 168)."
Kind of flies in the face of your findings, don't you think?[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderHow would the validity of the myth effect my contention that the writers of Genesis " borrowed" it from the Sumerians?
Absolutely not. Assuming his numbers are correct (and creationist ones never are) AND include ALL flood legends (which they probably don't), the ones with high agreement are necessary components of ANY flood myth (survival was by means of a boat that ended up on a mountain - who would have thought?). And I realize that you rarely bother to read other pe ...[text shortened]... said is that a quite a few Flood myths bear NO such resemblance, which your numbers verify.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat I said is that a quite a few Flood myths bear NO such resemblance, which your numbers verify.
Absolutely not. Assuming his numbers are correct (and creationist ones never are) AND include ALL flood legends (which they probably don't), the ones with high agreement are necessary components of ANY flood myth (survival was by means of a boat that ended up on a mountain - who would have thought?). And I realize that you rarely bother to read other pe ...[text shortened]... said is that a quite a few Flood myths bear NO such resemblance, which your numbers verify.
Brilliant tactical turn. You can make "many" into "quite a few" in no time flat. And you wonder why people stop responding to you.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know if you have a first language but "many" IS "quite a few". I've been perfectly consistent; you're just being an ass.
[b]What I said is that a quite a few Flood myths bear NO such resemblance, which your numbers verify.
Brilliant tactical turn. You can make "many" into "quite a few" in no time flat. And you wonder why people stop responding to you.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderThe proto-myth hypothesis may be valid but it doesn't account for variances between flood myths around the world at narrative level. Utnapishtim's and Noah's floods are so strikingly similar as to suggest a debt of literary form. This is borne out by linguistic analysis (also the means used to establish that the Israelites did indeed inhabit Mesopotamia at some point). Frogstomp's Genesis theory ultimately resorts to linguistics.
Why would they have to "borrow" it from anyone IF it was a pre-existing proto myth?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageActually, I think it's more like shifting the weight off the balls of your feet to your heel. 😉 Not much difference unless you're a podiatrist. 🙄
Going from "many" to "quite a few" is more like shifting your weight from one foot to the other than doing a somersault.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNot in delivery, but certainly in substance. However, it was the Sumerian Ziusudra the king of Shurippa who took the first boat-ride. Utnapishtim, story has just enough changes from Ziusudra's to show the story was developing what the bible did, thank Constantine for that, was to solidify the myth as "fact". At least it stopped the literary diversion or we'd have even more flood stories to track down.
The proto-myth hypothesis may be valid but it doesn't account for variances between flood myths around the world at narrative level. Utnapishtim's and Noah's floods are so strikingly similar as to suggest a debt of literary form. This is borne out by linguistic analysis (also the means used to establish that the Israelites did indeed inhabit Mesopotamia at some point). Frogstomp's Genesis theory ultimately resorts to linguistics.
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompYou mean boats didn't exist before Ziusudra??
Not in delivery, but certainly in substance. However, it was the Sumerian Ziusudra the king of Shurippa who took the first boat-ride. Utnapishtim, story has just enough changes from Ziusudra's to show the story was developing what the bible did, thank Constantine for that, was to solidify the myth as "fact". At least it stopped the literary diversion or we'd have even more flood stories to track down.
Too many factual errors in your post:
1. Genesis was finalised long before Constantine.
2. Constantine did not finalise the books of the [Christian] Bible - that happened nearly six decades after he died.
3. Even when they were finalised, events in Genesis were not considered "[historical] fact". This is evident from the commentaries of Augustine (who was influential in the canonisation process).
Originally posted by lucifershammerNone of that makes much difference to the basic premise of this thread. What are your views on that?
Too many factual errors in your post:
1. Genesis was finalised long before Constantine.
2. Constantine did not finalise the books of the [Christian] Bible - that happened nearly six decades after he died.
3. Even when they were finalised, events in Genesis were not considered "[historical] fact". This is evident from the commentaries of Augustine (who was influential in the canonisation process).