Board index ‹ Noah's Ark & the Flood

[Benjy5959]

Why did God give the flood story to the Sumerians 2400 years before to the Bible? The sumarian texts have a flood story very similar to the bible's. The thing is, it predates the bible by 2400 years. What is the general consensus on this?

[jimwalton]

The writing down of the flood story doesn't determine when the flood happened. If I were to write a book about the Vietnam War now, what difference does it make that the conflict was 60 years ago, or that other accounts have been written of it? My writing doesn't affect its truth or its date. If the war happened, it happened, and anyone is free to write about it.

The Bible doesn't give a date for the flood. General guesses are that it happened before 10,000 BC, or even before 20,000 BC. It makes no difference that other cultures wrote about it. That neither affects its truth or its date. The Atrahasis Epic is dated to the early second millennium BC, about 1500 years before the traditional date of Genesis. The Gilgamesh Epic came into its present form during the second half of the second millennium (about 1000 years before Genesis), but used materials that were already in circulation at the end of the third millennium. The three accounts have a number of similarities as well as significant differences. There is no reason to doubt that the ancient Near Eastern accounts and Genesis refer to the same flood. This would certainly account for the similarities. The differences exist because each culture is viewing the flood through its own theology and worldview.

So it isn't necessary to believe that God gave the flood story to the Sumerians in 2900 BC, to the Babylonians in 3300 BC, and to Moses in 1300 BC. It can merely (and logically) mean that the flood was a catastrophic event that happened some time in the distant past, but left its mark on the oral transmission of culture and history. Three different cultures (and many others later, actually) wrote it down after writing was invented, at different times and within the context of their own theological perspectives. This is not a problem.

[Mr. Bojangles]

> There is no reason to doubt that the ancient Near Eastern accounts and Genesis refer to the same flood.

Yes there is, because there was no flood.

[jimwalton]

I can tell you for a fact that you can't say that with any certainty. You are merely expressing your bias, and maybe not a very reliable one at that.

In a theory proposed by geologist Glenn Morton, a variety of geological data show that until 5.5 million years ago the Mediterranean was not a sea at all. Morton's evidence suggests a fairly sudden collapse, causing a break more than 3000 feet deep and 15 miles wide, filling the Mediterranean Basin in less than 9 months. The Straight of Gibraltar, which was once a solid dam holding back the Atlantic Ocean, was broken, and the ocean water inundated the entire continental region. "As the water rushed in, the first phenomenon which would occur is that the air would begin to rise as it was replaced by the fluid filling the basic. The air would pick up moisture via evaporation from the flood water as it continued to pour in to the Mediterranean. As the air rose, adiabatic cooling would take place. As the air cools, the moisture contained in the air condenses to form clouds which eventually will produce rain. Since the air over an area of 964,000 square miles was moving upward simultaneously, the rains from this mechanism would be torrential."

A second possibility: The geology of the Black Sea suggests a flooding that occurred when the then-small lake in the center of the Sea rapidly became a large sea. This happened when waters from the Mediterranean found a pathway to the much lower Black Sea area. This change in the lake has been known since the 1920s. Since then, it has become clear that the flooding occurred about 7500 years ago (5500 BC) and that about 60,000 square miles (more than 100,000 square km) of the coastal areas of the lake became part of the sea in a relatively short time. Human settlements were destroyed.

A third choice: Recent disclosures concerning the geological background of Lower Mesopotamia claim that not very long ago, as geological ages are reckoned, waters from the Persian Gulf submerged a large coastland area, owing probably to a sudden rise in the sea level. If that rise was precipitated by extraordinary undersea eruption, the same phenomenon could also have brought on extremely heave raise, the whole leaving an indelible impression on the survivors.

Now, I am quite safe in proposing that you have no negative evidence to prove that nothing of a flood ever happened anywhere in this region to which these accounts could be referring. The truth is that a major flood is not only a reasonable possibility, but at least several have occurred. Who's to say that nothing of this sort ever happened? You can't.

[Stogie Smoker]

Can you explain to me why Christianity has many parts of its story seemingly "stolen" from religions that pre-date it? I believe Christianity has the neat and cohesive package it has due to the creators taking various aspects from previous theologies and philosophies before it. No doubt they knew how to craft a more preferable god. That doesn't make it true. And you claim that Christianity offers more relationship with historical events. But where have these events been corroborated with outside of the bible using secular historical accounts?

[jimwalton]

In this particular case, we very possibly just have three distinct reports of a historical event. That doesn't mean Christianity stole it; it may in fact indicate that it actually happened. We are still receiving information about things that happened in the past. Why, even now there are new emails from Hillary Clinton that address the Benghazi situation. Because this information came later than other information doesn't mean it was stolen or is false, only that the report comes later.

"That doesn't make it true." Of course it doesn't, but neither does it make it false.

> And you claim that Christianity offers more relationship with historical events. But where have these events been corroborated with outside of the bible using secular historical accounts?

Corroborations number in the hundreds, if not thousands.

[J Lord]

If any of these things actually happened (Morton's theory, Black Sea event, etc.), wouldn't it mean that this biblical account of the flood is not accurate?

[jimwalton]

Oh, not at all. They give evidence that there have been major floods in the region—region altering, life-killing deluges of colossal proportions. So if they credibly happened, then it's entirely possible that another one happened along the lines of what the biblical account reports.

[Five Drums]

Gen 6:6-7: 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

Isn't regret something you have when you don't have foresight? How can this be possible with a god that is supposedly all knowing? And for that matter--perfect?

Anyway...What else could "from the face of the earth" mean?

Why would these be the words chosen to be put in a divinely inspired book and then it turns out later we know this global flood to have never happened?

How can we have a "God that is not a God of confusion" [1 Corinthians 14:33] yet we have to be the ones to determine what is allegorical and literal and then on top of that have to decipher between multiple contradicting verses?

[jimwalton]

What does "all" mean? In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

In Exodus 9.6, "all" the livestock of the Egyptians died. Then in Ex. 9.19, they are instructed to get all of their livestock under cover. But I thought they had all died? "All" doesn't always mean "all."

Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".

It's not that God is a God of confusion, but that language has changed through the millennia, and people refuse to recognize that. What we need to do is plant ourselves in the ancient past and consider "What did they mean by that?" We have signs in our buildings that say, "Keep this door closed at all times." We know what that means, and it doesn't mean "Keep this door closed at all times." It means the door is not to be propped open, plus after you go through it, make sure it closes behind you. But it says in clear English, "Keep the door closed at all times." Well, we all know that's not what it means. If they dug up this sign 3000 years from now, they would make false assumptions. But that doesn't mean we are a culture of confusion.

In front of the grocery store there is a sign that says "No standing." We all understand it doesn't mean no standing (all must be in chairs) but it pertains to vehicles stopping there.

The divine inspiration of the Bible doesn't preclude the changes in language or the nuances of cultures. Our job is to be responsible, use our heads, and find out what the author meant by it.

The verb used in Gn. 6.6 that you translated "regretted" is וַיִּנָּחֶם (Yinnahem). It can be translated "grieve; repent; relent; change one's mind." The vast majority of its uses in the Old Testament pertain to God's change of will concerning a future plan of action. So what it means is that God had to take action to stem the proliferation of corruption. In a sense, he is auditing his accounts and recognizing an imbalance, and takes action to restore some equilibrium. It doesn't mean he didn't have foresight, but merely that he is instituting a course correction. There's every reason to believe he saw this coming and sent Noah as a prophet with a message of warning for the people. But they didn't change, so he initiated Plan B.