Six flood myths that did not originate independently
David Christainsen
The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
variations of the same story. See the following for a comparison:
www.flood-myth.com/parallels.htm
Best,
David Christainsen
Wellesley, Mass USA
Bobby D. Bryant
> The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
> variations of the same story.
Six?
And your point is...?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Matt Giwer
> Friends,
>
> The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
> variations of the same story. See the following for a comparison:
> www.flood-myth.com/parallels.htm
And storytellers copying each other is noteworthy for what reason?
--
Who is George Bush to rule Iraq?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2785
David Christainsen
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:47:06 -0700, David Christainsen wrote:
>
> > The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
> > variations of the same story.
>
> Six?
>
> And your point is...?
To pin down Noah as an historical figure c. 2900 BC. Not everyone will
agree to that.
Moreover, there is a reference in the Koran, which I can dig up
later, implying Noah had more than one wife.
Can anybody sketch in more historical detail?
Dave
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2003.07.26....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:47:06 -0700, David Christainsen wrote:
>>
>> > The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
>> > variations of the same story.
>>
>> Six?
>>
>> And your point is...?
>
> To pin down Noah as an historical figure c. 2900 BC. Not everyone will
> agree to that.
That's what I was afraid of. Surely it's obvious that the question of
independent origins for a set of stories has no bearing whatsoever on their
truth value?
Roger Pearse
> Friends,
>
> The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
> variations of the same story. See the following for a comparison:
> www.flood-myth.com/parallels.htm
Furthermore, because Goths in Europe wore trousers, and Incas wore
trousers, this shows that the Goths crossed the Atlantic.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Matt Giwer
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.26....@mail.utexas.edu>...
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:47:06 -0700, David Christainsen wrote:
>>
>>>The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
>>>variations of the same story.
>>
>>Six?
>>
>>And your point is...?
> To pin down Noah as an historical figure c. 2900 BC. Not everyone will
> agree to that.
Because it cannot be done even if they are stories of the same flood. It is the
same with Biblical Israel. There have to be corroborating references to it which
describe it in a manner which clearly identifies it. Mention of a tribute or gift
to or from Solomon of Israel for example.
> Moreover, there is a reference in the Koran, which I can dig up
> later, implying Noah had more than one wife.
How would a document created only 1600 years ago have any bearing upon 4500 years
ago when the authors clearly knew the Noah story?
> Can anybody sketch in more historical detail?
There is no history corroborating anything in the OT. Have you not grasped that yet?
--
Iraqis see their country being patrolled by American troops
whom America has determined are not mature enough to drink
even one beer.
The Iron Webmaster, 2758
Matt Giwer
>>Friends,
He is way ahead of you. The Egyptians arrived first but were overwhelmed by a
secondary invasion of Goths.
--
In July 2003 a poll of Palestinian refugees found most did not
want to return to Israel. A week later a poll found most Israeli
squatters in the West Bank were willing to leave if compensated.
Both governments are out of touch with the people.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2794
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Presumably they rolled up their cuffs?
Eric Stevens
Mike Cleven
Cuffs were out of fashion; they used hip-waders.....
--
Mike Cleven
"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."
- Lester B. Pearson
"I'm surrounded by nincompoops!"
- Eric Von Zipper, "Beach Blanket Bingo"
_____________________________________
http://www.cayoosh.net/music/ Original Music
http://www.cayoosh.net Bridge River-Lillooet Country
http://www.cayoosh.net/hiyu/ Chinook Jargon Phrasebook
Inger E Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:vvo6ivkv959g4eut7...@4ax.com...
Not the Goths. They started by rolling down their band..... :-)
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
hippo
"David Christainsen" wrote in message
> "Bobby D. Bryant" wrote in message
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:47:06 -0700, David Christainsen wrote:
> >
> > > The flood myths about Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Noah were
> > > variations of the same story.
> >
> > Six?
> >
> > And your point is...?
>
> To pin down Noah as an historical figure c. 2900 BC. Not everyone will
> agree to that.
>
> Moreover, there is a reference in the Koran, which I can dig up
> later, implying Noah had more than one wife.
>
> Can anybody sketch in more historical detail?
>
> Dave
What is the suggested date of the proofs of the flood found by Wolley at Ur?
Since the discovery was made in a pot-maker's yard I would think it would
have been datable. -the Troll
hippo
"hippo" wrote in message
Sorry, that should be Woolley. -the Troll
Bobby D. Bryant
> What is the suggested date of the proofs of the flood found by Wolley at
> Ur? Since the discovery was made in a pot-maker's yard I would think it
> would have been datable. -the Troll
IIRC that "proof" flood didn't even cover all of Ur, let alone the whole
world.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
The flood deposits are huge and several meters deep in places so it
should be datable from many sites. An indirect reference I have seen
places it at 2350 BC.
Eric Stevens
hippo
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote in message
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:31:10 -0400, hippo wrote:
Since it deposited 8-12 feet of mud I can't see how, except for the tops of
high buildings perhaps, it shouldn't have. Ur was built on a low hill, the
highest real estate in the area. I also live in a flat river delta and would
hate to think of what sort of flood would do the same here. To the folks of
Ur it would have seemed the whole world. The pottery under the mud deposit
was of the Ubaid culture 5000-4000 BC. -the Troll
hippo
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
I did some digging. The pottery directly under the deposit at Ur was of the
Ubaid type which dates it somewhere between 5000-4000 BCE or a bit later
depending upon which chronology you are using. Ur was built on a low hill in
an otherwise nearly flat landscape. To lay a deposit of mud 8-12 feet in
depth at Ur it must have been quite a flood, one worth carrying down in folk
memory. -the Troll
Eric Stevens
wrote:
You ahve now stimulated me to at leaast Google on the subject. The
2350 date appears to be wrong. For more and interesting info see
http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/specex/ur/ur-flood.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/letwool.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/3000bc.html
... and, if you want to get sidetracked:
http://www.geocities.com/dmvarisco/yale.html
Eric Stevens
hippo
>"hippo" wrote:
Thanks, your second cite was particularly interesting. Bibliophobia can be
taken too far as in the case of some posters here. The OT is a useful tool
to researchers since it is was written in a language which has been much
studied and is thoroughly understood, has remained basically intact for at
least two thousand years, and covers a very long historic period. Those who
use it for justification are no more dangerous than those who debunk it for
religious reasons. Certainly we have to review theories that were formulated
from a Bible context in the past just as we had to question Schliemann, his
theories and methods. Woolley may have used the Bible flood story to advance
and popularize his research. That does not make the discovery any less real
or important. The 'lake' theory postulated in your second cite can not have
lasted too long because the very same potters who's yard lay under the flood
stratum at Ur returned to making the same pots directly on top of their old
pot yard. Clearly much if not all of the population survived as did enough
landmarks to permit the reclaiming of original property much as happened
annually in Egypt. -the Troll
Trotter960
>Furthermore, because Goths in Europe wore trousers, and Incas wore
>trousers, this shows that the Goths crossed the Atlantic.
Hi Roger,
Don't let Diane Wirth read this or she will try to add it to her next edition
of _Parallels_.
Trotter960
>To pin down Noah as an historical figure c. 2900 BC.
Have you read the book?
I don't recall that the book claims that there was a person named Noah who
lived about 2900 BCE. And I don't recall that the book tries to claim that the
biblical story is historical. For example the book claims a local flood rather
than one which covered the whole earth.
Matt Giwer
> I did some digging. The pottery directly under the deposit at Ur was of the
> Ubaid type which dates it somewhere between 5000-4000 BCE or a bit later
> depending upon which chronology you are using. Ur was built on a low hill in
> an otherwise nearly flat landscape. To lay a deposit of mud 8-12 feet in
> depth at Ur it must have been quite a flood, one worth carrying down in folk
> memory. -the Troll
I presume you have read this before, maybe not.
When I was growing up in Cincinnati (born in 45) everyone talked about the great
flood of 1936. It was the great flood. I presume there were previous great floods.
Some time in the late 50s I stopped hearing about it as there had been another flood.
When I was in DC four mile run was always flooding. After a hurricane went
through in the early 70s they fixed the area so it no longre flooded. That last
flood was the great flood.
The point being the latest and greatest flood is the one remembered. Look at
hurricanes. In any area hit the one talked about is the most recent. The blizzard
remembered is the most recent. The greatest of anything stands out barely a
generation. It is what people talk about that becomes the greatest.
Therefore is it contrary to common, every day experience to think a particular
flood would stand out as the "greatest" over centuries. We have no reason to think
that would happen.
Consider how many Americans would call WWII the worst war for America when fewer
died than in the Civil War. The most recent serious war is the worst war.
Even better, look at the references to war in fiction. In the old days characters
were in WWII then in Vietnam and recently in the Gulf war -- the last one. Fiction
clearly follows the most recent war.
It is unreasonable to assume things were different back then than they are now.
--
The first Democrat candidate to promise to apologize
to the world for Bush should be elected.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2757
David Christainsen
Why impugn Diane Wirth any further? All we learned on the NG is that
you disagree with her conclusions and that she speaks to LDS groups.
To answer your question directly, I have not read Robert Best's book
because it is not easily available in my local area.
Yet, the following says Best "reconstructed" the original legend.
Ziusudra (Noah) was king of the Sumerian city Shuruppak at the end
of the Jemdet Nasr period about 2900 BC.
http://www.flood-myth.com/flyer.htm
For informed conjecture on Noah as an historical figure see Chaps 2,3 -
Author Fasold, David
Title The Ark of Noah
Pub info New York: Wynwood Press, c1988
Dave
David Christainsen
>...
> taken too far as in the case of some posters here. The OT is a useful tool
> to researchers since it is was written in a language which has been much
> studied and is thoroughly understood, has remained basically intact for at
> least two thousand years, and covers a very long historic period. Those who
> use it for justification are no more dangerous than those who debunk it for
> religious reasons. Certainly we have to review theories that were formulated
> from a Bible context in the past just as we had to question Schliemann, his
> theories and methods. Woolley may have used the Bible flood story to advance
> and popularize his research. That does not make the discovery any less real
> or important. The 'lake' theory postulated in your second cite can not have
> lasted too long because the very same potters who's yard lay under the flood
> stratum at Ur returned to making the same pots directly on top of their old
> pot yard. Clearly much if not all of the population survived as did enough
> landmarks to permit the reclaiming of original property much as happened
> annually in Egypt. -the Troll
The author(s) of Genesis did not describe Noah's flood as an ocean
deluge. The words "sea" or ocean" do not appear in Genesis 6-8.
Genesis 7:20 has the water rising only 15 cubits (22 feet): "Fifteen
cubits upward rose the waters and covered the hills." If, after the
ark grounded, Noah surveyed the flood damage and concluded that the
flood was more than ten thousand cubits deep, why would he and the
story tellers forget to mention such an impressive number while
remembering to mention an insignificant number like 15 cubits? Fifteen
cubits defines the magnitude of the flood. It was not a deluge, but it
was deep enough to breach the levees and cover the lowlands and some
hills with water for many miles in all directions.
Dave
Bobby D. Bryant
> The author(s) of Genesis did not describe Noah's flood as an ocean
> deluge. The words "sea" or ocean" do not appear in Genesis 6-8. Genesis
> 7:20 has the water rising only 15 cubits (22 feet): "Fifteen cubits
> upward rose the waters and covered the hills." If, after the ark
> grounded, Noah surveyed the flood damage and concluded that the flood
> was more than ten thousand cubits deep, why would he and the story
> tellers forget to mention such an impressive number while remembering to
> mention an insignificant number like 15 cubits? Fifteen cubits defines
> the magnitude of the flood.
I can only read it in translation, but the translation makes it sound like
the 15cb was merely the last surge, i.e. the water was 15 cubits higher
than the highest mountains.
> It was not a deluge, but it was deep enough to breach the levees and
> cover the lowlands and some hills with water for many miles in all
> directions.
The story doesn't make the least bit of sense under that interpretation.
Matt Giwer
> The author(s) of Genesis did not describe Noah's flood as an ocean
> deluge. The words "sea" or ocean" do not appear in Genesis 6-8.
> Genesis 7:20 has the water rising only 15 cubits (22 feet): "Fifteen
> cubits upward rose the waters and covered the hills." If, after the
> ark grounded, Noah surveyed the flood damage and concluded that the
> flood was more than ten thousand cubits deep, why would he and the
> story tellers forget to mention such an impressive number while
> remembering to mention an insignificant number like 15 cubits? Fifteen
> cubits defines the magnitude of the flood. It was not a deluge, but it
> was deep enough to breach the levees and cover the lowlands and some
> hills with water for many miles in all directions.
Neeto!
Here is a big one, boy.
If you cannot name the authors of Genesis and their mission in life you don't
know jack shit about what they wrote. That is a fact of life. Live with it.
For all anyone can gather from the contents of Genesis they are delusional
whackos or comedians as any rational person would laugh their heads off at the
impossibilities in the Noah story. No rational person would take anything in the
Noah story seriously.
The flood was so high ...
How high was it?
What a joke.
--
We know Blair planted documents in Iraq to implicate his political
opponent Galloway. As we know there are planted documents in Iraq,
strange none of them recite WMD claims. And this means all
recovered documents are false until the Galloway forgeries are
admitted and the perps are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2786
Mike Cleven
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:34:15 -0700, David Christainsen wrote:
>
>
>>The author(s) of Genesis did not describe Noah's flood as an ocean
>>deluge. The words "sea" or ocean" do not appear in Genesis 6-8. Genesis
>>7:20 has the water rising only 15 cubits (22 feet): "Fifteen cubits
>>upward rose the waters and covered the hills." If, after the ark
>>grounded, Noah surveyed the flood damage and concluded that the flood
>>was more than ten thousand cubits deep, why would he and the story
>>tellers forget to mention such an impressive number while remembering to
>>mention an insignificant number like 15 cubits? Fifteen cubits defines
>>the magnitude of the flood.
>
>
> I can only read it in translation, but the translation makes it sound like
> the 15cb was merely the last surge, i.e. the water was 15 cubits higher
> than the highest mountains.
Nearly all native peoples in BC have legends of a great flood, and note
the local high places where their ancestors beached themselves. Natural
enough to understand in the local context, where the great montane
glaciers melted suddenly and were dammed in narrow valleys or otherwise
deluged the local landscape......flood myths can be found nearly
anywhere in the latitudes where glacial melt is a "prehistoric" issue;
interesting, isn't it, that human oral and religious traditions would so
adequately (if not accurately) preserve such memories?
>
>
>
>>It was not a deluge, but it was deep enough to breach the levees and
>>cover the lowlands and some hills with water for many miles in all
>>directions.
>
>
> The story doesn't make the least bit of sense under that interpretation.
>
--
David Christainsen
>...
> the local high places where their ancestors beached themselves. Natural
> enough to understand in the local context, where the great montane
> glaciers melted suddenly and were dammed in narrow valleys or otherwise
> deluged the local landscape......flood myths can be found nearly
> anywhere in the latitudes where glacial melt is a "prehistoric" issue;
> interesting, isn't it, that human oral and religious traditions would so
> adequately (if not accurately) preserve such memories?
Mike,
In UNDERWORLD Hancock takes the Indian flood myth of Manu back
past 7500 BC to somewhere c. 10000 BC. I agree glacial meltwater
is involved in this hoary memory of the last Ice Age passed down
to us moderns by oral transmission of the Vedas and Tamil literature.
By contrast, Robert Best in his book NOAH'S ARK AND THE ZIUSUDRA EPIC
pins down Noah as an historical figure c. 2900 BC. By the same token,
THE ORIGINAL SCHEME OF WORLD HISTORY (1 Enoch 93:3-10, 91:12-16)
BC-AD Anno Mundi World Week
Creation BC 3668 0 0
Enoch born 3178 490 1
The Flood 2688 980 2
Abraham's election 2198 1470 3
...
(follows Dr. Barbara Thiering's scheme in her 1992 book)
Admittedly, the 1 Enoch writers could be off by hundreds of years. Still,
I believe Best is justified to reconstruct historically the original legend
of the 6 Mesopotamian flood myths.
Best,
Dave