Biblical inerrancy

[Doug1066]

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

So Utnapishtim and Atrahasis are two names for the same person, so what? 

So it shows I considered the Sumerian legend.

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

The problem is that it was THEIR story, NOT YOURS. You’re trying to force-fit a flood into being their flood not because it can be verified as true but just because you think you can. And since a flood is only “great” according to the storyteller there is absolutely no way you can know to what extent that was meant, let alone true. Even if it was a factual event. THAT’S the dishonest part. 

I think it reasonable to assume that The Flood was a megaflood.  A megaflood is a 1000-year flood or bigger The term Great Flood is used in some scientific literature to denote a 1000-year flood.).  I think that qualifies as great.  There were three (maybe four) such floods in Mesopotamia in the late Holocene.  One has been dated to 6080 BP.  Two more occurred right after that.  The fourth (I'm guessing.) was the 2344 BP flood.

The 2910 flood may not even have been a flood:  the only record is some hieroglyphics that say there was a disaster and hint that it involved water.

That's it.  If the Great Flood was not one of these, then it didn't happen at all.

But then, how do we explain Woolley's flood layer?  Or two other flood layers in Mesopotamian ruins?  Or the 9m water depth at Ur?  Or the flood layer that occurs EXACTLY between the Stone and Bronze ages both on the Nile and the Euphrates?

There's no doubt that there were several huge floods and that one of them occurred at exactly the right time to satisfy the archeological conditions for Noah's Flood.  Was it Noah's Flood?  That requires a leap of faith.

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

It could also be that if the event actually happened it was in reference to either of the Kish floods, misremembered as to time and extent, that would put it close to the timeframe scholars believe Gilgamesh lived. There is simply no real way for you to know with any degree of certainty. Especially with the difference in timeframes between your claim and the Kish floods being over 1000 years. 

I have not found a date on the Kish floods.  That's not to say there isn't one, just that I haven't found it in the literature.  The problem is that most of these ruins were excavated in the 1920s and 1930s.  14C wasn't discovered until the 1940s and OSE dating was first published in 1953.  Dates produced before these methods are just guesswork.  Many ruins have been re-visited and new dates obtained.  It is these I am looking for.

It's also possible that the Kish floods had nothing whatever to do with the Great Flood.

I am looking for the scientific evidence of large floods on the Nile and in Mesopotamia.  If one of them can be matched to the story of the Great Flood that is a nice side bar, but I do not expect them to match the Sumerian stories very closely.   Those stories were first put in writing something like 3000 years after the 6080 flood.  It is remarkable that the story survived at all.

Doug

 

[Doug1066]

3 hours ago, Phantom309 said:

1. No, I can't name one stone age city, and have no interest either.

2. Dates- I agree - stuff is all over the place with such fragmented records etc

3. Boat design- could be anything, but in reality, its a tall, tall, tale.

4. This all leads ultimately to the fable of the ark, and there are many memes etc depicting the fallacy of it all.

The only Stone Age cities I can name are Gobekli Tepe, the lowest level at Ur and the oldest layers of Byblos.  There's also Fayum, but it's hard to call the little village a city.

The Great Flood, according to the Bible, occurred at the end of the Stone Age.  The next layer up should be Bronze Age.  Such is the case at Ur and Fayum.  I'd like more evidence, but only four ruins in Mesopotamia have a flood layer and the Nile has buried most of Egypt's.  Still, there's a network of 700 boreholes in Mesopotamia that I have yet to investigate and some (most?) of them hit or went through a flood layer.

The last truly-humongous flood in Mesopotamia was the 6080 flood.  Since then, they get progressively smaller as the desert became hyper-arid.  Still, there were three that might have been the source of the legend.  There just aren't that many 10,000-year floods to choose from.

The Ark is probably total myth.  The source is most-likely the boat shape in the rocks at Durupinar which has the same dimensions as the Ark.  I don't think the Sumerians had the ability to build a boat that large, no matter which design they used.

Doug

[cormac mac airt]

23 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

So it shows I considered the Sumerian legend.

I think it reasonable to assume that The Flood was a megaflood.  A megaflood is a 1000-year flood or bigger The term Great Flood is used in some scientific literature to denote a 1000-year flood.).  I think that qualifies as great.  There were three (maybe four) such floods in Mesopotamia in the late Holocene.  One has been dated to 6080 BP.  Two more occurred right after that.  The fourth (I'm guessing.) was the 2344 BP flood.

The 2910 flood may not even have been a flood:  the only record is some hieroglyphics that say there was a disaster and hint that it involved water.

That's it.  If the Great Flood was not one of these, then it didn't happen at all.

But then, how do we explain Woolley's flood layer?  Or two other flood layers in Mesopotamian ruins?  Or the 9m water depth at Ur?  Or the flood layer that occurs EXACTLY between the Stone and Bronze ages both on the Nile and the Euphrates?

There's no doubt that there were several huge floods and that one of them occurred at exactly the right time to satisfy the archeological conditions for Noah's Flood.  Was it Noah's Flood?  That requires a leap of faith.

I have not found a date on the Kish floods.  That's not to say there isn't one, just that I haven't found it in the literature.  The problem is that most of these ruins were excavated in the 1920s and 1930s.  14C wasn't discovered until the 1940s and OSE dating was first published in 1953.  Dates produced before these methods are just guesswork.  Many ruins have been re-visited and new dates obtained.  It is these I am looking for.

It's also possible that the Kish floods had nothing whatever to do with the Great Flood.

I am looking for the scientific evidence of large floods on the Nile and in Mesopotamia.  If one of them can be matched to the story of the Great Flood that is a nice side bar, but I do not expect them to match the Sumerian stories very closely.   Those stories were first put in writing something like 3000 years after the 6080 flood.  It is remarkable that the story survived at all.

Doug

 

What you consider reasonable is entirely irrelevant. One is constrained by what the original peoples wrote and the available scientific evidence concerning nearest timeframes for said floods, IF the story has any merit at all. So far what you are doing is much the same as Atlantidiots do on the existence and location of Atlantis, ignore the source and pretend they know what Plato “really” meant. That’s not science, that’s science fiction. 
 

cormac

[Doug1066]

9 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

What you consider reasonable is entirely irrelevant. One is constrained by what the original peoples wrote and the available scientific evidence concerning nearest timeframes for said floods, IF the story has any merit at all. So far what you are doing is much the same as Atlantidiots do on the existence and location of Atlantis, ignore the source and pretend they know what Plato “really” meant. That’s not science, that’s science fiction. 
 

cormac

By that line of reasoning, The Flood didn't happen at all.  But there's a big pile of mud that says it did.

Doug

Edited July 7, 2022 by Doug1066

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Doug1066 said:

By that line of reasoning, The Flood didn't happen at all.

Doug

“A” flood obviously happened, that you continue to state or imply that your 6080 BP event was “THE” flood while simultaneously ignoring the sources is again not science, it’s science fiction. Particularly when one source actually states the flood impacted Shuruppak. 
 

Believe it or not you can be useful to the search for a source of the flood story without attempting to aggrandize it. 
 

cormac

[Doug1066]

22 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

“A” flood obviously happened, that you continue to state or imply that your 6080 BP event was “THE” flood while simultaneously ignoring the sources is again not science, it’s science fiction. Particularly when one source actually states the flood impacted Shuruppak. 
 

Believe it or not you can be useful to the search for a source of the flood story without attempting to aggrandize it. 
 

cormac

Archeologists have noted a  flood layer at Shuruppak.  If it was The Flood, it should date the same as Wooley's flood layer at Ur.  Now:  has anybody actually dated it?

As I said, this is a big topic and I only began working on it a few weeks ago.  I intend to read the Sumerian legends, but so far, I have been too busy answering your posts (among others).  Science is not static like flood legends.  Knowledge increases daily.  Things I said yesterday may be obsolete tomorrow.  The 6080 BP date is good for the Nile.  Maybe it is not so good for Mesopotamia.  So I need need more dates.

I am not convinced that the flood layers were laid down in one event.  I think we are looking at several.  Sorting them out is going to be a challenge.  And they have to be sorted out before we can make any sense of Mesopotamian floods and legends.

Doug

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

Archeologists have noted a  flood layer at Shuruppak.  If it was The Flood, it should date the same as Wooley's flood layer at Ur.  Now:  has anybody actually dated it?

As I said, this is a big topic and I only began working on it a few weeks ago.  I intend to read the Sumerian legends, but so far, I have been too busy answering your posts (among others).  Science is not static like flood legends.  Knowledge increases daily.  Things I said yesterday may be obsolete tomorrow.  The 6080 BP date is good for the Nile.  Maybe it is not so good for Mesopotamia.  So I need need more dates.

I am not convinced that the flood layers were laid down in one event.  I think we are looking at several.  Sorting them out is going to be a challenge.  And they have to be sorted out before we can make any sense of Mesopotamian floods and legends.

Doug

Why do I get a feeling of Deja vu? It seems like you said something similar, as Doug1029 I think it was, several years ago. And you haven’t read the Mesopotamian Flood stories YET? That’s irresponsible for someone presenting himself as some sort of qualified researcher/academician IMO. 
 

Yet you threw in the 6080 BP date, which you later admitted was “iffy” as if it was a verified fact and not baseless speculation. A lot less of that and a lot more reading and research on your part will go a long ways toward rectifying this conundrum you’ve gotten yourself in. 
 

cormac

[Doug1066]

16 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Why do I get a feeling of Deja vu? It seems like you said something similar, as Doug1029 I think it was, several years ago. And you haven’t read the Mesopotamian Flood stories YET? That’s irresponsible for someone presenting himself as some sort of qualified researcher/academician IMO. 
 

Yet you threw in the 6080 BP date, which you later admitted was “iffy” as if it was a verified fact and not baseless speculation. A lot less of that and a lot more reading and research on your part will go a long ways toward rectifying this conundrum you’ve gotten yourself in. 
 

cormac

I was simply sharing what I have learned.  As I learn more, my conclusions are subject to change (without notice).  You do not have to participate if it upsets you.

The only thing iffy about the 6080 BP date is it was taken in the Fayum Depression.  That makes it a little shaky for the Mesopotamian plain.  It's probably good, but I would like a little more information before I say that for sure, hence the qualification.  We have a severe shortage of good dates from Mesopotamia.  Archeologists are not inclined to go back to ruins excavated a hundred years ago just to get a date when they already have a guess.  That forces me to adopt their method of saying the flood comes between this culture and that culture without putting dates on those cultures.  But to integrate the archeology with 14C and OSE dates, I need calendar dates.

Doug

 

[larryp]

On 7/5/2022 at 2:34 PM, Desertrat56 said:

Considering that the bible used in the current days is not "the Word of God" but a compilation of different texts from other holy books as well as made up texts, it is not inerrant, it is a fabrication . . ."

YHWH

Despite all the archeological, geological, and historical evidence that supports the Scriptures, you still persist in that fantasy above. I won't take it away from you, though. You go right ahead and believe in that fallacy.

[larryp]

On 7/5/2022 at 2:35 PM, Piney said:

First you need to get yourself a copy of the Jerusalem Bible. The King James version isn't a good translation. The NIV I call the "Lying for Jesus" version because it was purposely mistranslated to apply to American Evangelical horse****.

Then we can go from there.

YHWH

Hey Piney, most bibles read the same. For example, at Pslams 37:11 "But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace."

 

[Piney]

44 minutes ago, larryp said:

YHWH

Hey Piney, most bibles read the same. For example, at Pslams 37:11 "But the meek will possess the earth, And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace."

 

That's also in the 'Edicts of Ashoka' and the 'Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai Teachings of Buddha' but it doesn't seem to be the rule considering humans are predators by nature.

[XenoFish]

The Bible is just a book of stories about a people and their imaginary friend in the sky.

[larryp]

2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

The Bible is just a book of stories about a people and their imaginary friend in the sky.

Is that why archeology, geology, and history support it?

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, larryp said:

Is that why archeology, geology, and history support it?

Support what. A fictional story with real world set pieces. 

[+Desertrat56]

6 minutes ago, larryp said:

Is that why archeology, geology, and history support it?

Larry, do you have references to how archeology, geology and history support the bible?  It seems someone in church told me when I was a child that the earth was only 5000 years old and even back in the 60's science had proved that to be wrong.   The Chinese had invented fireworks 5000 years ago.   I never saw in the bible the age of the earth but I was told it was in the bible.   I have read a lot of that crazy tome, but not all of it.

[cormac mac airt]

50 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Larry, do you have references to how archeology, geology and history support the bible?  It seems someone in church told me when I was a child that the earth was only 5000 years old and even back in the 60's science had proved that to be wrong.   The Chinese had invented fireworks 5000 years ago.   I never saw in the bible the age of the earth but I was told it was in the bible.   I have read a lot of that crazy tome, but not all of it.

Except it’s not. “A day unto the Lord IS AS 1000 years to man” is a comparative statement and NOT a literal one. Meaning that what God considers a short amount of time is a large amount of time to mankind, which should be obvious to anyone believing in said deity. Evidently though they’ve thrown critical thinking out the door. 
 

cormac

[Doug1066]

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

What you consider reasonable is entirely irrelevant. One is constrained by what the original peoples wrote and the available scientific evidence concerning nearest timeframes for said floods, IF the story has any merit at all. So far what you are doing is much the same as Atlantidiots do on the existence and location of Atlantis, ignore the source and pretend they know what Plato “really” meant. That’s not science, that’s science fiction. 
 

cormac

Over the last few weeks I have read numerous papers about floods in the Near East that did not mention the Bible or the Sumerian legends.  Some came close, but skirted the issue,  So you're saying they're all irrelevant because they didn't incorporate myths into a scientific paper?  A couple even mentioned that flood layer at Shuruppak.  And Wooley never said that what he discovered was Noah's Flood.  He speculated that the flood was caused, at least in part, by an rearrangement of upstream channels caused by the advancing Persian Gulf.  Sounds good to me, but then, I've only worked out a small part of the problem.

Please note that everything I said about The Flood is tentative.  You would be most helpful by pointing out details like the flood layer at Shuruppak (which I already knew about) rather tan just ranting.

 

It occurs to me that if we can get a solid date on that flood layer at Shuruppak, we'll have the date of the Great Flood as given in the Sumerian account.  Do you think they'll agree?

Doug

Edited July 7, 2022 by Doug1066

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Over the last few weeks I have read numerous papers about floods in the Near East that did not mention the Bible or the Sumerian legends.  Some came close, but skirted the issue,  So you're saying they're all irrelevant because they didn't incorporate myths into a scientific paper?  A couple even mentioned that flood layer at Shuruppak.  And Wooley never said that what he discovered was Noah's Flood.  He speculated that the flood was caused, at least in part, by an rearrangement of upstream channels caused by the advancing Persian Gulf.  Sounds good to me, but then, I've only worked out a small part of the problem.

Please note that everything I said about The Flood is tentative.  You would be most helpful by pointing out details like the flood layer at Shuruppak (which I already knew about) rather tan just ranting.

Doug

Get your facts straight BEFORE claiming “X” is The Great Flood, or don’t say it. It’s really that simple. 

Declarative statements ahead of any supporting facts don’t become facts simply because you say so. You would be most helpful presenting the actual facts and not your baseless speculation as fact with a qualifier after the fact that it’s questionable.

Facts first, speculation based on those facts afterward, NOT the other way around. 
 

cormac

[Doug1066]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

The Bible is just a book of stories about a people and their imaginary friend in the sky.

Parts of it appear to be true.  One can re-trace the route of the Exodus on an 1820s British Ordinance map.  Many of the springs still retained their original names.  Ayn Musa is still a small pool of water with a dozen or so palm trees around it, much like it was when Ramses III's soldiers used it as a water source for the Fort at Suez.  Elim is the biblical name for Aolim.  Elat was Eloth.  Follow that train of springs and it will lead you to the Red Sea crossing at El Kubrit and to Gebel Ghorabi, the Mountain of God (named for Hathor).

There are glitches, of course, but that's to be expected in any ancient document (and many modern ones).

Doug

[Doug1066]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Get your facts straight BEFORE claiming “X” is The Great Flood, or don’t say it. It’s really that simple. 

Declarative statements ahead of any supporting facts don’t become facts simply because you say so. You would be most helpful presenting the actual facts and not your baseless speculation as fact with a qualifier after the fact that it’s questionable.

Facts first, speculation based on those facts afterward, NOT the other way around. 
 

cormac

Fact:  there's a flood layer at Ur that separates the al-Ubaid culture (Stone Age) from the Uruk culture (Bronze Age).  The layer does not cover the entire site, only the lower-lying parts of it.  The upper boundary of the flood layer is at an elevation of c. 12m above the alluvial plain.

Fact:  there's a flood layer at Shuruppak.  The Atrahasis version of the flood story says it hit Shuruppak.  It also says the flood came down the Tigris.

Fact:  Kish has three flood layers, all undated.

Fact:  About 700 bore holes have been punched into the Mesopotamian plain.  Most hit a flood layer.

Fact:  dates for these flood layers have not been determined (that I know of).  The archeologists who excavated the ruins made some "estimates" that are little more the guesses (Wooley even said that.).

Fact:  there was a megaflood on the Nile about 6080 BP  It flooded the Fayum Depression, destroying the Qaranian culture.  The date was determined using 14C from a row of flood-killed tamarisks.  Above that flood layer is the Fayum A culture.  The Qaranian culture was Stone Age.  The Fayum A culture was Bronze Age.

Fact:  weather systems in both Mesopotamia and Ethiopia are controlled by the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone.  It usually, but not always, produces similar weather in both regions.  Ethiopia is subject to hurricanes from the Indian Ocean, usually in August - October.  These always produce winds out of the southeast, producing storm surges in both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.  The highest recorded one was at Suez in 1910:  10.1 feet.

Fact:  there were at least three megafloods on the Nile during the Younger Dryas Cold Period.  The 6080 BP flood would be in fourth place.

Fact:  there were four other megafloods on the Nile, two of which might have contributed to the legend of the Great Flood.  All were lower than the 6080 BP flood.

Fact:  written records do not go back beyond 5000 BP in the Near East.  The earliest record of water levels is the Palermo Stone.

Have I listed enough for now, or would you like more?  I'll have more in a week or two.  I suggest you read Wooley's "Excavations at Ur."

Doug

[Doug1066]

37 minutes ago, Phantom309 said:

They do? They support these clowns?

That's kinda hard to believe.

The Bible consists of a series of vignettes that ether provably happened, or are at least, plausible.  But they are arranged in ways that tell a story that frequently didn't happen.  That's the Old Testament.  It was a fairly scholarly work for its day.  The New Testament, on the other hand, is an urban legend written in the second century.  It contains a few historical references - like the boar's head statue on Temple Mount, referred to as "an abomination in a high place," but for the most part even when it's telling the truth, the timing is way off.

Doug

[Doug1066]

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

the same as Atlantidiots do on the existence and location of Atlantis, i

Shall we revisit this briefly?  Plato takes a detail from here and another one from there and assembles them into a story.  The tsunami from Santorini that hit Crete in 1628 BC matches the sinking of Atlantis.  But the Atlanteans appear to be 1st-6th-century Carthaginians.  The two springs, one hot and one cold, came from the palace in Troy.  The mud flats sound like pumice rafts from Thera.

A little from here and a little from there, all held together by a mythical account.

Atlantis was a myth.

Doug

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

Fact:  there's a flood layer at Ur that separates the al-Ubaid culture (Stone Age) from the Uruk culture (Bronze Age).  The layer does not cover the entire site, only the lower-lying parts of it.  The upper boundary of the flood layer is at an elevation of c. 12m above the alluvial plain.

Fact:  there's a flood layer at Shuruppak.  The Atrahasis version of the flood story says it hit Shuruppak.  It also says the flood came down the Tigris.

Fact:  Kish has three flood layers, all undated.

Fact:  About 700 bore holes have been punched into the Mesopotamian plain.  Most hit a flood layer.

Fact:  dates for these flood layers have not been determined (that I know of).  The archeologists who excavated the ruins made some "estimates" that are little more the guesses (Wooley even said that.).

Fact:  there was a megaflood on the Nile about 6080 BP  It flooded the Fayum Depression, destroying the Qaranian culture.  The date was determined using 14C from a row of flood-killed tamarisks.  Above that flood layer is the Fayum A culture.  The Qaranian culture was Stone Age.  The Fayum A culture was Bronze Age.

Fact:  weather systems in both Mesopotamia and Ethiopia are controlled by the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone.  It usually, but not always, produces similar weather in both regions.  Ethiopia is subject to hurricanes from the Indian Ocean, usually in August - October.  These always produce winds out of the southeast, producing storm surges in both the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.  The highest recorded one was at Suez in 1910:  10.1 feet.

Fact:  there were at least three megafloods on the Nile during the Younger Dryas Cold Period.  The 6080 BP flood would be in fourth place.

Fact:  there were four other megafloods on the Nile, two of which might have contributed to the legend of the Great Flood.  All were lower than the 6080 BP flood.

Fact:  written records do not go back beyond 5000 BP in the Near East.  The earliest record of water levels is the Palermo Stone.

Have I listed enough for now, or would you like more?  I'll have more in a week or two.  I suggest you read Wooley's "Excavations at Ur."

Doug

Not a bad compilation except for the fact that the flood stories as written are Mesopotamian in origin which makes the Egyptian flood irrelevant to same. At least you didn’t claim the 6080 BP event was The Great Flood this time. 

cormac
 

 

[cormac mac airt]

28 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Shall we revisit this briefly?  Plato takes a detail from here and another one from there and assembles them into a story.  The tsunami from Santorini that hit Crete in 1628 BC matches the sinking of Atlantis.  But the Atlanteans appear to be 1st-6th-century Carthaginians.  The two springs, one hot and one cold, came from the palace in Troy.  The mud flats sound like pumice rafts from Thera.

A little from here and a little from there, all held together by a mythical account.

Atlantis was a myth.

Doug

So was the Biblical flood. 
 

cormac

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Doug1066 said:

Atlantis was a myth.

 

Yes and like many myths, if they weren't originated as an outright lie, were rooted in something factual that occurred. Those myths that weren't originated as an outright lie either take the factual and completely turn the truth on its head or they stay more or less true to form while still distorting what actually happened. 

The myths of the Bible in my opinion, fall into one of those three categories.

And like myths in general, no matter the circumstances of their origin, there is a certain tone to them. Usually signifying something understandable that has the ability to make it through the fog. Which at the end of the day, serves its purpose.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Will Due