Was The Flood Story Copied From Babylonia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Read this today...

Noah's Ark: the facts behind the Flood


Basically, in 1985 this guy comes across a newly-found Babylonian tablet. As he starts to translate it, he realizes it is related to the Babylonian flood story contained within the Epic of Gilgamesh.


So it's definitely Babylonian and predates Genesis.


So the Babylonian flood story, which predates Genesis, includes animals being taken aboard "two by two".

IMO, this is further evidence that when the Israelites were captive in Babylon, they picked up this flood story, tweaked it a bit over time to fit their own culture, and it ended up being the story of Noah and the flood in Genesis.

I'm curious to see what other interpretations of this new information are.

No! The Gilgamesh story was the same Noah tale elaborated on after generations of oral evolvement.

Now let us explore the various flood accounts from around the world found through Anthropological studies. Canadian researcher Dr. Arthur Custance, a Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute after studying closely some 200 flood story versions has said indisputably:

All 200 some odd Anthropologically recognized flood accounts around the world agree on four points.”

a) In all but the Egyptian, the cause is moral, it is alleged to be a judgment on mankind,

b) Only one man is warned, and saves his family, and/or his closest friends,

c) The world was depopulated, except for a handful of people who alone re-populated the entire world,

d) and animals always play a role!

He concludes that, “In extra-biblical accounts, the survivors always land on a local mountain. In the Hebrew account, the Ark lands far away from Palestine in a distant country of which the Hebrew people of the time had no firsthand knowledge. This is an unusual circumstance…this circumstance surely suggests that in the Bible we have the genuine account“.

Interesting!
 
No! The Gilgamesh story was the same Noah tale elaborated on after generations of oral evolvement.
Evidence for this?

All 200 some odd Anthropologically recognized flood accounts around the world agree on four points.”

a) In all but the Egyptian, the cause is moral, it is alleged to be a judgment on mankind,
First, that's hardly surprising as in ancient cultures most natural disasters were viewed as the gods being angry with people for one reason or another.

Also, that's not entirely true. For example, the Scandinavian story stems from the gods fighting and the ice god, Ymir, being killed and icy water flowing from his wounds. The Celtic story is also about the gods fighting, only it was blood that caused the flood. In many of the near eastern stories, it wasn't mankind's wickedness that caused the gods to send a flood, but mere overpopulation. In several African stories, people are saved from a natural flood as a reward for their good deeds.

We could go on and on, but the point you raised isn't accurate.

b) Only one man is warned, and saves his family, and/or his closest friends,
See above. Many of the accounts don't have any survivors, and others (e.g. African stories) don't involve the killing of all humanity, and even some (e.g., Hopi) have the flood being avoided altogether.

c) The world was depopulated, except for a handful of people who alone re-populated the entire world,
See above.

d) and animals always play a role!
See above.

He concludes that, “In extra-biblical accounts, the survivors always land on a local mountain. In the Hebrew account, the Ark lands far away from Palestine in a distant country of which the Hebrew people of the time had no firsthand knowledge. This is an unusual circumstance…this circumstance surely suggests that in the Bible we have the genuine account“.

Interesting!
Hardly surprising, since Arthur Custance is a fundamentalist Christian and founder of The Arthur C. Custance Centre for Science and Christianity.

But given the above, I'm wondering if Dr. Custance is deliberately misrepresenting the facts about various flood stories, or if he's merely ignorant of them.
 
Facts: Noah' s Ark is exactly where the Bible said it was..( Genesis 8 v 4). The Mountains of Ararat are on the Turkey/ Russia border. In 1917 a Russian Pilot saw the Ark as he flew over Ararat. The Russians sent a team to the top of Ararat after this Pilot reported it. They saw the Ark but could not go inside it because of swarms of bugs ( flies, bees??) anyway another Russian team did reach
The Ark and went inside and recorded everything they saw. They took their findings back to Moscow and arrived when the Russian Communist Revolution was starting in 1917. No more visits after that, but the news leaked out.

In the 1960' s Turkey had requests from several expository teams to go up on top to see the Ark. The Russians threatened to cut Turkey off from receiving any Financial benefits they were giving Turkey if they did not stop any expeditions up on top. The Russians had an Airfield in full view of Ararat and did not want possible C IA or others from " Spying" on them. So that stopped any future expeditions during the Cold War and beyond. The last time The Ark was seen was in 1972 when one of our satellites took pictures from space, and by then The Ark was 90% Encased in Ice and very little was seen of it. To this day Noone can go up there to experiment with seeing it. The Turkish Government will not allow it. I read this 25 years ago in a book and will say it sounds about right to me.

If this Ark was ever to be seen by the world it would prove God' s Word is always right..And World Government's and those who would not want to have this to get out would be wrong.

The Magazine is called " Noah' s Ark" by Chick Publications. You can see or order this at most Bible Stores. Draw your own conclusions...Amen
 
What's worse, is imagine yourself a young or new Christian and you've been told by people you respect that "Oh yes, there is a totally solid scientific case to be made for a global flood. Just look at salt in the pyramids, sea shell fossils on mountains, a break in Egyptian history, etc. That all makes sense if the earth was smooth before the flood and all the geologic features are post-flood."

Who was it that made a scientific case for a global flood been made because of sea shell fossils on mountains? I would be very interested as my understanding was that the general accepted theory was because those mountain tops were once ancient sea beds which have been pushed up through tectonic plate activity over the past couple of billion years or so?
 
Soooo Your saying the Bible is wrong and it is' nt there? Well why waste your time on this sight then? I mean since you have it all figured out from A to Z why even be here among beleivers?
 
Nope, never said that. But if we were to adopt your position, we'd have to concede that if there is no ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey, then the whole of the Bible is false. Correct?
 
Debate is always healthy Ricko. Thats what science is founded on. Ignoring other points of view is a path to a very closed mind indeed.
 
Tubby....There are many scientific discoveries which do not dispute the Bible rather clarify it. One however either believes God' s Word...or they try to find " loopholes" to prove this or that is not scientific in their thinking. We have a choice as beleivers...Accept God'"s Word in it'"s entirity...or not. If not means you would rather debate what it says and are not a true beleiver, rather a skeptic. You cannot have it both ways. Sorry, that is how it is...God Bless
 
Tubby....There are many scientific discoveries which do not dispute the Bible rather clarify it. One however either believes God' s Word...or they try to find " loopholes" to prove this or that is not scientific in their thinking. We have a choice as beleivers...Accept God'"s Word in it'"s entirity...or not. If not means you would rather debate what it says and are not a true beleiver, rather a skeptic. You cannot have it both ways. Sorry, that is how it is...God Bless

I suppose that's what it ultimately boils down to Ricko, belief without proof or accepting fact based theories as they develop over time. The often quoted discovery by Galileo that the earth revolves around the sun rather than an earth centred universe was refuted by the church for many years but now accepted (I hope). Didn't do poor old Galileo much good either!
I can't imagine that believers who accept Galileos theory are skeptics surely?
 
It is simply called ......FAITH. We believe in Jesus...FAITH.....We believe in his written word.. FAITH....In fact the a Bible says this about Faith....." But without FAITH it is impossible to please him"

A person cannot be a true believer and be a doubter or skeptic of His diety or his Word. That however does not mean one cannot study science or learn how this or that works, or how this or that came to be. Since The Bible clearly tells us there was a Great Flood and killed all but 8 Persons on that Ark ( plus the animals and birds, etc) I believe it 100% it took place. When you study the reasons for the flood, and the fact God stated he " Opened up the fountains of the deep" which released all the water held back by his restraints; one sees how the earth became one gigantic ocean, and how Noone could survive, unless they were aboard the Ark

This story also has a lot of symbolic meaning to believers as well. The Ark also represents His Church....We stay in the Ark ( Church) we will be saved. The Water from the flood is symbolic of water baptism if you read it in 1st or 2nd Peter.
 
What would that have to do with our salvation? Are you worried more about the questions you ask to prove a needless point about our place in God' s creation...or how you can be the best God wants us all to be, to live with him one day forever? Which is most important to you?
 
I'm not looking to back you into a corner or question your faith. I ask about your understanding of the earth/sun because it represents the same split of belief about whether there was a flood that lifted an ark 4km up a mountain. Fairly simple question Ricko, do you think the earth orbits the sun or not?
 
Facts: Noah' s Ark is exactly where the Bible said it was..( Genesis 8 v 4). The Mountains of Ararat are on the Turkey/ Russia border.

I concur .. but I'm not sure it was called Ararat at the point of Authoring (1446-1406 bce) the Hebrew says 'rrt (no vowels) which could also be Uraratu .. the name of the Empire/country which Ararat was located .. nonetheless, I think that is exactly where it is ..

Marco Polo's Account:
The information for this section has been taken from the book, Marco Polo The Travels, Ronald Latham has translated the story from the Italian version. Marco Polo was born 1254 the son of a Venetian merchant. Marco joined his father on a journey to China in 1271. They spent the next twenty years traveling in the service of Kubilai Khan. Marco was a prisoner of war in Genoa in 1289 - 1290 and met Rustichello of Pisa. Together they wrote The Travels; a product of an observant merchant and a professional romancer. Marco Polo died in 1324 and left his inheritance to his three daughters. Here is a quote from his book with regard to Noah's Ark: "In the heart of Greater Armenia is a very high mountain , shaped like a cube (or cup), on which Noah's ark is said to have rested, whence it is called the Mountain of Noah's Ark. It [the mountain] is so broad and long that it takes more than two days to go around it. On the summit the snow lies so deep all the year round that no one can ever climb it; this snow never entirely melts, but new snow is for ever falling on the old, so that the level rises."

Record of Josephus:
5. After this, the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia; which, when Noah understood, he opened it; and seeing a small piece of land about it, he continued quiet, and conceived some cheerful hopes of deliverance. But a few days afterward, when the water was decreased to a greater degree, he sent out a raven, as desirous to learn whether any other part of the earth were left dry by the water, and whether he might go out of the ark with safety; but the raven, finding all the land still overflowed, returned to Noah again. And after seven days he sent out a dove, to know the state of the ground; which came back to him covered with mud, and bringing an olive branch: hereby Noah learned that the earth was become clear of the flood. So after he had staid seven more days, he sent the living creatures out of the ark; and both he and his family went out, when he also sacrificed to God, and feasted with his companions. However, the Armenians call this place, (GREEK) The Place of Descent; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day.
6. Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote." Antiquities, Book I.

note: the Cordyaeans or Cordya or Kords are the Kurds of today ..

Lieutenant Roskovitsky, Russian Aviator's Account of the Ark on Ararat:
In the summer of 1916, during the thaw, Lieutenant Roskovitsky of the Russian Imperial Air Force noticed a half-frozen lake on the shelf or gully on the side of Mount Ararat while flying high-altitude test to observe Turkish troop movements. As they flew nearer to the lake, he saw a half submerged hull of some sort of ship. He noticed two stubby masts and a flat catwalk along the top. The following excerpts were taken from Berlitz.In Roskovitsky's words (from the New Eden Magazine, California, 1939): "We flew down as close as safety permitted and took several circles around it. We were surprised when we got close to it, at the immense size of the thing, for it was as long as a city block, and would compare very favorably in size to the modern battleships of today. It was grounded on the shore of the lake, with one-fourth underwater. It had been partly dismantled on one side near the front, and on the other side there was a great doorway nearly twenty feet square, but with the other door gone. This seemed quite out of proportion, as even today, ships seldom have doors even half that large ...."He then told his captain who wanted to be flown over the site. The captain stated that it was Noah's Ark and explained the reason for its survival as "frozen up for nine of ten months of the year, it couldn't rot, and has been in cold storage, as it were, all this time .... "The captain forwarded a report back to St. Petersburg resulting in orders from the Tsar to send two engineering companies up the mountain. One group of fifty men attacked one side, and the other group of one hundred men attacked the big mountain from the other side. Two weeks of hard work were required to chop out a trail along the cliffs of the lower part of the mountain, and it was nearly a month before the Ark was reached. Complete measurements were taken, and plans drawn of it, as well as many photographs, all of which were sent to the Tsar. From the magazine article: "The Ark was found to contain hundreds of small rooms, and some rooms that were very large, with high ceilings. The unusually large rooms had a fence of great timbers across them, some of which were two feet thick, as if designed to hold beasts ten times the size of elephants. Other rooms were also lined with tiers of cages, somewhat like what one sees today at a poultry show, only instead of chicken wire, they had rows of small iron bars along the front. Everything was heavily painted with a waxlike paint resembling shellac, and the workmanship of the craft showed all the signs of a high type of civilization. The wood used throughout was oleander, which belongs to the cypress family and never rots; which of course, coupled with the fact of its being frozen most of the time, accounted for its perfect preservation. "The investigation officers sent photographs and reports by courier back to Petrograd, to the personal attention of the Tsar. But Nicholas II apparently never received them during the breakdown of communications that followed the February and October Revolutions of 1917. The results of the investigation have never been found or reported.. A rumor says the results and pictures of the Ark came to the attention of Leon Trotsky, who either destroyed them or placed them in a file destined to be kept permanently secret. And the courier who delivered the news, his silence was sealed with his execution.

George Hagopian:
George Hagopian has first hand knowledge of the ark. As a young child, he walked along the Ark's planks with his uncle. Artist, Elfred Lee, drew this picture of the Ark as directed by George Hagopian. The following excerpt is from Charles Berlitz, The Lost Ship of Noah , which details the fascinating story.
"He was eight years old, Hagopian said, and it was in the year 1908 [note: another account says the year was 1905 and Hagopian was 10 years old] when his uncle took him up Ararat, past Ahora Gorge, passing the grave of St. Jacob on the way. As the mountain grew more precipitous his uncle carried him on his shoulders until they came to something that looked like a great ship located on a rock ledge over a cliff and partially covered by snow. It had flat openings like windows along the top and a hole in the roof. Hagopian had first thought it was a house made of stone but when his uncle showed him the outline of planks and told him it was made of wood he realized it was the Ark, just like the other people had described it to him. His uncle boosted him up from a rock pile to reach the Ark roof telling him not to be afraid, "because it is a holy ship ..." (and) "the animals and people are not here now. They have all gone away." Hagopian climbed on the roof and knelt down and kissed the surface of the roof which was flat and easy to stand on.
While they stood alongside the Ark his uncle shot into the side of it but the bullets bounced off as if it were made of stone. He then tried to cut off a piece of the wood with a sharp knife and was equally unsuccessful. On this first visit to the Ark they spent two hours there looking at it and eating some of their provisions. When Hagopian returned to his village eager to tell the other boys about his adventure they replied, rather anticlimactically, "Yes, we saw the Ark too."
Hagopian died in 1972. Since he was unable to read maps with any accuracy he was unable to pinpoint on a map of the mountain where it was that he had seen and climbed on the Ark. He consistently told his interrogators that if he could get back to Mount Ararat he could lead a party to the Ark. Although his testimony was successfully approved by voice-stress analysis, it is not unusual that reports such as this , from a single person, even if firsthand, have been discredited because of lack of corroboratory evidence from others."

and then of course there is the NASA pictures ..
 
Last edited:
I'm not looking to back you into a corner or question your faith. I ask about your understanding of the earth/sun because it represents the same split of belief about whether there was a flood that lifted an ark 4km up a mountain. Fairly simple question Ricko, do you think the earth orbits the sun or not?

your logic is failing ..
even the bible says the earth revolves around the sun in Genesis ..
nor do you know the mountains existed prior .. I have already shown evidence in our time, of the earth creating mountains of 4000 ft in 24 hours .. this is documented by the US gov ..

non-belief is faith in arbitrary assumptions ..
 
Debate is always healthy Ricko. Thats what science is founded on. Ignoring other points of view is a path to a very closed mind indeed.

wrong .. science is based on scientific methodology, which many ignore and yet call science .. science cannot ascertain facts .. only plausibility ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top