Why So Many Great Flood Traditions?

[wellwisher]

Australian Aborigines migrated from somewhere in Asia at least 30,000 years ago. Though they comprise 500–600 distinct groups, aboriginal people possess some unifying links. Among these are strong spiritual beliefs that tie them to the land; a tribal culture of storytelling and art; and, like other indigenous populations, a difficult colonial history.

The Aborigines also have a mythology of a great flood, in spite of their long history and their isolation. In their mythology, some mean children torment and do harm to a sacred howl, who is abused but escapes and flies upward to heaven. Their supreme being sees that harms and gets pissed off and decides to drown the little bastards. The common theme is the childhood of modern humans, who begin to harm nature/natural instinct.

In bible traditions, the humans of early civilization (childhood), become more perverted which is another way to describe unnatural instincts. The Aborigines consciousness does not reach this level of unnatural behavior, before their change appears. They were not as civilized and therefore it was not as easy for them to over exceed natural, before there was a backlash and need for adjustment. Below is a link to the Aborigines legion.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/aboriginal-flood-legend/

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

When Europe went to war, we called it World War 1, because the Europeans were dominant.

Actually, we called it "The Great War". When WWII started, we re-named The Great War and called it WWI. Just quibbling.

And it is well established scientific fact that there was a global flooding of the 'low-lands' around the world. The coastal plains and low hills were all covered by about 150 meters of seawater when the last ice-age ended circa 12,000 years ago. This caused a great displacement of people, though slowly over thousands of years. The last 20 meters of rise, or thereabouts, occurred several thousand years after the previous 'end', flooding the inland 'Black Sea' lake, displacing lots of people from that farmland. With all that flooding going on, one would expect some discussion passed down through the generations (as writing had not yet developed) resulting in legends.

 

[Yazata]

And it is well established scientific fact that there was a global flooding of the 'low-lands' around the world. The coastal plains and low hills were all covered by about 150 meters of seawater when the last ice-age ended circa 12,000 years ago. This caused a great displacement of people, though slowly over thousands of years.

I'm not sure about the 150 meters, but what you say is true. I live along the Pacific ocean and during the last ice age, the coast was several miles west of where it is today. The ocean rose and inundated the coastal lowlands.

In areas where ocean waters are shallower and don't deepen as rapidly, the flooding of formerly dry land was more extensive. At one time Britain and Ireland were part of continental Europe. They only subsequently became islands when the ice-age ice-caps melted. The North Sea pretty much didn't exist. There were large areas of lowlying land west of France that have disappeared.

The thing is, that world-wide sealevel rise was more than 10,000 years ago. It certainly affected paleolithic populations, but I'm a little skeptical about the idea that people have preserved historical memory of those events for all this time, even in the form of myth. It's a possibility though.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

@post #16 from wellwisher:
We have a lot of firmware, often i play a realy agressive game where i kill people, and although environmental influences sometimes force me to "blow off steam" i don't believe they create this particular need in me, maybe just feed it.
I could give more like-wise examples, but, i can't give one regarding flooding, and i doubt i 'm an exeption.


To add to this, understand that the word "world" and many of it's (older) translations don't necessarily mean "the planet earth" but rather the (habitable?) area that one person is aware of.
When Europe went to war, we called it World War 1, because the Europeans were dominant.
When your loved ones die, your world ends.

So it is hardly surprising a serious flood(that happened) is talked about to be "flooding the world."

Then there's the World Series. Even if some day Toronto played the new upcoming Montreal....

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

I'm not convinced that flood stories as a class all convey the same message, any more than fire stories or thunder stories do. About all that they seem to have in common is the use of flooding to represent wholesale destruction. Why that destruction occurs and what it means seems to vary quite a bit from myth to myth.

Yes, good point. The message does vary, and why wouldn't it when the stories vary so much as well? And yet, so often the theme is the gods' punishment or something very much like that. In any case, what need is there that they have a common message? No one is trying to say their commonality proves Genesis, although a few trolls have broken in to say otherwise.

...I'm a little skeptical about the idea that people have preserved historical memory of those events for all this time, even in the form of myth. It's a possibility though.

Skepticism is good. As is your open mindedness toward possibilities. I don't know either. On one hand I know this oldest stories we have are the so-called 'fairy tales' such as Little Red Riding Hood or Cinderella. Riding hood may be 8,000 years old or more, and if it's eight, then is it not possible it is 15,000 years old? Who can say? The original Cinderella tale comes to us out of ancient Egypt. It's not much like the Disney version, but then again it is enough like it to be instantly recognizable.

On the other side, I can see where it's not reasonable or very likely that flood stories are based on actual events that occurred 10,000 or more years ago. So like I said about releasing a bird from an ark is just a no-brainer thing to do (i.e. anyone and everyone would have the same idea in 'Noah's sandals') perhaps another obvious idea is a flood as punishment. I think it was icesaura above that mentioned that a flood is wholesale, unlike fire or thunder. A flood is all-encompassing. So it's easy to imagine bored children at a riverside or seaside at any time or place in the last 10 or even 20 thousand years supposing 'what if it started to rain and never ever stopped, and the water just covered the whole world, and...' (why all the rain, why angry gods, of course) Then a few minutes later when the story is dead in its tracks, it is proposed that the gods relent and stop the rain. See what I mean?

By the way, just thought of this. I remember reading during the Great Tsunami (you know the one) here was a young lady in Indonesia that found herself trapped on top of a wardrobe with a large snake. The flood was so sudden that she didn't even recall how she got up there when she first regained consciousness. The snake had a similar experience. So they called a truce from the usual (biblical) snake-woman enmity and remained together for a few hours until the waters subsided. How 'Life of Pi' is that!?

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

duplicate post

 

[gmilam]

And it is well established scientific fact that there was a global flooding of the 'low-lands' around the world. The coastal plains and low hills were all covered by about 150 meters of seawater when the last ice-age ended circa 12,000 years ago. This caused a great displacement of people, though slowly over thousands of years.

Don't know that you could call something that happened slowly over thousands of years a "flood". At least not in any sense that these myths portray.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Don't know that you could call something that happened slowly over thousands of years a "flood". At least not in any sense that these myths portray.

possibly not. on average that would be about 500 feet rise in 5,000 years or about one inch per year. some years it would have been 2-3 inches, or a couple of feet in a decade. Something people would notice. in ones lifetime, one would notice a significant change, and talk about it to one's kids. they'd notice the same thing. so, i do believe they'd have some kind of story about that to pass on to their kids, etc.

 

[iceaura]

The Aborigines also have a mythology of a great flood, in spite of their long history and their isolation

The several different tribes and cultures of aboriginal Australia almost all lived along coasts and rivers, as almost all human beings always have. They were therefore subjected to occasional catastrophic inundations, from once in a thousand year tsunamis and once in a thousand year storm surges and once in a thousand year rainfall events and so forth.

Their story tradition goes back a very long time, as well - nobody knows for sure, but there appear to be references to animals that have been extinct for more than 20,000 years - so even very rare and very large catastrophes were probably available to contribute. Things like this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518661/posts would have been passed down directly within a continuous culture in Australia.

About the only flood source unavailable to aboriginal Australia would be the fantastic jokulhlaups and Black Sea type breakouts that redecorated so much of the newly post-glacial landscape of North America and Eurasia. Balancing that is their proximity to the Indonesian supply of exploding ocean volcanoes.

 

[Aqueous Id]

No one expects the Aqueous Idquisition! No one! (Except me!) He has two weapons. His chief weapons are sarcasm... sarcasm, arrogant presumptuousness and ...three... three chief weapons: sarcasm, arrogant presumptuousness and a fanatical obsession with nitpicking

In other words I caught you red handed citing creationist nonsense and trying to muddle the meaning of "myth".

- picking apart his victim's post line by-half line

You mean you don't want your critics to be thorough. That's understandable.

with supposedly clever remarks

Taken from the "science and anthropology" university sources I linked to.

Of course your errors are pretty basic. No particular cleverness is required to correct them.

that just show he does not how to speak civilly

If correcting you is uncivil then you are surrounded by barbarians.

and has no interest

I have an interest in facts and evidence which you show a chronic disinterest in.

in any topic other than how damned clever he thinks he is.

It doesn't take more than showing up for class to know that the Hebrew flood myth was derived from the older Mesopotamian flood myths--which you have not yet acknowledged. There is no cleverness involved. What is involved in your approach however is skipping class and playing hooky. You expressed no interest whatsoever in the academics of history and anthropology in relation to the origin of the Biblical Flood myth. That was immediately obvious from the fact that you went to a creationist site for your chart.

He will insists that his victim is wrong

If you post nonsense expect a rebuttal. :shrug:

without offering any counter argument save his own prejudiced (which he mistakes for scientific truth simply because they are his) opinions

said the guy who insisted that flood myths are "legends not myths".

I have countered your creationist sources with the evidence from universities which demonstrates the current state of the curricula in history and anthropology which teach that the Hebrew flood myth was derived from the Mesopotamian flood myths. You are trying your best to suppress this.

backed up by cut and pasted links.

Oh. My. Gawd.

These links may actually be valid and informative, but his victim will no longer care to read them after the hostile way they were presented.

By "cutting and pasting" university links, correcting your errors and asking you for "science and anthropology" based claims instead of creationism I am branded as hostile. Flame on, bro.

As for victims, ignorance is the victim of education. Denial is the victim of facts and evidence. And blind faith is the victim of science.

Also: upon investigation, it will be found that his links tell half or even less than half the story and are as cherry-picked as any other close-minded, biased persons are.

Upon further investigation, Sherlock, you will note that the sources I posted are all university sites. Or did you expect me to link to knothead creationist propaganda sites like you did in the OP?

The full truth is this: the creationists are wholly wrong. But if you're going to demand the full truth, you're going to have to take your medicine. You're going to have to stand accountable for posting half truths designed to abscond with the full truth, including the fact that the book you call Genesis is nonsense.

So really, why couldn't he had just given his opinion without all the drama?

Because he was too busy posting dramatic facts about flood myths cherry picked from university sites.
:shrug:

Answer: He completely ignored the OP explanation about what this discussion is about, or didn't accept the premise - and if one doesn't accept the premise, netiquette dictates that one should not participate in the discussion. [/I]

Wrong. Trumping etiquette are the site rules which require you not to bait this Science board with creationist bullshit. And when you do that be advised that fallacy, fraud, lies and propaganda will be met with facts and evidence such as those I provided from university sources.

The fact stands that the Hebrew flood myth evolved from the earlier Mesopotamian versions. If you cannot accept this fact then you are standing against all of the science and anthropology you demanded.

Am I right?

No.

I haven't actually read Aq Id's post since he is now on my ignore list.

With or without the button you have been ignoring the facts I have been posting in rebuttal to your remarks since Day One.

How did I do?

You flunked the first unit in history. Remedial classes are currently in session.

I'd like to steer this discussion more to non-Middle Eastern/Mediterranean flood stories. Of course, those are perfectly valid and have a place in this discussion, and I don't mean we should stop or disregard them, but I am more interested in why people in Fiji or North America or Australia, for instance, would have flood stories. Do we know if these great floods are said to be at the same time as the purported Great Flood of the ancient Near East?

That doesn't steer the discussion away from the Near East. It implies the same nonsense given in the creationist site you posted.

How many of the details are the same, and why would that be? How could that be?

The details are not the same. There is only one myth which is similar to the myth of Noah in its details. And that is the 7th century BCE version of the Epic of Gilgamesh which has nothing to do with punishment for the sin of disobedience and/or sexual intercourse, nor was it administered by Yahweh, nor does it have anything else in common with the Hebrew religion. But the evidence is present in other details common to both myths, details which prove that the Hebrew people took their myth from the Mesopotamian myth. The other essential set of facts revolve around the many other Mesopotamian flood myths which predate this 7th century BCE version. When you integrate all of these missing facts together you arrive at the same conclusion as all of the mainstream scholars of history and anthropology. And that is, that the creationists are full of bullshit.

I think you understand that my mind is not made up about all this, and I hope your minds are not either.

Code words for denial.

The only 'fact' in this discussion is that GFTs are widespread.

False. You have alleged many facts and many other facts have been given in rebuttal. It is also a fact that you have several times now attempted to put restrictions on the scope of dialogue, whenever the facts begin to contradict you or a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The only question is, why is this so if there were not some basis in reality ?

And there's the creationist punchline which contradicts your earlier claim that you are not reading the Bible literally.

Until you acknowledge that the Hebrew flood myth evolved from earlier Mesopotamian flood myths then you are effectively in denial of the history and anthropology you claim to champion. Until then you are effectively posting as a covert operative for creationism and Christian fundamentalism, despite your many caveats that you are a Catholic and that you do not interpret the Bible literally as an historical account.

 

[cornel]

With or without the button you have been ignoring the facts I have been posting in rebuttal to your remarks since Day One.

She isn't the only one who does that, and yet you persevere.

Why is that ?

 

[gmilam]

When Europe went to war, we called it World War 1, because the Europeans were dominant.

Uh no... It was The Great War. It wasn't called WW ONE until there was a second one.
(Just like no one called it Led Zeppelin I until after there was a Led Zeppelin II.) :bugeye:

 

[Aqueous Id]

She isn't the only one who does that,

As far as I can recall this is the first person telling me they are putting me on ignore. I don't recall any prior discussion with you. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

and yet you persevere.

What is that supposed to mean? Is there some material fact I have posted which you disagree with? Speak to the facts and I believe I will understand you.

Why is that ?

Do you mean why do creationists persist in posting nonsense on science boards? Because they are at war with science and academia. Or are you asking me why I respond to them with facts and evidence taken from science and academia? I can speak to that: because that is the object of intelligent discussion, which is the stated goal of this site. I don't think of that as perseverance although I'm sure the creationists would like to think that they are wearing the rest of the world down with all of this circumlocution.

Do you have anything to add to the facts in controversy? As it stands I have explained that the flood myth in the Bible was taken from earlier myths originating out of Mesopotamia. This is not rocket science; this is the kind of basic material that might appear on a college entrance exam, or at least on a freshman college exam in history. This fact is being obscured in this thread beginning with the nonsense from the creationist site which Arne posted in the OP.

The initial intent at least from the chart Arne gave us was to link the flood myth in the Bible to every other flood myth in the world as if to say this corroborates the Bible. It does not corroborate Bible because the premise is incorrect. The myth in the Bible originates from Mesopotamia. This fact is evident from the historical and anthropological sources which Arne asked us to use. Specifically there is a clay tablet sitting in the British Museum which contains the 7th century BCE Epic of Gilgamesh flood myth. It predates all extant Hebrew writings and is preceded by other versions of the Mesopotamian myth dating back to about 1750 BCE. Further it contains several details which indicate that the inventors of the Bible version took their myth from this one and adapted it further, replacing the gods of Mesopotamia with their new god Yahweh (obsoleting the Pantheon of Hebrew gods, the Elohim, of Genesis 1) and replacing the person who builds the boat, Utnapishtim, with the mythical character of the Bible, Noah. The Hebrew version also changes the motivation of the Godhead for inflicting the flood. In the earlier Mesopotamian version the gods become angry at humans because they complain too much about their suffering. The Hebrew version creates a motivation which is based on retaliation for crimes against Yahweh such as disobedience, promiscuity, and various forms of corruption.

This seventh century version of the Epic of Gilgamesh was probably in use in Babylon at the time the Hebrew people were it held in captivity. That is, it dates about a century earlier than the date of their captivity. Two or three generations of Hebrew people were exposed to this myth so it is no wonder that it became incorporated into their Bible, along with all of their contempt for Babylon.

I would also note that the extant Hebrew text is perhaps fragmented or otherwise confused insofar as it goes on to portray Noah as a drunk man who exposes himself, a fact that contradicts the idea that God is omniscient (God does not know how to vet his candidates?) which suggests a literary error of some sort. It's another reason we never read myths literally, besides the common sense that advises against it.

Are you a creationist? Do you also deny the historical and anthropological evidence which attests to what I have posted?

 

[river]

As far as I can recall this is the first person telling me they are putting me on ignore. I don't recall any prior discussion with you. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is that supposed to mean? Is there some material fact I have posted which you disagree with? Speak to the facts and I believe I will understand you.


Do you mean why do creationists persist in posting nonsense on science boards? Because they are at war with science and academia. Or are you asking me why I respond to them with facts and evidence taken from science and academia? I can speak to that: because that is the object of intelligent discussion, which is the stated goal of this site. I don't think of that as perseverance although I'm sure the creationists would like to think that they are wearing the rest of the world down with all of this circumlocution.

Do you have anything to add to the facts in controversy? As it stands I have explained that the flood myth in the Bible was taken from earlier myths originating out of Mesopotamia. This is not rocket science; this is the kind of basic material that might appear on a college entrance exam, or at least on a freshman college exam in history. This fact is being obscured in this thread beginning with the nonsense from the creationist site which Arne posted in the OP.

The initial intent at least from the chart Arne gave us was to link the flood myth in the Bible to every other flood myth in the world as if to say this corroborates the Bible. It does not corroborate Bible because the premise is incorrect. The myth in the Bible originates from Mesopotamia. This fact is evident from the historical and anthropological sources which Arne asked us to use. Specifically there is a clay tablet sitting in the British Museum which contains the 7th century BCE Epic of Gilgamesh flood myth. It predates all extant Hebrew writings and is preceded by other versions of the Mesopotamian myth dating back to about 1750 BCE. Further it contains several details which indicate that the inventors of the Bible version took their myth from this one and adapted it further, replacing the gods of Mesopotamia with their new god Yahweh (obsoleting the Pantheon of Hebrew gods, the Elohim, of Genesis 1) and replacing the person who builds the boat, Utnapishtim, with the mythical character of the Bible, Noah. The Hebrew version also changes the motivation of the Godhead for inflicting the flood. In the earlier Mesopotamian version the gods become angry at humans because they complain too much about their suffering. The Hebrew version creates a motivation which is based on retaliation for crimes against Yahweh such as disobedience, promiscuity, and various forms of corruption.

This seventh century version of the Epic of Gilgamesh was probably in use in Babylon at the time the Hebrew people were it held in captivity. That is, it dates about a century earlier than the date of their captivity. Two or three generations of Hebrew people were exposed to this myth so it is no wonder that it became incorporated into their Bible, along with all of their contempt for Babylon.

I would also note that the extant Hebrew text is perhaps fragmented or otherwise confused insofar as it goes on to portray Noah as a drunk man who exposes himself, a fact that contradicts the idea that God is omniscient (God does not know how to vet his candidates?) which suggests a literary error of some sort. It's another reason we never read myths literally, besides the common sense that advises against it.

Are you a creationist? Do you also deny the historical and anthropological evidence which attests to what I have posted?

Agreed

Nothing much to add

Other than , isn't time that these , creationist , explored the deeper history of ancient history of Humanity beginings and religion

They take so much at face value , the book is the truth , absolute truth , these people have no idea of the real truth

river

 

[cornel]

As far as I can recall this is the first person telling me they are putting me on ignore. So I have no idea what you are talking about.

Most people don't need to push a button to ignore someone, nor anounce they're ignoring someone.
Maybe the zero responses to the content of your post would give you a hint about that ?

I don't recall any prior discussion with you.

Bingo.

Do you mean why do creationists persist in posting nonsense on science boards?

No, i asked why you continue to reply to a thread when people are clearly not appreciative of your "contribution."

Do you have anything to add to the facts in controversy?

I did not respond to the contents of your post(s) thus far because in my opinion they did not seem to contribute anything meaningfull to the discussion of this thread.
My opinion has not yet changed, on the contrary, you seem to be on some kind of crusade against "creationists" and thinking you're "at war" with them

Are you a creationist?

It's cute how you talk about facts, but your responses are dependent on your pre-defined view of those you're responding to.

 

[cornel]

Actually, we called it "The Great War". When WWII started, we re-named The Great War and called it WWI. Just quibbling.

I stand corrected.
This renaming is actually an even better example, it shows naming still changes over time, when the underlying meaning has become less clear to the ones involved.

 

[wellwisher]

There is scientific logic for one scenario that would lead to a sudden Great Flood. Science has found a huge ocean of water under the earth's crust, within the mantle of the earth, below south east Asia. It contains about as much water as the Arctic ocean (first link). More recently, science also has shown there is extensive hydration water within various minerals in the mantle; oceans of more water. I predicted this years ago using hydrothermal considerations but had to wait for science to catch up.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html

http://www.livescience.com/46292-hidden-ocean-locked-in-earth-mantle.html

To these two pieces of the puzzle, is a third data point, where science has shown a huge scar on the Atlantic ocean floor, where the earth's crust is completely gone, exposing the mantle. I would infer a pool of mantle water breached the crust and eroded the crust, like a water main break causing a street to wash away exposing the sand underneath.

http://www.livescience.com/1317-mission-study-earth-gaping-open-wound.html

Here is a scenario I can see. If one of these mantle oceans, were to breach the crust, the pressure of this mantle water/steam, would burst through the crust like a broken water main does to a street. The high pressure steam would not jut go into the oceans, but it would bubble up and lifting the ocean into huge tidal waves, which get larger and larger as the volume of the oceans rises. Picture blowing air through a straw into a bowl of milk.

The hot water and stream would also reach the atmosphere and condense into huge storm clouds that would fill the atmosphere as the high pressure of steam pushes outward toward lower pressure all over the surface. The rising steam, helps to cool the water, causing torrential rains like never seen before. The entire earth would be impacted by a large volume of mantle steam entering the surface.

 

[sideshowbob]

I would infer a pool of mantle water breached the crust and eroded the crust, like a water main break causing a street to wash away exposing the sand underneath.

Why would you make that inference?

The entire earth would be impacted by a large volume of mantle steam entering the surface.

How would people distinguish that "entire earth" flood from the normal-sized floods that happen every year? That is, why would you concoct a bizarre "real" reason for world-wide flood stories when there is a much simpler explanation?

 

[Write4U]

The several different tribes and cultures of aboriginal Australia almost all lived along coasts and rivers, as almost all human beings always have. They were therefore subjected to occasional catastrophic inundations, from once in a thousand year tsunamis and once in a thousand year storm surges and once in a thousand year rainfall events and so forth.

Their story tradition goes back a very long time, as well - nobody knows for sure, but there appear to be references to animals that have been extinct for more than 20,000 years - so even very rare and very large catastrophes were probably available to contribute. Things like this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/518661/posts would have been passed down directly within a continuous culture in Australia.

About the only flood source unavailable to aboriginal Australia would be the fantastic jokulhlaups and Black Sea type breakouts that redecorated so much of the newly post-glacial landscape of North America and Eurasia. Balancing that is their proximity to the Indonesian supply of exploding ocean volcanoes.

This may shed some light on the question of floods. Almost all of the Continent of Australia was submerged at one time. One might say this was a flood of biblical proportions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZ-tebHlzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuluJqC2_T4

 

[sculptor]

I'm baffled by this subject area.

There is much evidence for world wide rapid sea level rise at various times over the last 16,000 years which would have flooded most settlements, civilizations, cities(?), monuments, etc. ... of the time. We can readily conclude that these events seriously impacted civilizations of the time.

The "BOOK" ain't the word of god, it's the words of men who sought to record their interpretations of the actions of god. (" the TAO that you can speak of is not the true and eternal TAO")
Why go with the silly and improbable concept of a flood that covered all but some mountain tops?

Why not use the words in the book to alter our understanding of archaeological evidence?
None of us were alive when the rising seas covered the continental shelves. All we have of the impact on our forebears is their stories, albeit a tad garbled over the generations of retelling.

The real questions should follow the evidence:
eg:

Why build the monumental architecture of gobekli tepe on a mountain ridge 750 meters above sea level?
Why carve so many different animals on the pillars?
Why is the oldest structure the best constructed?
Was this the first of it's kind?, or a replica of one inundated by the "floods"(rapid sea level rise pulses)?

Do the structure and carvings tell of another flood story?

What words were spoken during the building phases?
Stories of long past tribal memories from far away handed down from generation to generation?

......
from Carlin:
Touch the paint.