PDA

View Full Version : The Epic of Gilgamesh



ProDeo
Jan 30th 2009, 09:24 AM
Evidence of this type of reapplication can be found in Ezekiel as well. Ezekiel is told to mock the king of Tyre, and so Ezekiel gives a mocking lament over the king. But the description he gives of the king dying and going to sheol highly resembles a passage found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in which Gilgamesh's friend, Enkidu, is prophesying about his fate. Everything Enkidu says is found in Ezekiel's mocking of the king of Tyre.

I made this a new thread because the subject would be total off-topic in the thread I snipped the above text.

Can you give an URL of what's stated in the bold sentence? The subject has my interest.

As you perhaps know yourself the Epic of Gilgamesh is often used to discredit the Flood story of Genesis 7 being a copy&paste job from the epic. I am much surprised to learn there is a second similarity with the Bible as well.

Ed

holyrokker
Jan 30th 2009, 06:23 PM
One of my all-time favorite songs is Tomb of Gilgamesh by Tourniquet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YxVJfSNGQ0

ThuggishSplicer
Feb 28th 2009, 05:33 PM
Biologists know that there couldn't have been a world wide flood that destroyed all things because of the genetic mappings that they have accumulated over the years. One explained to me, If there was a flood (like what the Bible portrays), then our genetic maps would show a slight direpency in the internal genetic codings that we a have established and there would be a hole in part of the nets of genetic information. In other words, if there was a flood like that, there would be a major dent in the genetic train of information! There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains. It is because of this great upward force of the crust of the earth that causes them to tower above (with oddly found fossils). About Gilgamesh, you can't use a fictitious story to expound upon anything.

TrustingFollower
Feb 28th 2009, 05:58 PM
Biologists know that there couldn't have been a world wide flood that destroyed all things because of the genetic mappings that they have accumulated over the years. One explained to me, If there was a flood (like what the Bible portrays), then our genetic maps would show a slight direpency in the internal genetic codings that we a have established and there would be a hole in part of the nets of genetic information. In other words, if there was a flood like that, there would be a major dent in the genetic train of information! There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains. It is because of this great upward force of the crust of the earth that causes them to tower above (with oddly found fossils). About Gilgamesh, you can't use a fictitious story to expound upon anything.
So you are saying you do not believe the bible and that it is in fact the word of God. If you are going to throw out the story of the flood from Genesis then you in essence have to throw out the rest of the bible. Either it all is true or none of it is true.

livingwaters
Feb 28th 2009, 06:22 PM
So you are saying you do not believe the bible and that it is in fact the word of God. If you are going to throw out the story of the flood from Genesis then you in essence have to throw out the rest of the bible. Either it all is true or none of it is true.

Well put!!! So many are readily putting "the world" explanation on the Word of the ONE and ONLY TRUE LIVING GOD!!!!!!!!!:B

theBelovedDisciple
Feb 28th 2009, 08:26 PM
Biologists know that there couldn't have been a world wide flood that destroyed all things because of the genetic mappings that they have accumulated over the years. One explained to me, If there was a flood (like what the Bible portrays), then our genetic maps would show a slight direpency in the internal genetic codings that we a have established and there would be a hole in part of the nets of genetic information. In other words, if there was a flood like that, there would be a major dent in the genetic train of information! There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains. It is because of this great upward force of the crust of the earth that causes them to tower above (with oddly found fossils). About Gilgamesh, you can't use a fictitious story to expound upon anything.


Are you saying you 'don't' believe there was a flood? Do you Deny the flood and the reality of Noah and the Ark?

Do you believe the whole Bible to be the Inspired Word of God.. or just parts of it???

These questions need to be addressed....

jonahthebold
Mar 1st 2009, 02:01 AM
Wow, a bunch of posters just jumped on thuggishsplicer without asking for any sort of clarification.

IMHO believing in the truth of every word of the Bible is not supposed to be easy. It is very easy to say one of two things: "Genesis said the the whole world was covered in flood, therefore science is wrong," and on the other hand, "Science has disproved Genesis, therefore the Bible is untrue."

It is likewise easy to say that Gilgamesh talks about a flood, therefore it proves the truth of Noah.

The question I would ask is: does the "whole world" have to mean the "whole Earth"? If so, then why was America called "the new world"? The idea of equating the world with the Earth is hard for most of us to escape from because we have seen photos from space. But until very recently, "the world" was used as a term to refer to every place which you knew of or which you had heard about. Should I be branded an unbeliever for suggesting that Noah had never heard of, nor would he care about, the Americas, Northern Europe, Subsaharan Africa, Middle-Asia, South-Asia, and East-Asia, let alone Australia... Well, you get my point.

So, and I would really, genuinely like an answer from a more traditional Christian: is it heretical to suggest that the flood which covered "the whole world" did not cover the whole Earth?

TrustingFollower
Mar 1st 2009, 04:51 AM
Wow, a bunch of posters just jumped on thuggishsplicer without asking for any sort of clarification.

IMHO believing in the truth of every word of the Bible is not supposed to be easy. It is very easy to say one of two things: "Genesis said the the whole world was covered in flood, therefore science is wrong," and on the other hand, "Science has disproved Genesis, therefore the Bible is untrue."

It is likewise easy to say that Gilgamesh talks about a flood, therefore it proves the truth of Noah.

The question I would ask is: does the "whole world" have to mean the "whole Earth"? If so, then why was America called "the new world"? The idea of equating the world with the Earth is hard for most of us to escape from because we have seen photos from space. But until very recently, "the world" was used as a term to refer to every place which you knew of or which you had heard about. Should I be branded an unbeliever for suggesting that Noah had never heard of, nor would he care about, the Americas, Northern Europe, Subsaharan Africa, Middle-Asia, South-Asia, and East-Asia, let alone Australia... Well, you get my point.

So, and I would really, genuinely like an answer from a more traditional Christian: is it heretical to suggest that the flood which covered "the whole world" did not cover the whole Earth?
Look at it this way, God said the flood covered the whole world. Who are you to call God a liar? God said it covered the world so I take His word at it rather than a sinner saying it don't line up with science. People are dumb in the scope of God's wisdom so it makes it a rather easy choice on who I will follow.

God said the whole world was flooded, some scientist says it could not be the whole world. You and the bible say Noah claim the entire world, but science says no. Why do you take the word of a sinner over the word of God who created all of the world? This is what faith is all about my friend, believing God and trusting Him. If you can't trust Him in this simple matter how are you going to trust Him in the eternal matters?

So to answer your question, yes the whole world means the whole world. God said it happened and neither you or I were there to see it so we take His word for it. I choose to have faith in this and everything the bible says rather than risk the consequences of unbelief. This is not a hard concept, Jesus taught us to believe with the faith of a child. We need to stop questioning the reasoning and just trust God and with that we will get the ultimate reward, eternal life with our Lord and Savior.

bosco
Mar 1st 2009, 05:06 AM
So you are saying you do not believe the bible and that it is in fact the word of God. If you are going to throw out the story of the flood from Genesis then you in essence have to throw out the rest of the bible. Either it all is true or none of it is true.

This is the problem I have. If Genesis is faulty, Jonah, Joshua and the Wall, why not Messiah? There is very little secular history that affirms anything more than he existed. So when we pick and choose our way through scripture, we mold God into whatever image WE want to make him.

I have shared this enough times on other threads, but it is worthy of repeating. God made the world by saying, "Let there be." His Word came forth from his mouth and did not return to him void. The world he spoke into existence, came ready to use. That means tall trees, mountain ranges, oceans, life in all forms. Things science says take millions of years to evolve into, was in that established form when God said so. Adam even, at two minutes old, was not a babe in need of breastmilk, but a man ready to eat what God said was good for food. So a ready to use earth means it came with the appearance of age.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Bible believing, Messiah following, men of God are not who developed the idea that the universe was 15 billion years old, the earth 4.6 billion, and man millions, it was those who gave no regard to God. Yet, bible believing, Messiah following, men of God have leaned on the understanding of these that gave no regard to God, and accept that logic over God's stated Word.

In these days, when deception according to scripture runs rampant, that is a scarey thought.

Bosco

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2009, 05:23 AM
Look at it this way, God said the flood covered the whole world. Who are you to call God a liar? God said it covered the world so I take His word at it rather than a sinner saying it don't line up with science. People are dumb in the scope of God's wisdom so it makes it a rather easy choice on who I will follow.

God said the whole world was flooded, some scientist says it could not be the whole world. You and the bible say Noah claim the entire world, but science says no. Why do you take the word of a sinner over the word of God who created all of the world? This is what faith is all about my friend, believing God and trusting Him. If you can't trust Him in this simple matter how are you going to trust Him in the eternal matters?

So to answer your question, yes the whole world means the whole world. God said it happened and neither you or I were there to see it so we take His word for it. I choose to have faith in this and everything the bible says rather than risk the consequences of unbelief. This is not a hard concept, Jesus taught us to believe with the faith of a child. We need to stop questioning the reasoning and just trust God and with that we will get the ultimate reward, eternal life with our Lord and Savior.

There are numerous passages in both the old and new testaments that use the phrase 'whole world' and the like when it's obvious that it doesn't mean every single person on planet earth or the whole of the planet. If you say the flood didn't cover every inch of the earth, you are not calling God a liar.

bosco
Mar 1st 2009, 05:34 AM
There are numerous passages in both the old and new testaments that use the phrase 'whole world' and the like when it's obvious that it doesn't mean every single person on planet earth or the whole of the planet. If you say the flood didn't cover every inch of the earth, you are not calling God a liar.

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Not to be argumentative, but I see little wiggle room in these verses to allow of a regional event. All flesh died on the Earth, all high hills under the whole heaven covered.

Bosco

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2009, 05:49 AM
Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Not to be argumentative, but I see little wiggle room in these verses to allow of a regional event. All flesh died on the Earth, all high hills under the whole heaven covered.

Bosco


“I will utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. “I will sweep away man and beast; I will sweep away the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, and the rubble with the wicked. I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. Zephaniah 1:2-3

What do you make of this passage? It says explicitly that God was going to cut off mankind from the face of the earth.

TrustingFollower
Mar 1st 2009, 05:51 AM
There are numerous passages in both the old and new testaments that use the phrase 'whole world' and the like when it's obvious that it doesn't mean every single person on planet earth or the whole of the planet. If you say the flood didn't cover every inch of the earth, you are not calling God a liar.
I am with bosco here. I do not see the wiggle room in God's word. Either we take God at his word or we don't believe in what he says. Each and everyone of us have to make that choice as to which camp we are in. This is just like it will be in the end times either we take the mark or we don't, no fence sitting on this. Believe in all of the word of God or just throw the entire thing out the window and be blown where ever the wind blows you.

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2009, 06:13 AM
I am with bosco here. I do not see the wiggle room in God's word. Either we take God at his word or we don't believe in what he says. Each and everyone of us have to make that choice as to which camp we are in. This is just like it will be in the end times either we take the mark or we don't, no fence sitting on this. Believe in all of the word of God or just throw the entire thing out the window and be blown where ever the wind blows you.

And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. 1 Kings 10:24

Do you believe every single person on earth sought out Solomon?

markedward
Mar 1st 2009, 07:28 AM
I made this a new thread because the subject would be total off-topic in the thread I snipped the above text.

Can you give an URL of what's stated in the bold sentence? The subject has my interest.I sincerely apologize, but I made a mistake in that statement. It was not Ezekiel mocking the king of Tyre, but rather, it was Isaiah mocking the king of Babylon. (I wrote that point from memory, and I got the two passages between Ezekiel and Isaiah mixed up.)

Here are the two passages, from Isaiah, and from the Epic of Gilgamesh:

Isaiah 14:4, 9-17
... you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: ... "Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. All of them will answer and say to you: 'You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!' Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a bed beneath you, and worms are your covers. How you are fallen from heaven, o shining one, son of dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of Zaphon; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: 'Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?'

Epic Of Gilgamesh, Tablet 7
"Then he... and turned me into a dove, so that my arms were feathered like a bird. Seizing me, he led me down to the House of Darkness, the dwelling of Irkalla, to the house where those who enter do not come out, along the road of no return, to the house where those who dwell, do without light, where dirt is their drink, their food is of clay, where, like a bird, they wear garments of feathers, and light cannot be seen, they dwell in the dark, and upon the door and bolt, there lies dust. On entering the House of Dust, everywhere I looked there were royal crowns gathered in heaps, everywhere I listened, it was the bearers of crowns, who, in the past, had ruled the land, but who now served Anu and Enlil cooked meats, served confections, and poured cool water from waterskins. In the house of Dust that I entered ... there sat Ereshkigal, the Queen of the Netherworld. Beletseri, the Scribe of the Netherworld, knelt before her, she was holding the tablet and was reading it out to her Ereshkigal. She raised her head when she saw me—'Who has taken this man?'"

If you have your own Bible open, look at Isaiah 14:13. Your translation likely says "I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north" or something similar. The Hebrew word that finishes off that sentence is tsaphon. The sentence is literally saying "I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of tsaphon," or "Zaphon". Just as Mount Olympus was the mountain where the gods assembled in Greek religion, Mount Zaphon is the Ugaritic equivalent; Mount Zaphon was the "mount of assembly" for the Ugaritic gods... and the Epic Of Gilgamesh is an Ugaritic myth. Isaiah is not referring to some random "mount of assembly" when he is taunting the king of Babylon... he is specifically mocking the king of Babylon with his own religious beliefs and his own culture's Epic myths. This would be no different than if Isaiah were told to mock the king of Greece, saying something like, "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of Olympus.'"

Isaiah in his mockery of the king of Babylon, and Enkidu within the Epic each specifically refer to these things:


The abode of the dead (Isaiah: "sheol"; Enkidu: "house of dust")
Mention of men who were formerly kings (Isaiah: "the leaders of the earth", "all who were kings of the nations"; Enkidu: "the bearers of crowns, who, in the past, had ruled the land")
The individual has been made low by their death (Isaiah: "you are cut down to the ground", "you are brought down to Sheol"; Enkidu: "he led me down to the House of Darkness")
The people in the abode wonder at the new arrival (Isaiah: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble?"; Enkidu: "Who has taken this man?")

markedward
Mar 1st 2009, 08:27 AM
I am with bosco here. I do not see the wiggle room in God's word. Either we take God at his word or we don't believe in what he says.This is ridiculous... BrckBrln is showing that Scripture uses the phrase "the whole world" in cases when "the whole planet" would be impossible.

BrckBrln is not calling God a liar, and is not claiming the Bible is false.

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

The Roman Empire did not encompass the entire planet. Augustus did not rule over India, or Russia, or China, or Australia, or the Americas. In this case, it is entirely obvious that "all the world" refers to all of the Roman world, being, the world of the Roman Empire. And there are many places in the Bible where "the whole world" is used in a similar manner, not to refer to the entire planet. With that said, I do believe in the world-wide flood, but your claim that BrckBrln is calling God a liar or the Bible false just because he believes that "the whole world" refers to something other than the entire planet is baseless.

Equipped_4_Love
Mar 1st 2009, 09:00 AM
And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. 1 Kings 10:24

Do you believe every single person on earth sought out Solomon?

Ummmm.....ya. What else could this mean?

As far as the flood goes, are we arguing over whether it happened, or how it happened? I don't believe that there's any disputing that it actually did happen.

1 Pet. 3:18-20 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death the flesh but being made alive by the Spirit, by which He also went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.


I don't think there's any reason to dispute that this was a literal flood, and not just some mythical allegory. If the apostle Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said that there was a literal flood, then I see no reason to doubt it.

If you're going to discount that the flood actually happened, then you would have to call God a liar when He inspired Peter to write these things.

jonahthebold
Mar 1st 2009, 09:46 AM
@Trustingfollower: I was not, will not, and would never call God a liar. Perhaps it was my failure to communicate propperly, but I don't think you understood my post.

You seem to assume that I was questioning the truth of God's word. I was not. What I was questioning was our Human ability to interpret and/or translate the word of God.

And I am not 'taking the word of a sinner', by suggesting that some of this scientific evidence might be right. Rather, I am taking the word of God by studying His creation through the rules He used to set everything up. Science is not ungodly by nature just because some use it in that way.

I believe in the absolute truth of the Whole Bible. What I don't believe is that my reading or anyone else's reading of God's word can ever be infallible.

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2009, 05:56 PM
Ummmm.....ya. What else could this mean?

So you believe that every single person on the planet sought out Solomon? How is that even possible? What do you think about the Luke passage markedward posted?


As far as the flood goes, are we arguing over whether it happened, or how it happened? I don't believe that there's any disputing that it actually did happen.

1 Pet. 3:18-20 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death the flesh but being made alive by the Spirit, by which He also went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.


I don't think there's any reason to dispute that this was a literal flood, and not just some mythical allegory. If the apostle Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said that there was a literal flood, then I see no reason to doubt it.

If you're going to discount that the flood actually happened, then you would have to call God a liar when He inspired Peter to write these things.

I've never denied the flood, I just don't think it was global.

TrustingFollower
Mar 1st 2009, 06:15 PM
This is ridiculous... BrckBrln is showing that Scripture uses the phrase "the whole world" in cases when "the whole planet" would be impossible.

BrckBrln is not calling God a liar, and is not claiming the Bible is false.

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

The Roman Empire did not encompass the entire planet. Augustus did not rule over India, or Russia, or China, or Australia, or the Americas. In this case, it is entirely obvious that "all the world" refers to all of the Roman world, being, the world of the Roman Empire. And there are many places in the Bible where "the whole world" is used in a similar manner, not to refer to the entire planet. With that said, I do believe in the world-wide flood, but your claim that BrckBrln is calling God a liar or the Bible false just because he believes that "the whole world" refers to something other than the entire planet is baseless.
I fail to see why the whole world could not be registered. Scripture clearly says that every leader is put in place by God so why would it be impossible for God to place the same command to the other leaders? God placed the the desire on Caesar Augustus and could very well have placed the same desire on every other leader he put in place. Why discount the possibility and say it would not be the whole world when it very well could have been, but we only have written record of the Roman account in scripture.

BroRog
Mar 1st 2009, 06:20 PM
So you believe that every single person on the planet sought out Solomon? How is that even possible? What do you think about the Luke passage markedward posted?



I've never denied the flood, I just don't think it was global.

Is your argument a scientific one, or a literary one?

That is, have you concluded that the flood was not global based on the lack of scientific evidence or on an exegetical effort to understand what the Bible means to say about it? These are two different approaches to the question aren't they? And doesn't our commitment to the answer depend on which authority, scientific, or scriptural we find more plausible?

Perhaps you are saying that both are compatible since they both might agree?

BrckBrln
Mar 1st 2009, 07:18 PM
Is your argument a scientific one, or a literary one?

Both. It doesn't hurt my argument that there is a lack of evidence for a global flood. And I look at the genre of the flood account and literary features, which to me doesn't necessitate a literal reading. Also, Psalm 104:9.

BroRog
Mar 1st 2009, 08:32 PM
Both. It doesn't hurt my argument that there is a lack of evidence for a global flood. And I look at the genre of the flood account and literary features, which to me doesn't necessitate a literal reading. Also, Psalm 104:9.

What was the purpose of writing the account? What does it intend to convey?

bosco
Mar 2nd 2009, 06:10 AM
“I will utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. “I will sweep away man and beast; I will sweep away the birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, and the rubble with the wicked. I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth,” declares the Lord. Zephaniah 1:2-3

What do you make of this passage? It says explicitly that God was going to cut off mankind from the face of the earth.

If you keep reading in that chapter, it becomes clear it is speaking about what Daniel calls, "The Great and Terrible Day of the LORD." It is an end time passage BrckBrln, the time when God's wrath is poured out, the great cleansing.

Bosco

bosco
Mar 2nd 2009, 06:21 AM
This is ridiculous... BrckBrln is showing that Scripture uses the phrase "the whole world" in cases when "the whole planet" would be impossible.

BrckBrln is not calling God a liar, and is not claiming the Bible is false.

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

The Roman Empire did not encompass the entire planet. Augustus did not rule over India, or Russia, or China, or Australia, or the Americas. In this case, it is entirely obvious that "all the world" refers to all of the Roman world, being, the world of the Roman Empire. And there are many places in the Bible where "the whole world" is used in a similar manner, not to refer to the entire planet. With that said, I do believe in the world-wide flood, but your claim that BrckBrln is calling God a liar or the Bible false just because he believes that "the whole world" refers to something other than the entire planet is baseless.

It is not ridiculous markedward, the word "world" in Luke 2:1 is-

oikoumenē
oy-kou-men'-ay
Feminine participle present passive of G3611 (as noun, by implication of G1093); land, that is, the (terrene part of the) globe; specifically the Roman empire: - earth, world.

So while it CAN means world, by the main uses of the Greek word as defined, and in context, it clearly means the land Caesar had dominion over. This is much different than the wording used in the Noah account, for example, the Hebrew word for world is:

eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Moreover, when it says "and all the high hills (mountains is actually a better translattion here) that were under the whole heaven (sky in this case) were covered." That is everywhere.

We can't make the bible say what complies with our logic. I have shown a verse stating how God made the world with the appearance of age, together with the Gen 1 account, that should be enough.

It isn't for some I know...so the debate about something that can't be proven one way of the other continues. Too bad.

Bosco

ThuggishSplicer
Mar 8th 2009, 06:16 AM
So you are saying you do not believe the bible and that it is in fact the word of God. If you are going to throw out the story of the flood from Genesis then you in essence have to throw out the rest of the bible. Either it all is true or none of it is true.
NO!!!! I"M SAYING THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT, BUT GOD CAN STILL USE IT!!!! The "once wrong ,always wrong", logic is rediculous and stupid! But, so is the"once right always right". God can use an imperfect book for his perfect will.

IT takes more faith to believe that the Bible if fallible and believe it is still mostly correct and follow it(like I do), than believe it is infallible and all is correct. If it is fallible, then you CAN have faith. But if it's infallible, and all inerrantly correct, there is no need for faith (seeing that there is no need for proof due to its inerrant truth). It takes more faith to listen to a liar than listen to a (infallible)computer.

"I have to throw out the rest of the Bible"(*I say this mockingly), THEN IF I WERE YOUR MATH TEACHER-AND YOU MADE A MISTAKE IN ONE OF YOUR PROBLEMS, I SHOULD THROW IT OUT AND GIVE YOU AN "F"!??? This is lunacy!!!!!

daughter
Mar 8th 2009, 09:39 AM
Biologists know that there couldn't have been a world wide flood that destroyed all things because of the genetic mappings that they have accumulated over the years. One explained to me, If there was a flood (like what the Bible portrays), then our genetic maps would show a slight direpency in the internal genetic codings that we a have established and there would be a hole in part of the nets of genetic information. In other words, if there was a flood like that, there would be a major dent in the genetic train of information! There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains. It is because of this great upward force of the crust of the earth that causes them to tower above (with oddly found fossils). About Gilgamesh, you can't use a fictitious story to expound upon anything.This is something that I see a lot of... non scientists simply believing what scientists tell them. It's the same mechanism by which urban myths enter the collective consciousness. Someone tells someone a story, the story is then repeated authoratively as in, "a friend of a friend told me..." people believe it.

Likewise with the uber scientist.

I'm not saying that a "scientist" didn't tell you this... but that does not make what the "scientist" said true. If you are not educated enough to examine the first hand evidence yourself and come to a conclusion, then it's trustingly naive to believe a conclusion presented to you as a fact by a human with an agenda.

The same goes, by the way, for creationist scientists. We need, if we're going to rely on their evidences, to have the discipline to study and think for ourselves, and sometimes disagree, or confess that we don't know. And we need to trust God, more than fallible man.

ThuggishSplicer
Mar 17th 2009, 01:23 AM
This is something that I see a lot of... non scientists simply believing what scientists tell them. It's the same mechanism by which urban myths enter the collective consciousness. Someone tells someone a story, the story is then repeated authoratively as in, "a friend of a friend told me..." people believe it.

Likewise with the uber scientist.

I'm not saying that a "scientist" didn't tell you this... but that does not make what the "scientist" said true. If you are not educated enough to examine the first hand evidence yourself and come to a conclusion, then it's trustingly naive to believe a conclusion presented to you as a fact by a human with an agenda.

The same goes, by the way, for creationist scientists. We need, if we're going to rely on their evidences, to have the discipline to study and think for ourselves, and sometimes disagree, or confess that we don't know. And we need to trust God, more than fallible man.
I am a colleague, and a scientist(Historian, then Biologist). You don't seem to have even a minimal understanding of the genetic research I am used to dealing with. Let me explain this in lesser terms. You are correct, just because we say it is true, does not make it true ( this fallacy is used more in my Biblical discussions). I never said that it makes it true. What I am implying though, is that there are tested facts, that of which surround the subject of genetics, that say my colleagues and me are correct. Not that circular reasoning that you placed as words in my mouth. It is not some conspiracy or urban myth, it is scientific fact.(He came up with the explanation, thus I give him the credit).

ProDeo
May 21st 2009, 04:51 PM
There is also extensive research showing that there was no world-wide flood that brought sea fossils to the high up mountains but it was a world-wide ocean, and the mountains pushed on eachother upward and upward more and more, thus giving us continents, and sea fossils on mountains.
What about: Snowball Earth ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

If the Earth once fully was covered with ice then that is proof Earth once was fully water, like Genesis 1:9 says (let the dry land appear). So there is nothing scientific against the Flood covering the whole world.

Bottom line: always trust the Word.

Realize: most of the evidence is lost during all kind of natural disasters, science never will be able to figure out what really happened on many subjects.

Regards,

Ed

David Taylor
May 21st 2009, 07:00 PM
And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. 1 Kings 10:24

Do you believe every single person on earth sought out Solomon?


Yes, that's what the scriptures tell us; but not in the exaggerated way you reworded it.

I Kings 10:23 "So king Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and for wisdom. And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart. And they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and garments, and armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year. "

I Chronicles 22:5 "And David said, Solomon my son is young and tender, and the house that is to be builded for the LORD must be exceeding magnifical, of fame and of glory throughout all countries"


But notice the scriptures don't qualify it to the detail you chose to do.

The Scriptures don't say 'every single person on earth' sought out Solomon....all they say are 'the whole earth sought'....which could simply and accurately be fulfilled by representatives (kings, emissarys, etc) from the various countries of the world, upon hearing of the great wisdom of Solomon, sought presence to hear his wisdom....as the Scriptures tell us.

The context however, of the Genesis account both in Genesis, and in the New Testament tell us it was a complete, worldwide flood.

So if we bring the Genesis account into question, we also bring the NT writers who also spoke of it as a world-wide flood into question.

After doing that, we don't have a bible...we have man's personal opinions over a flawed selection of ancient writings.

Athanasius
May 21st 2009, 07:42 PM
I am a colleague, and a scientist(Historian, then Biologist). You don't seem to have even a minimal understanding of the genetic research I am used to dealing with. Let me explain this in lesser terms. You are correct, just because we say it is true, does not make it true ( this fallacy is used more in my Biblical discussions). I never said that it makes it true. What I am implying though, is that there are tested facts, that of which surround the subject of genetics, that say my colleagues and me are correct. Not that circular reasoning that you placed as words in my mouth. It is not some conspiracy or urban myth, it is scientific fact.(He came up with the explanation, thus I give him the credit).

Can you explain 'this' in greater terms (meaning 'scientific jargon,' non-laymen terms) for me (I'm assuming you're referring to some sort of genetic bottleneck)? What it looks like to me is that in your attempt to explain in 'lesser terms' you forgot to do any explaining at all. It seems to me what you're objecting to is the aspect of the 'myth' which would have us believe that God wiped out all but two of every animal and every human excepting Noah and his family. Rather, than say, objecting to whether or not the flood was world wide or local.



But if it's infallible, and all inerrantly correct, there is no need for faith (seeing that there is no need for proof due to its inerrant truth). It takes more faith to listen to a liar than listen to a (infallible)computer.

Such a post-enlightenment (pseudo?)thinker :rolleyes: I consider 'pseudo' because out of everything you've said, that last sentence there is something else.
That's actually a misunderstanding of Biblical faith, though I don't think I'd go as far as to say you don't 'even have a minimal understanding' of Biblical faith...

Br. Barnabas
May 21st 2009, 09:01 PM
NO!!!! I"M SAYING THAT THE BIBLE IS NOT INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT, BUT GOD CAN STILL USE IT!!!! The "once wrong ,always wrong", logic is rediculous and stupid! But, so is the"once right always right". God can use an imperfect book for his perfect will.

IT takes more faith to believe that the Bible if fallible and believe it is still mostly correct and follow it(like I do), than believe it is infallible and all is correct. If it is fallible, then you CAN have faith. But if it's infallible, and all inerrantly correct, there is no need for faith (seeing that there is no need for proof due to its inerrant truth). It takes more faith to listen to a liar than listen to a (infallible)computer.

"I have to throw out the rest of the Bible"(*I say this mockingly), THEN IF I WERE YOUR MATH TEACHER-AND YOU MADE A MISTAKE IN ONE OF YOUR PROBLEMS, I SHOULD THROW IT OUT AND GIVE YOU AN "F"!??? This is lunacy!!!!!

Totally agree with you! I believe in the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, but that does not mean that every word is infallible or inerrant, specially in matters of history and sciene. The problem is so many people expect the Bible to be more than a religious text, but also a science and history book. It is a religious text that gives all information that is needed for salvation. It is not going to answer every single question we come up with.

TrustingFollower
May 21st 2009, 09:59 PM
"I have to throw out the rest of the Bible"(*I say this mockingly), THEN IF I WERE YOUR MATH TEACHER-AND YOU MADE A MISTAKE IN ONE OF YOUR PROBLEMS, I SHOULD THROW IT OUT AND GIVE YOU AN "F"!??? This is lunacy!!!!!
That is how all people will be judged one day, I have no problem with this kind of grading system when it come to faith, we are either all in or all out.

NotMyOwn
May 21st 2009, 10:20 PM
Wow, a bunch of posters just jumped on thuggishsplicer without asking for any sort of clarification.

IMHO believing in the truth of every word of the Bible is not supposed to be easy. It is very easy to say one of two things: "Genesis said the the whole world was covered in flood, therefore science is wrong," and on the other hand, "Science has disproved Genesis, therefore the Bible is untrue."

It is likewise easy to say that Gilgamesh talks about a flood, therefore it proves the truth of Noah.

The question I would ask is: does the "whole world" have to mean the "whole Earth"? If so, then why was America called "the new world"? The idea of equating the world with the Earth is hard for most of us to escape from because we have seen photos from space. But until very recently, "the world" was used as a term to refer to every place which you knew of or which you had heard about. Should I be branded an unbeliever for suggesting that Noah had never heard of, nor would he care about, the Americas, Northern Europe, Subsaharan Africa, Middle-Asia, South-Asia, and East-Asia, let alone Australia... Well, you get my point.

So, and I would really, genuinely like an answer from a more traditional Christian: is it heretical to suggest that the flood which covered "the whole world" did not cover the whole Earth?


The fact that Noah knew nothing about the Americas and every place you mentioned does not disprove the whole earth account in the Bible. It is God who said it covered the whole earth.

From all that I have read, I believe in the hydroplate theory as put forth by Walt Brown in his book, "In the Beginning, Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood."

Which reminds me, I need to buy the updated version.