The Great Flood

[Arakhor]

If you were shot with a poisoned arrow and received no medical attention, I'd wager that you would die too.

 

[Kyriakos]

As known, it was (in the story) his only mortal- by which i mean liable to cause death if harmed- part, iirc because his mother forgot (or similar) to hold that over the fire as well. So he would die if harmed there, thus the expression 'Achilles heel' as the weakness of someone/something.
Achilles wasn't immortal, of course, given we even see him in the underworld, when Odysseus visits.

That said, a son of a nymph technically (afaik) isn't even a demigod. Nymphs aren't gods either, though they are immortal. Herakles was a demigod, but he was son of Zeus. (and later on becomes a god, through 'apotheosis').
Furthermore, some such beings were biologically immortal, but still potentially killed by violence, eg famously one of the three Gorgones (her two sisters were fully immortal).

 

[Mouthwash]

Assuming that Achilles actually existed and thus was already was the child of an immortal, he would know better than to claim to be the child of Zeus. The Greek myths are literally rife with the punishments for hubris, both mortal and immortal alike.

Well, it didn't have to be him who claimed it.

 

[timtofly]

So what great leaps of technology occurred when Christianity became a thing, and later on, when Islam became a thing?

I'll admit that cultural diffusion (a term used in cultural geography) happens faster when people have better, more reliable methods of transportation - easier to "spread the word" and share ideas and knowledge. Were there any great leaps in transportation methods between 33 CE and the 4th century? What about in the 7th century?


It's much easier to fool the people when they don't have a reliable way to check if the religious authorities are telling the truth. That doesn't mean the beliefs are tossed away by everyone - just those who don't care that they're being told the equivalent of bedtime stories with no logic or even internal consistency.

Time would exist no matter if there were any self-aware beings to experience it at all. People with no awareness of God/god(s) still experience the passage of time, even if they're one of the cultures that don't worry much about it.


You keep assuming "God" is real and that Noah was real. The story of Noah's Ark was based on much older stories.


How about IF the flood happened, it was due to entirely natural causes? Like gravity, geology, geography, physics, chemistry, and meteorology keep chugging along whether anyone at the time understands them or not.

The story of Noah is not based on older stories. The history given was from Egypt, not Mesopotamian.

For a Calender to work it needs a point of reference to make the years meaningful. Otherwise it is just a series of never ending months. The further from the point of meaningful reference, the less believability there is to that point.

The point of the Exodus from Egypt was already being questioned a few hundred years after the point of reference happened, yet there was still enough evidence to refute it. We are not denying that Mohammed never existed or we? Why would we call him a liar, that Moses and Abraham never existed? He argued that Christianity and Judaism were wrong, but not in their historical accuracy. He would have been refuted, if he had.

Would not the Jews of the 4th century AD, not have had a mash up of Roman, Greek, and Egyptian mythology? There are similiarities, with all three major influences, but is it possible to define a point when each were unique? Yet the Jews still have their own unique identity despite living through the influences of the other 3. Which group would you distinctly say had the original information?

 

[Berzerker]

The flood myth in Genesis came from Mesopotamia, Abraham was a Sumerian merchant living in the 3rd dynasty capital of Ur

I believe the Hebrew calendar began in ~3796 BC and is based on the lunar calendar of Nippur.

The myth of Achilles Heel could be a celestial myth, Genesis says the Serpent was cursed to crawl the ground and bruise the heel of the woman's lineage. That could be a sky myth involving Draco and Virgo, or Orion, or one those constellations.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The story of Noah is not based on older stories. The history given was from Egypt, not Mesopotamian.

We already had this conversation several times. You're trotting out yet another goalpost move, and it's incorrect. The Noah story is based on the story of Gilgamesh, who was not Egyptian.

For a Calender to work it needs a point of reference to make the years meaningful. Otherwise it is just a series of never ending months. The further from the point of meaningful reference, the less believability there is to that point.

The point of the Exodus from Egypt was already being questioned a few hundred years after the point of reference happened, yet there was still enough evidence to refute it. We are not denying that Mohammed never existed or we? Why would we call him a liar, that Moses and Abraham never existed? He argued that Christianity and Judaism were wrong, but not in their historical accuracy. He would have been refuted, if he had.

I once saw a documentary on TV (sorry, but I don't remember which program it was) in which more than one biblical scholar stated that he didn't think any of the patriarchs and their families ever really existed. He said they were characters in an extended story, and like other such stories, the characters dealt with things that happened to them. Sometimes they made good choices and prospered, and other times they made bad choices and the consequences were dire - anything from slavery to starvation to dying in war, or whatever other nasty stuff could be thought up to reinforce the morality tales being told to people.

 

[Hrothbern]

One of the things I never understood of the biblical Great Flood was the enormous amount of rain compared to other stories.


Especially because the bible suggests that before the Great Flood there was no rain.
"Genesis 2:5-6 New International Version (NIV)
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

Footnotes:
Genesis 2:5 Or land; also in verse 6
Genesis 2:6 Or mist"

 

[onejayhawk]

We already had this conversation several times. You're trotting out yet another goalpost move, and it's incorrect. The Noah story is based on the story of Gilgamesh, who was not Egyptian.

Some say. Or they were both based on the same events.

I once saw a documentary on TV (sorry, but I don't remember which program it was) in which more than one biblical scholar stated that he didn't think any of the patriarchs and their families ever really existed. He said they were characters in an extended story, and like other such stories, the characters dealt with things that happened to them. Sometimes they made good choices and prospered, and other times they made bad choices and the consequences were dire - anything from slavery to starvation to dying in war, or whatever other nasty stuff could be thought up to reinforce the morality tales being told to people.

All of which says what? That they were actual events, combined into family for convenience? That they were conflations of multiple people in similar situations? What?

The myth of Achilles Heel could be a celestial myth, Genesis says the Serpent was cursed to crawl the ground and bruise the heel of the woman's lineage. That could be a sky myth involving Draco and Virgo, or Orion, or one those constellations.

This is also a Genesis story.

He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.​

Gen 3:15b

Thew word translated strike is unusual in Hebrew. It means to hit hard enough to reduce bones to small fragments. The only other time it occurs is Psalm 22.

J

 

[Kyriakos]

This is also a Genesis story.

He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.​

Gen 3:15b

Thew word translated strike is unusual in Hebrew. It means to hit hard enough to reduce bones to small fragments. The only other time it occurs is Psalm 22.

J

Isn't that rather not a tendon, but tenuous as a connection?

Furthermore, those who have read some of the old testament would know that it isn't (in the case one doesn't identify it as written by god) some highly interesting or well-written text. It is a story of how a god will destroy you if you are not doing what he says, will destroy you also if you aren't jewish, will destroy you even if you are jewish if you don't follow upwards of 500 ocd commandments, etc. Let's not try to present the old testament as some pillar of human knowledge; it was a work created by a society then very notably backward in the middle east (not Babylon or Sumer, not Egypt, not Lydia, Persia etc), a society with no astronomy, no physics, no math, no philosophy, of little wealth and little art next to others.

 

[Lexicus]

All of which says what? That they were actual events, combined into family for convenience? That they were conflations of multiple people in similar situations? What?

It says pretty clearly that they are just fictional and that none of the events were real.

 

[onejayhawk]

It says pretty clearly that they are just fictional and that none of the events were real.

Even pure fiction, as it is written today, elaborates on true events in the author's life and consciousness. It does not occur in a vacuum. These are teaching stories. The events must have occurred to give the story purpose. The facts may become kernals, but they will always be there.

J

 

[timtofly]

It says pretty clearly that they are just fictional and that none of the events were real.

What it are you talking about? The only its I have seen are modern humans. There are stories within the writings, and narratives. I agree that when something is just a fable, it is presented as one. There is no proof the whole body of work was invented as filler.

 

[Lexicus]

Even pure fiction, as it is written today, elaborates on true events in the author's life and consciousness. It does not occur in a vacuum. These are teaching stories. The events must have occurred to give the story purpose. The facts may become kernals, but they will always be there.

I find it interesting contrasting this attitude toward the accuracy of the Bible with the pose of jaded skepticism you assume when it comes to scientists telling you that climate change is something to worry about.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Some say. Or they were both based on the same events.

Both based on an event that happened pre-Gilgamesh?

All of which says what? That they were actual events, combined into family for convenience? That they were conflations of multiple people in similar situations? What?

It says pretty clearly that they are just fictional and that none of the events were real.

Exactly. According to the scholars on the program I watched, the patriarchs and their families were made-up characters, invented to tell a story.

For instance, take the story of Joseph (the one I'm most familiar with; I read up on it after seeing "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" because I was unfamiliar with the characters and references in the play). You've got the patriarch (Jacob) who had 12 sons with 2 wives and 2 concubines. His favorite son is the oldest of his favorite wife. The other sons are jealous, and figure that if they get rid of the favorite son, their father will turn to and favor the others instead.

But oops, that's not how it turned out, right? Jacob never stopped grieving for Joseph (who, the brothers claimed, had been torn to pieces by a wild animal, when they had actually sold him into slavery). Joseph had his trials and then prospered. He never lost his faith in his god, which is one of the morals of the story.

Of course the morals of "be loyal to your family" and "have faith in your god" could have been told without the story. But it's been passed down through the millennia because people remember the story.

That doesn't mean that Jacob, Joseph, or anyone else in the story actually existed - other than whichever pharaoh was in charge of Egypt at the time. We know there were pharaohs, but archaeologists haven't turned up any concrete evidence that any part of the story of Joseph really happened. They haven't even turned up any concrete evidence of Moses, whose existence depends on verification that Jacob and Joseph existed.

Even pure fiction, as it is written today, elaborates on true events in the author's life and consciousness. It does not occur in a vacuum. These are teaching stories. The events must have occurred to give the story purpose. The facts may become kernals, but they will always be there.

Fiction often is inspired by events in the author's life, true. That's something I was told in junior high, when the teacher assigned us to write and illustrate children's books. Mine was a story about a Martian family (I did the usual stereotypical "little green men" depiction) living on Earth and trying to fit in. So yeah, that did draw on my personal life, because the only places I ever have fit in have been in settings with other science fiction fans or serious astronomy students. And there weren't either of those around when I was in my early teens.

But it's a mistake to assume that whatever fiction authors write about must have really happened. My story was about not fitting in with one's peers. It had nothing to do with actually being Martian. That's even more so now, since we know that nobody like my characters could possibly have existed on Mars.

The stuff I write now has to do with adventurers who fight with swords, wield magic, and have strong love and loyalty to their families, to the point that they're willing to risk their lives in fighting some of the most ghastly monsters.

So... what part of that is real in my life? I spent 12 years in the SCA but never took up the sword, or even bow. I usually play magic users in D&D games, but in RL I don't believe in magic. But family loyalty is the part of myself I put into those stories. I happen to think it's an improvement over the motivation the original authors gave the characters in the game books I'm adapting. Ian Livingstone's characters are greedy and do what they do for the gold and fame. My version of the main characters have families to support or duties to fulfill, and there are some things they won't do because they don't consider it honorable.

What it are you talking about? The only its I have seen are modern humans. There are stories within the writings, and narratives. I agree that when something is just a fable, it is presented as one. There is no proof the whole body of work was invented as filler.

"It" refers to the documentary I saw in which biblical scholars stated that they don't think the patriarchs or their families ever existed, and the stories about them are just stories and not real history.

As for proof... show me proof that Abraham through Exodus happened. It's not like archaeologists - reputable ones - haven't been looking. But they've never found anything that they're willing to point to and say, "The Old Testament was 100% right."

 

[onejayhawk]

Both based on an event that happened pre-Gilgamesh?

Yes.

Exactly. According to the scholars on the program I watched, the patriarchs and their families were made-up characters, invented to tell a story.

That does not do violence to history as we understand it, but surely you can better. It makes more sense to assume that someone, possibly some group, served as a conduit between the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt during the middle kingdom or 2nd intermediate period. Saying it embellished is one thing. Saying it is entirely made up is another, more tenuous thing.

Oral tradition is evidence. To discount it whole is to throw cutlery out with the dishwater.

J

 

[Berzerker]

10 Hebrew patriarchs before the Great Flood matches up with Berossus' list of 10 pre-diluvian kings

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes.


That does not do violence to history as we understand it, but surely you can better.

Whut?

This sentence is unclear.

It makes more sense to assume that someone, possibly some group, served as a conduit between the eastern Mediterranean and Egypt during the middle kingdom or 2nd intermediate period. Saying it embellished is one thing. Saying it is entirely made up is another, more tenuous thing.

Take your complaints to the people on the program. They're the ones who said the patriarchs were made-up characters.

Oral tradition is evidence. To discount it whole is to throw cutlery out with the dishwater.

There are many different oral traditions. They can't all be right.

And actually, cutlery can be thrown out with the dishwater, if you hate washing dishes.

10 Hebrew patriarchs before the Great Flood matches up with Berossus' list of 10 pre-diluvian kings

I think I made it clear I was talking about Abraham onward, which was post-Flood.

 

[timtofly]

Both based on an event that happened pre-Gilgamesh?


Exactly. According to the scholars on the program I watched, the patriarchs and their families were made-up characters, invented to tell a story.

For instance, take the story of Joseph (the one I'm most familiar with; I read up on it after seeing "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" because I was unfamiliar with the characters and references in the play). You've got the patriarch (Jacob) who had 12 sons with 2 wives and 2 concubines. His favorite son is the oldest of his favorite wife. The other sons are jealous, and figure that if they get rid of the favorite son, their father will turn to and favor the others instead.

But oops, that's not how it turned out, right? Jacob never stopped grieving for Joseph (who, the brothers claimed, had been torn to pieces by a wild animal, when they had actually sold him into slavery). Joseph had his trials and then prospered. He never lost his faith in his god, which is one of the morals of the story.

Of course the morals of "be loyal to your family" and "have faith in your god" could have been told without the story. But it's been passed down through the millennia because people remember the story.

That doesn't mean that Jacob, Joseph, or anyone else in the story actually existed - other than whichever pharaoh was in charge of Egypt at the time. We know there were pharaohs, but archaeologists haven't turned up any concrete evidence that any part of the story of Joseph really happened. They haven't even turned up any concrete evidence of Moses, whose existence depends on verification that Jacob and Joseph existed.

"It" refers to the documentary I saw in which biblical scholars stated that they don't think the patriarchs or their families ever existed, and the stories about them are just stories and not real history.

As for proof... show me proof that Abraham through Exodus happened. It's not like archaeologists - reputable ones - haven't been looking. But they've never found anything that they're willing to point to and say, "The Old Testament was 100% right."

So which biblical scholars are the most believable? The point that scholarly works have to be believable to begin with. The Old Testament is a scholarly work in itself, and was stated so by extra biblical scholars back several hundred years before Christ. If a work states that it was written by educated writers from the beginning of the law, and the law itself was indicative of a legal system, at what point was it made up?

The legal system came first and then fell out of use and back into use several times over several thousand years, yet remained a pretty concise and understandable body of knowledge even better than the body of knowledge the Greeks had.

No where does it say they sat down and reasoned out where their history started and why. It was very definitive of it's source.

But then it is back to belief, and more importantly an acceptance of the facts given.

 

[Berzerker]

I wasn't responding to you, just pointing out a possible connection between the patriarchs and 'mythical' rulers

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So which biblical scholars are the most believable? The point that scholarly works have to be believable to begin with. The Old Testament is a scholarly work in itself, and was stated so by extra biblical scholars back several hundred years before Christ. If a work states that it was written by educated writers from the beginning of the law, and the law itself was indicative of a legal system, at what point was it made up?

Just because somebody says "this is all true" in a book doesn't mean it's all true without supporting evidence. And WTH is an "extra biblical scholar"? Some extras that happened to turn up? Ones that are more biblical than the others?

It's unfortunate that I don't remember the name of that documentary. I watched it in the '90s, probably on PBS, but it could have been on another channel.

I wasn't responding to you, just pointing out a possible connection between the patriarchs and 'mythical' rulers

Well, now that you've brought it up, how about a link? I'm curious.