Flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious_Hobbit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
buffalo said:
Do you think it will considering the fact that a supernatural explanation is a priori ruled out?
Click to expand...
You want to believe in a supernatural explanation as a matter of faith, no debate. I disagree with the claim, but I respect all matters of faith.

Claiming that its verifiable fact through the science of geology and related disciplines gets you into a fight you can’t win (except to the choir), not even with ad hoc, pretend flood-geology-science.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
You want to believe in a supernatural explanation as a matter of faith, no debate. I disagree with the claim, but I respect all matters of faith.

Claiming that its verifiable fact through the science of geology and related disciplines gets you into a fight you can’t win (except to the choir), not even with ad hoc, pretend flood-geology-science.
Click to expand...
We have a box of black and white balls. That is the truth of the box.

Creationists (Catholics) pick both balls. Materialists only pick the black ones. Doesn’t this bother you?
 
buffalo said:
We have a box of black and white balls. That is the truth of the box.

Creationists (Catholics) pick both balls. Materialists only pick the black ones. Doesn’t this bother you?
Click to expand...
I’m not in the least bothered what Catholics believe. I choose to believe that the flood story is not literal, but one that teaches fundamental truths about God’s relationship with mankind. So is that one white, one black or both?

Claims that Ye Arke was real based on marine architecture or geology brings on some lively debate though.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
I’m not in the least bothered what Catholics believe. I choose to believe that the flood story is not literal, but one that teaches fundamental truths about God’s relationship with mankind. So is that one white, one black or both?

Claims that Ye Arke was real based on marine architecture or geology brings on some lively debate though.
Click to expand...
If one is a uniformitarian geologist one will only pick the black balls.
 
The story of Noah and the Flood, as well as a number of other OT stories, contain both literal elements and figurative elements. It is a false dichotomy to say that a story is either entirely literal, or entirely figurative (as if nothing of the kind ever happened).

For example, in the Adam and Eve story, some elements are literal (two real human persons, a real fall from original innocency by sin, the consequences of the fall, etc.) and other elements are figurative (fruit, talking serpent, tree of life, etc.). We are obliged by the teaching of the Council of Trent to believe that Adam and Eve were two real human persons, who committed the first sin in the human race. So we cannot hold that the story is entirely a myth, or merely a fictional teaching story. But neither are we obliged to hold that all elements are literal.

Concerning W. Bruce Masse’s theory about the flood, his work is supported by the work of this group of scientists:
tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/members.htm

And this section of the site has some articles and book chapters available online:
tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/publ.htm
 
Flood story could be true. We will never have concrete evidence. Why do I thnk it is possible? Not from rain but maybe a massive influx of water into huge valley. The Straight of Gilbraltor or the Darndelles forming? Or even an “Ice Dam” melting from the last Ice Age. It’s funny how sometimes Science shows how the OT stories could and maybe are literal.
 
NE_Catholic said:
Flood story could be true. We will never have concrete evidence. Why do I thnk it is possible? Not from rain but maybe a massive influx of water into huge valley. The Straight of Gilbraltor or the Darndelles forming? Or even an “Ice Dam” melting from the last Ice Age. It’s funny how sometimes Science shows how the OT stories could and maybe are literal.
Click to expand...
Science does not demonstrate the truth of the biblical flood, as the story is presented. You’re correct, however, in pointing out that big floods happen on a local or regional basis. Fluctuations in the Black Sea have been proposed as a source for the biblical flood and related fertile crescent myths.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
Science does not demonstrate the truth of the biblical flood, as the story is presented. You’re correct, however, in pointing out that big floods happen on a local or regional basis. Fluctuations in the Black Sea have been proposed as a source for the biblical flood and related fertile crescent myths.
Click to expand...
I was merely pointing out that a flood could have occured. It quite possible it could have rained for “40 days and 40 nights”. It is also possible Noah could have gathered animals. All this is possible. I do not choose to discard anything, only examine it with reason and science. My conclusion is that is that the Bible Story could be possible in the context in which it is told. Is it? I don’t know.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Here is some scientific evidence in support of the great Flood as an historical event:

The Archaeology and Anthropology of Quaternary Period Cosmic Impact
W. Bruce Masse
tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/PABL/Masse_2007_ICSU_Paper.pdf
from the Holocene Impact Working Group website
Click to expand...
Its a highly disputed minority position, Ted Bryant admits “The scientific community, I wouldn’t expect 99.9 per cent of it to agree with us.” Like I said, the weight of science disciplines is against a literal flood. Hanging your hat on this kind of authority isn’t persuasive in the least.
 
There is scientific support for the great flood, from several different scientists.

Again, I am not arguing for a completely literal understanding of the Flood. Neither am I saying that it is an entirely fictional story. In my view the Flood has some literal elements, so that there was an historical event, a global catastrophic event with great flooding in many places – but the extent described in the story is a figurative element, not a literal element.

And there is scientific support for such an event. It is an hypothesis, with some scientific basis. But given that Scripture also describes such an event, as persons of faith we cannot rely solely on science for our understanding and conclusions.
 
There is no serious issue with positing an actual primordial flood. In fact, given the prevalence of the motif in creation stories from around the world, it seems very likely to me that there was some kind of catastrophic flood event before the out-of-africa migrations, indeed before the within-africa dispersals.

There are a huge number of issues with trying to prove a global flood five millenia ago. But since Bishop Ussher’s calculations, and those of others like him, be they Protestant or Catholic, are not de fide, it’s not a problem for most of us as Catholics.

(Side question which I should probably post in some other forum): How many other bishops of Protestant Churches (or other Protestants, lay, clerical or episcopal) are proclaimed in Catholic liturgy? And if he’s the only one, why do we use his chronology in the Christmas liturgy (particularly ironic as he was a raging anti-catholic)? I mean, it’s lovely and poetic, but . . . Ussher?? He also wrote
The religion of the papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church in respect of both, apostatical; to give them therefore a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, and profess their faith and doctrine, is a grievous sin.
Click to expand...
And people think we shouldn’t sing hymns by Marty Haugen . . .😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top