Gilgamesh-let's discuss

[wavy]

Well, this differs from my knowledge. The earlier Babylonian version still contains a host of gods and characters producing the subsequent extra relationships.

It is only natural that an openly polytheistic religion would have multiple gods in its myths.

Do you care to cite which Babylonian source you're referring to, explain why it's more 'complex', and why this alleged 'complexity' has anything to do with which version is more likely original?

Priority is debatable among scholars. I can site Morris Jastrow, professor of semitic languages at the University of Pennsylvania and Albert T. Clay, professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University - who wrote: An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic. Both indicate independence in transmutation of the story through the ancient cultures.

I'm not talking about priority in direct borrowing from known sources. I'm saying the biblical account is not original, or rather pristine even if our *known* sources are literarily independent.

I'd be happy to prove that the biblical version does borrow from some Babylonian source (now non-extant), and you can cite all the scholars you want...if you're willing to take me up on that challenge and test what you really know.

I was not speaking of the artwork. In fact, the pictures of the ark are usually quite false in their depiction. However, if you take into account the dimensions given for the ark you will find that a ship built to those specifications is quite suitable to ocean travel and quite difficult to capsize.

A wooden box with any dimensions will likely not be very seaworthy.

I disagree because of the afore mentioned reasons.

You really didn't offer any significant reasons. But like I said, if you're willing, my offer stands.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mechanicdb]

Simply compare the length of the writings and you can find out which one is more complex; ancient writings don't entertain too many 'fillers', if you will, in my opinion.



...and yes, veritas, I have a '07 cbr 1000rr repsol edition and a '07 vtx 1300r currently. I love to ride!

 

[stovebolts]

I'd be happy to prove that the biblical version does borrow from some Babylonian source (now non-extant), and you can cite all the scholars you want...if you're willing to take me up on that challenge and test what you really know.

We can go right to our bibles to prove that Abram came out of Babylonia...
Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was a hundred years old, and begat Arpachshad two years after the flood:

Keep on a reading the geneology and it brings you to here :yes
Genesis 11:27-29 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldeans. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

Genesis 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Trying to prove that the story comes out of Babylon is a non issue. Saying that the Biblical Narratives were "borrowed" is quite another. :naughty

 

[mechanicdb]

Trying to prove that the story comes out of Babylon is a non issue. Saying that the Biblical Narratives were "borrowed" is quite another. :naughty

this is one direction I was trying to go in; can you explain this a little more please? I feel that non-believers use this.




...btw, hopefully sometime this weekend I will have a chance to read on your link.

 

[wavy]

Trying to prove that the story comes out of Babylon is a non issue. Saying that the Biblical Narratives were "borrowed" is quite another. :naughty

Well, let's test that assumption.

We are aware that the Hebrews calculated the year at 354 days and compensated against the solar year, which is actually 365 days (but, as I will show, the Hebrews seemed to have calculated the solar year at about 364 days). In other words, their calendar was lunisolar (Genesis i.14), so it incorporated both the moon and the sun.

Their months, twelve in all, were synodic, one lunation lasting about 29.5 days. To compensate for the extra half day, they intercalated their months with alternating 29-/30-day periods, i.e., the 354 days.

The Babylonian calendar was uniformly solar beginning sometime in the early 2nd millenium (see 'Calendar' in the Encyc. Brit. Macro., 1990, 15th ed., p. 463), comprising 360 days. That is, it was not based on any cycle of the moon (and wouldn't be for a while).

So with that in mind, we examine the Flood narrative. According to Genesis vii.11, Noah entered the ark the day the Flood began on the 17th of the second month, and exactly 150 days later the ark rested on the Ararat range according to Genesis viii.3-4 on the 17th day, this time of the seventh month. But there's a problem with this calculation because,

'no period of 5 months could possibly be estimated at 150 days, the months usually having alternately 29 and 30 days....The use of the even month of 30 days can scarcely be accounted for except by supposing P to follow, more closely than is commonly supposed, some Babylonian original; for the arbitrary equal month of 30 days is a peculiarity of the Baylonian calendar.'
--B.W. Bacon, 'Chronology of the Flood Account in P.--A Contribution to the History of the Jewish Calendar', Hebraica, vol. 8, no. 1/2, 1891/1892, p. 83

According to Genesis viii.14, the Flood was completely dissipated on the 27th of the second month, a year and ten days later (from the 17th of the second month back around to the 27th of the second month).

These dates are not arbitrary because they serve a subtle meaning in the narrative. What the author has done at the end of the narrative is conflate his own Hebraic lunisolar calendar with the calendar used for compiling the narrative, the 360-day Babylonian calendar. That is, he lapses back into his lunar understanding of the year and assumes the Flood lasted 354-days, and attempts to compensate for the lunar/solar discrepancy by adding ten more days (354 + 10 = 364).

That the Hebrews calculated the solar year at 364 days is known from the sectarian writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who drew on ancient traditions, yet they repudiated the 354-day lunar calendar used by Temple Judaism and retained the solar aspect of the lunisolar calendar.

For example,

YHWH gave him an intelligent and brilliant spirit, and he wrote 3,600 psalms and 364 songs to sing before the altar for the daily perpetual sacrifice, for all the days of the year
--11QPs27, quoted from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Penguin Press, 1997, p. 307.

Copies of the 2nd/3rd century B.C. apocryphal books 1Enoch and Jubilees (both available online) were also found at Qumran, indicating their authoritative status there:

And command thou the children of Israel that they observe the years according to this reckoning-three hundred and sixty-four days, and (these) will constitute a complete year
--Jubilees vi.32

is equal to the day and the year is exactly as to its days three hundred and sixty-four. And the length of the day and of the night, and the shortness of the day and of the night arise-through the course
--1Enoch lxxii.33


Anyway, there's much more to it than this (e.g., the significance of Noah's age, 600, for Babylonian cyclic calculations).

But my girlfriend is waiting (heh heh), and I'll be back for any responses.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Trying to prove that the story comes out of Babylon is a non issue. Saying that the Biblical Narratives were "borrowed" is quite another. :naughty

Well, let's test that assumption.

We are aware that the Hebrews calculated the year at 354 days and compensated against the solar year, which is actually 365 days (but, as I will show, the Hebrews seemed to have calculated the solar year at about 364 days). In other words, their calendar was lunisolar (Genesis i.14), so it incorporated both the moon and the sun.

Their months, twelve in all, were synodic, one lunation lasting about 29.5 days. To compensate for the extra half day, they intercalated their months with alternating 29-/30-day periods, i.e., the 354 days.

The Babylonian calendar was uniformly solar beginning sometime in the early 2nd millenium (see 'Calendar' in the Encyc. Brit. Macro., 1990, 15th ed., p. 463), comprising 360 days. That is, it was not based on any cycle of the moon (and wouldn't be for a while).

So with that in mind, we examine the Flood narrative. According to Genesis vii.11, Noah entered the ark the day the Flood began on the 17th of the second month, and exactly 150 days later the ark rested on the Ararat range according to Genesis viii.3-4 on the 17th day, this time of the seventh month. But there's a problem with this calculation because,

'no period of 5 months could possibly be estimated at 150 days, the months usually having alternately 29 and 30 days....The use of the even month of 30 days can scarcely be accounted for except by supposing P to follow, more closely than is commonly supposed, some Babylonian original; for the arbitrary equal month of 30 days is a peculiarity of the Baylonian calendar.'
--B.W. Bacon, 'Chronology of the Flood Account in P.--A Contribution to the History of the Jewish Calendar', Hebraica, vol. 8, no. 1/2, 1891/1892, p. 83

According to Genesis viii.14, the Flood was completely dissipated on the 27th of the second month, a year and ten days later (from the 17th of the second month back around to the 27th of the second month).

These dates are not arbitrary because they serve a subtle meaning in the narrative. What the author has done at the end of the narrative is conflate his own Hebraic lunisolar calendar with the calendar used for compiling the narrative, the 360-day Babylonian calendar. That is, he lapses back into his lunar understanding of the year and assumes the Flood lasted 354-days, and attempts to compensate for the lunar/solar discrepancy by adding ten more days (354 + 10 = 364).

That the Hebrews calculated the solar year at 364 days is known from the sectarian writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who drew on ancient traditions, yet they repudiated the 354-day lunar calendar used by Temple Judaism and retained the solar aspect of the lunisolar calendar.

For example,

YHWH gave him an intelligent and brilliant spirit, and he wrote 3,600 psalms and 364 songs to sing before the altar for the daily perpetual sacrifice, for all the days of the year
--11QPs27, quoted from Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Penguin Press, 1997, p. 307.

Copies of the 2nd/3rd century B.C. apocryphal books 1Enoch and Jubilees (both available online) were also found at Qumran, indicating their authoritative status there:

And command thou the children of Israel that they observe the years according to this reckoning-three hundred and sixty-four days, and (these) will constitute a complete year
--Jubilees vi.32

is equal to the day and the year is exactly as to its days three hundred and sixty-four. And the length of the day and of the night, and the shortness of the day and of the night arise-through the course
--1Enoch lxxii.33


Anyway, there's much more to it than this (e.g., the significance of Noah's age, 600, for Babylonian cyclic calculations).

But my girlfriend is waiting (heh heh), and I'll be back for any responses.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mechanicdb]

Wait a minute now, Wavy, you are mixing writings of Gnostics, Hebrews from around 1500 b.c., and the writers of the dead sea scrolls among other writings written around the same time as the gospels of the NT. That's possibly a thousand year time span; how likely is it that they all had the same calendar? ..especially seeing as how we are -even to this day- amending the calendar as it is...I believe they added 1 second to the year this year. :gah

 

[stovebolts]

Well, let's test that assumption.

Wavy, that’s what I like about you, you’re always prepared.

Since I am not very adept in ancient calendars, let me run this by you.

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, Abram is a direct descendant of Noah. According to their accounts, Abram, along with a few of his immediate ancestors were born and raised in Babylon. This infers to me that Abram was part of the Babylonian culture and as such, would have used the Babylonian calendar. Thus, when the Israelites came up with their own calendar system, I can see how they might have had to translate it to their calendar.

Scripture also states that Israel does not come on the scene as a nation until around 500 years after Abram. Slightly over 400 of those years are in Egypt, which by the way, the Egyptian calendar was based on 360 days (adjusting to 365) and takes 1,460 years to complete its astronomical cycle. (That’s an amazing study in itself as certain structures were erected to demarcate each year along with amazing tributes occurring at the 720 year mark ).

My question to you is this. At what point does Israel decide to use a 364 day calendar? Is this something that Abraham decides, or is it something that Israel decides? If it’s Israel, is it while they are in Egyptian captivity, or later in their history, say post Moses, who btw was educated in Egyptian schools, and is credited for recording the flood account?

 

[wavy]

Wait a minute now, Wavy, you are mixing writings of Gnostics, Hebrews from around 1500 b.c., and the writers of the dead sea scrolls among other writings written around the same time as the gospels of the NT.

What? I have not quoted a single Gnostic document.

Anyway, the portion of Genesis in question was not written in 1500b.c., but somewhere in the 1st millenium (dates range from the 8th-5th centuries b.c.); that, however, is a separate topic.

That's possibly a thousand year time span; how likely is it that they all had the same calendar? ..especially seeing as how we are -even to this day- amending the calendar as it is...I believe they added 1 second to the year this year.

The calendars align too perfectly for this to be mere coincidence, and it is established by various lines of evidence, which I have no time to discuss here.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[wavy]

Well, let's test that assumption.

Wavy, that’s what I like about you, you’re always prepared.

Since I am not very adept in ancient calendars, let me run this by you.

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, Abram is a direct descendant of Noah. According to their accounts, Abram, along with a few of his immediate ancestors were born and raised in Babylon. This infers to me that Abram was part of the Babylonian culture and as such, would have used the Babylonian calendar. Thus, when the Israelites came up with their own calendar system, I can see how they might have had to translate it to their calendar.

Scripture also states that Israel does not come on the scene as a nation until around 500 years after Abram. Slightly over 400 of those years are in Egypt, which by the way, the Egyptian calendar was based on 360 days (adjusting to 365) and takes 1,460 years to complete its astronomical cycle. (That’s an amazing study in itself as certain structures were erected to demarcate each year along with amazing tributes occurring at the 720 year mark ).

My question to you is this. At what point does Israel decide to use a 364 day calendar? Is this something that Abraham decides, or is it something that Israel decides? If it’s Israel, is it while they are in Egyptian captivity, or later in their history, say post Moses, who btw was educated in Egyptian schools, and is credited for recording the flood account?

I will return to this post and address it in some depth some time in the near future.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mechanicdb]

What? I have not quoted a single Gnostic document.

EDIT: yes, I was mistaken....I was thinking it was the apocryphal books that were gnostic, instead it is the scrolls found near nag hammadi.

sorry, it seems i've had an overload of information lately, and i'm getting some of it mixed up.

 

[stovebolts]

I will return to this post and address it in some depth some time in the near future.


Thanks,
Eric

Well, if there's one thing I know about you wavy, is you certainly have a way of presenting data

Take your time in replying wavy. Last night was our 11th anniversary and we'll be leaving to Grand Rapids for the extended weekend sometime later today. Tuesday is going to be total chaos, so there is the possibility I won't be able to reply until next Wed. With that being said, I do enjoy the ancient near eastern studies.

Since I"ve got my resources next to me, let me draw out a time line that we can work with. (I"m a visual type of person). I have not Included Egypt into the picture for sake of space.

Mesopotamian History laced with Israelite History
2900 - 2400 Sumerian Period -- city states: Kish, Uruk, Ur, Lagash
Gilgamesh, cuneiform, ziggurat
2400 - 2100 Akkadian Period -- Sargon I (c. 2371 - 2316), Naram-Sin (c. 2291 - 2255); Ebla rivals Akkad
2200 - 2113 UR III Period -- Sumerian Revival, Ur-Nammu (Law code), Shulgi
2006 - 1792 Amorite Period -- Struggle between Assyrians and new dynasties founded by Amorite leaders (Amurru) based at Larsa, Mari, and Babylon.
1750 - 1570 Movement of Jacob / Israel family into Goshen.
1595 - 1168 Kassites ruled southern Mesopotamia for 400 little known years; aided by the overthrow of Hammurabi's dynasty during the brief invasion of the Hitites.
Hittites -- centered in Asia Minor, they had two periods of prominence: the Old Hittite Kingdom (c. 1600-1500) and the new Hittite Kingdom (1375-1200). Suppiluliumas, Hattusilis.
Hurrians -- kingdom of Mitanni dominated western Syria from c. 1500 - 1370; Nuzi: their defeat by the Hittites created a political vacuum filled by the Hittites and Assyrians (Tigris river area)
Ugarit -- seacost city in northern Syria, a trading center and nominl go-between for the Hittite and Egyptians between 1600 - 1200. Its alphabetic cuneiform literary texts closely paralled Old Testament poetic style; Aqhat, Ba'al and Anath. This period of history was brought to an abrupt end with the invasion of the Sea Peoples (including the Philistines) who c. 1200 conuered the Hittites, destroyed Ugarit, and nearly conquered Egyt.
1290 - 1226 Exodus from Egypt -- (Perhaps the reign of Rameses II)
1250 1150 Settlement Period -- Joshua, Mernepteah Stele, incursions of the Sea Peoples, Philistines.
1200 1220 Judges Period -- Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson
Monarchy Period
1020 - 1000 Early Monarchy -- Samuel and Saul
1000 - 922 United Kingdom -- David and Solomon
922 - 721 Israel Divided Monarchy
922 -587 Judah Divided Monarchy
883 - 612 Neo-Assyrian Period -- conquer Mesopotamia and Syro-Palestine in savage campaigns; Tiglath-Pileser III, Shalmaneser III, Sargon II, Senncherib, Ashurbanipal.
612 - 539 Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) Period -- Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Belshzzar
597 - 538 Babylonian Exile -- Ezekiel, Isaiah of Exile
539 331 Persian Period -- Cyrus, Darius, Zerxes, Artaxerxes
538 - 336 Persian Period
515 Temple Rebuilt
445 Jerusalem's walls rebuilt.
400 Renewal of covenant (Ezra)
331 Alexander the Great -- conquers Persians and Hellenistic Period begins; Ptolemies, Seleucids: Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

 

[mechanicdb]

How then, does it account for the story of creationism? Because apparently there was a 'fall of man' and creation story in the Epic also.

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=34818

Love to chat about it ;)

I finally read through your link.

Interesting, hard to read though. What time frame did those tablets come from?

I don't know if i'll ever get through reading all of these on this site, but I just found this site that has a TON of information: http://www.piney.com/BabIndex.html


I'm still quite confused and concerned though. I wouldn't know what to say if somebody were to ask me how to explain why the first books of the present day Bible are are not just copied from and improved on versions of older ancient texts, tablets, parchment, etc? It was always my understanding that egyptian myths were self-proclaimed myths. I had heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh and other stories when I was younger, but never really studied any of them because I was told they were made-up stories and that God's Word is the truth.

...i'm just struggling with this a bit. I know the bottom line is Jesus lives and his life and works are a testament of that; I realize that the New testament has inferences to the old and vice versa; but it just diminishes the authority of the Bible to think that the beginning stories were just copied from older versions that have nothing to do with christianity. I realize it's not just a simple answer and it's more complex than that, but like I said, i'm just struggling with it a bit. :gah

 

[stovebolts]

Ohh no, you found Piney :D God bless his soul. His site has a wealth of information, but err... well... Gotta love your brothers in Christ [sift and sort, sift and sort] :yes

Anyway, Yes, the epic of Gilgamesh predates our biblical stories and if you study the ANE texts, you will see a lot of similar events and stories, and if your into those types of questions, you start to get behind the text, what was driving the text. In other words, what was the agenda of the texts?

We often look at the creation story as the only story that existed, and we read into the text things that the text does not say, for it was never intended to counter argument x or y.

In the example of Gilgamesh, some say that he was once a real King, and there is merit to this, but if you follow the storyline, Gilgamesh is looking for eternal life, that's his goal (and he was never granted it due to his sins). It's an epic story of good vs. evil even in their account of the flood, as gods plot to destroy humanity, and it gets really interesting when you read in other accounts where Murduk kills his mother Tiamate (who is represented as a serpent hint hint), throws her body down to create the earth, and out of Murduk's creativeness, creates man from the sinful nature which embodies his mother Tiamate. (I hope I got that all straight, I'm a bit rusty).

These were the stories that proliferated the Ancient Near East, and it is these types of stories that our Biblical texts address. In the A.N.E. text, man was created (from sin) to serve the gods in toil and labor, in the Hebraic texts, we have a God who created humanity in His image, and He created all of creation, and when he was finished he said, "It is VERY GOOD". In the ANE narratives, humanity progresses forward, while in the Hebraic texts, Humanity is on the fast track downward.

Now then, to answer your question, "I wouldn't know what to say if somebody were to ask me how to explain why the first books of the present day Bible are are not just copied from and improved on versions of older ancient texts,"

I have tried to explain that in my earlier post to Eric. Of course the Akkadian and Sumerian texts are much, much older than the Hebraic accounts (Akkadian is a rework of the Sumerian and occupy the same geographical area. Think of it like the Democrats are now in power whereas the Republicans once held that authority), but as I have stated earlier, The Bible itself claims that Abraham came out of Ur, and Ur was in the heart of Chaldea, which was the heart of the Sumerians. Abraham stakes claim that He is a direct decedent of Noah (and some say Abraham possibly met Noah), whereas Gilgamesh is getting the flood story secondhand from a "Seer". (Elijah is considered a "Seer" within the biblical texts)

This isn't really a new delemia, as we can see something similar through Isaac and Ishmael. In other words, Present day Judaism, Christianity and Muslims. Each trace their patriarchs back to Abraham, yet each holds vastly different accounts.

Does any of this help answer your question?

 

[mechanicdb]

In other words, Present day Judaism, Christianity and Muslims. Each trace their patriarchs back to Abraham, yet each holds vastly different accounts.

I realized that not long ago when I started searching for answers and searching for questions when my fellow sprotbike riders were trying to undermine religion. That is interesting, and sad in a way, but I guess the Bible tells of that happening also.

I want to thank you for responding. so thanks.

I would like to know what source you have as Elijah being the author of the Epic? I've been looking but haven't found a presumed author for the original version.

It's starting to come together, slowly.

I just want to know the answers to their questions before they ask; and we all know they are out there ready to tear into this very subject. For instance I found this just now: zenofzero.net/docs/Ix06Gilgamesh.pdf

I also another site to defend the biblical account though: http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/gilga ... gamesh.htm
...but I've had another question about the Ark according to the Bible;
It says in Gen. 6:15 that the height of the ark was 30 cubits. It goes on to say in Gen. 7:20 that the waters previled up 15 cubits.
---Now, is that 15 cubits after it covered the high hills in verse 7:19? because it doesn't make sense to me that the waters rose only half as tall as the ark. The ark wouldn't even get off the ground in that case hardly.



again, thanks for the response again.

btw, what do you mean about the 'ohh you found piney' statement? :gah

 

[wavy]

Well, let's test that assumption.

Wavy, that’s what I like about you, you’re always prepared.

Since I am not very adept in ancient calendars, let me run this by you.

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, Abram is a direct descendant of Noah. According to their accounts, Abram, along with a few of his immediate ancestors were born and raised in Babylon. This infers to me that Abram was part of the Babylonian culture and as such, would have used the Babylonian calendar. Thus, when the Israelites came up with their own calendar system, I can see how they might have had to translate it to their calendar.

Scripture also states that Israel does not come on the scene as a nation until around 500 years after Abram. Slightly over 400 of those years are in Egypt, which by the way, the Egyptian calendar was based on 360 days (adjusting to 365) and takes 1,460 years to complete its astronomical cycle. (That’s an amazing study in itself as certain structures were erected to demarcate each year along with amazing tributes occurring at the 720 year mark ).

My question to you is this. At what point does Israel decide to use a 364 day calendar? Is this something that Abraham decides, or is it something that Israel decides? If it’s Israel, is it while they are in Egyptian captivity, or later in their history, say post Moses, who btw was educated in Egyptian schools, and is credited for recording the flood account?

We're not entirely certain on the origin-history of the Hebrew calendar. 'Abraham' decides? Huh? 'Israel decides'? What?

Also, where is your evidence that the Egyptians used a 360-day calendar and that this has any relevance to Moses, who you say allegedly recorded the Flood account? (a fact almost certainly refuted by modern scholarship)?

In any case, even assuming all this, my point still stands. Even if there was some kind of historical flood in ancient Sumer or Mesopotamia giving rise to elaborate myths across cultures, the Flood story in the bible has no independent access to it, whether from Moses or not. It's an adaptation of known stories and is therefore of no historical value and cannot claim to be the pristine version.

Also, even though God ordained a lunisolar calendar at the beginning (Genesis i.14), he just so happened to make the duration of the Flood correspond to the Babylonian calendar system, and confound it with the Hebrew calendar system, as I demonstrated?

Thanks,
Eric

 

[stovebolts]

I would like to know what source you have as Elijah being the author of the Epic? I've been looking but haven't found a presumed author for the original version.

LOL, sorry for the confusion. I was only defining what a 'seer' was. Elijah was only used as a reference to what a seer was.
In this verse, the Prophet Samuel is being addressed as a seer.
1 Samuel 9:9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

As far as your questions about cubics, I'll post both verses from the Net Bible and see if it makes sense.

6:14 Make for yourself an ark of cypress wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it with pitch inside and out. 6:15 This is how you should make it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.
7:20 The waters rose more than twenty feet above the mountains.

So lets see if I've got your question right.
The Ark was 45 feet high, yet the waters rose more than 20 feet above the mountains.

How then did the ark clear the mountains? Is that your question? If so, I think that there's a question to ask first. If a boat is 45 feet high, how much of the boat is under water taking into account the weight of the boat with it's cargo?
I'm not an engineer, but I'm sure somebody did the math somewhere. I'm going to get lazy on this one, but I'm thinking that less than half the boat was under water ;) Let me know if you hear otherwise would ya?
8:4 On the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the ark came to rest on one of the mountains of Ararat.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi wavy

We're not entirely certain on the origin-history of the Hebrew calendar. 'Abraham' decides? Huh? 'Israel decides'? What?

Since you brought up the Hebrew calendar, I assumed that you knew when it was formed. I'm running under the assumption that the Calendar was formed after the Exodus event. Regardless, I doubt that the Hebraic calendar was around when Abram (Abraham) came out of Chaldea.

Let me see if you can follow what I'm trying to say here by giving a concrete example where modern thought is injected into ancient writings.

Take for example 7:2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal.
At this point in the story, what defines clean without moving forward in time to the book of Leviticus? Clearly the writer of Genesis is using modern terms while describing the ancient story.

Now then, here is my question. If the Hebrew Calendar did not exist when Abram came out of UR, why does the writer of Genesis use the Hebrew Calendar to define an event pre-Israel?

The answer for me is simple, and it's close to the same answer for why the writer uses Levitical language in the flood account. The ancient story is being told using modern language for it's day in the same way they used cubits, and we use feet.

Also, where is your evidence that the Egyptians used a 360-day calendar and that this has any relevance to Moses, who you say allegedly recorded the Flood account? (a fact almost certainly refuted by modern scholarship)?

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/ ... endar.html

Exodus 2:9-10 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it. And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

Moses was raised within the heart of the Egyptian culture. I am very sure that he was educated by the finest Egyptian teachers and not only understood their deities, but their calendar system as well.

As far as Moses being the one who recorded the Genesis account, it is clear that Genesis is part of the "Book of Moses".

In any case, even assuming all this, my point still stands. Even if there was some kind of historical flood in ancient Sumer or Mesopotamia giving rise to elaborate myths across cultures, the Flood story in the bible has no independent access to it,

I'm lost here. I'm not saying that the flood story has independent access. why is that so important? When you cross the stories of Gilgamesh with the account of Noah, you can see the tension between the two stories. In the account given to Gilgamesh, it's a story about the corruption of the gods destroying people, and one god betrays the other gods and saves a few people. This is not the story of Noah and YHVH as I contend that the flood story in Genesis is a direct rebuttal of the Sumerian epic.

Also, even though God ordained a lunisolar calendar at the beginning (Genesis i.14), he just so happened to make the duration of the Flood correspond to the Babylonian calendar system, and confound it with the Hebrew calendar system, as I demonstrated?

I think I touched on that above. Let me know if that helps to bring my view to light.

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[mechanicdb]

How then did the ark clear the mountains? Is that your question?

No, actually, the KJV (which is what I read) is a bit confusing on how high the waters rose. It just seems a little unlcear that the waters rose until it covered the 'high hills' and THEN an additional 15 cubits.

 

[wavy]

Since you brought up the Hebrew calendar, I assumed that you knew when it was formed.

No one knows.

I'm running under the assumption that the Calendar was formed after the Exodus event. Regardless, I doubt that the Hebraic calendar was around when Abram (Abraham) came out of Chaldea.

An assumption based on what evidence?

Let me see if you can follow what I'm trying to say here by giving a concrete example where modern thought is injected into ancient writings.

Take for example 7:2 You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal.
At this point in the story, what defines clean without moving forward in time to the book of Leviticus? Clearly the writer of Genesis is using modern terms while describing the ancient story.

Now then, here is my question. If the Hebrew Calendar did not exist when Abram came out of UR, why does the writer of Genesis use the Hebrew Calendar to define an event pre-Israel?

He didn't use a Hebrew calendar...haven't you been listening? The calendar in the narrative reflects the Babylonian calendar. The Hebrew calendar is, perhaps subconsciously, fused into the narrative.

The answer for me is simple, and it's close to the same answer for why the writer uses Levitical language in the flood account. The ancient story is being told using modern language for it's day in the same way they used cubits, and we use feet.

Above.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/calendar.html

Provide something more concrete please. As in when this calendar was in use.

Exodus 2:9-10 And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give you your wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it. And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

Don't need your scripture lessons, thanks.

Moses was raised within the heart of the Egyptian culture. I am very sure that he was educated by the finest Egyptian teachers and not only understood their deities, but their calendar system as well.

Moses didn't write the Pentateuch. In any case, what 'Moses' may have learned in Egypt is irrelevant. We're not dealing with an Egyptian story here.

I'm lost here. I'm not saying that the flood story has independent access. why is that so important?

Because the point, which you seem to be contending, is that the biblical flood story is adapted from a now non-extant Babylonian source. It's not original by any stretch and is as much an elaborate myth as that of any other culture.

I think I touched on that above. Let me know if that helps to bring my view to light

So what are you saying? What is your point?

Thanks,
Eric