Did the flood really occur?

[Anomalocaris]

I'm not sure what it is about Jews that they love to portray themselves as slaves but it does seem to be a hangup with them. Perhaps Summer can chime in with some explanation for this constant kvetching they do?

Delusional claims of splendorous divine favor not making an impression on those others who are, as a matter of great practical incovenience, better endowed with power, wealth, and influence?

For those who can imagine themselves to be the capriciously chosen of a divine tyrant , It's easy to regard indifference and contempt by others as unbearable de facto subjugation, I suppose.

The streak carries all the way down through the Jesus cult.

[Minimalist]

I am familiar with Israel Finkelstein's argument about monotheism emerging during the reign of King Josiah.

I think Finkelstein is one of the great voices of modern archaeology and his The Bible Unearthed is a well-researched and evidenced book....right up until the end. By his own admission there is no archaeological attestation for anyone named "Josiah." Yet, at the end he deviates from his own procedure and starts using the biblical text as authoritative. Josiah is a King Arthurish figure who appears reeking of virtue, doing exactly what the fucking priests want him to do and embracing Yahweh and the bible and who wants to expand the nation into areas vacated by the retreating Assyrians. How very special.

I belong to an email list actually on biblical studies but it includes some of the biggest names in the minimalism school: Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies and Niels Peter Lemche. I was chatting with Lemche one time about this very point and using the "there must have been a king in Jerusalem at the time because every other state had kinds what's wrong with calling him 'Josiah?' line of thought and Lemche made a very clear point. The problem is that if you use bible terminology then you get stuck into the habit of picking up all the other biblical bullshit that goes along with it. Other than what is written in the bible - and it was written much later - we have no indication that Judah was particularly "Jewish" at this point in time as we now understand the word. William Dever makes a great case for a religious struggle between the people in the countryside who worshiped the old Canaanite gods and priests in Jerusalem who were pushing Yahweh as the chief god but this tendency toward henotheism was going on all over the ANE ( Marduk became the chief god in Babylon ) at the time.

So I think Finkelstein goes off the tracks a bit at the end because he does not stay true to his principles. There WAS a king in Jerusalem. The dynasty was undoubtedly an Assyrian vassal and may well have seen an opportunity to assert themselves as the Assyrians were more and more consumed by their war with Babylon. Egypt under Necho allied itself with Assyria and moved northwards to confront the Babylonians. The bible's initial tale is that Necho summons "Josiah" to a meeting and has him killed. Such an unglorious end for such a glorious character! (So inglorious in fact that the later writer of Chronicles invents a battle for Josiah to be killed in. )

Realistically, we have a small weak state caught in a power struggle between larger forces. The power politics of our own days shows that governments are replaced to suit the needs of the larger powers. We know that in such states there are factions which tend to one side or the other and so the idea that kings would be named and replaced at the whim of the major powers is not unusual. Assuming that Necho was not stupid enough to leave an unfriendly king in his rear we can suppose that a ruler friendly to the Egyptian-Assyrian interests was put on the throne and may have still been there in 605 when Babylon crushed the alliance.
That certainly explains the Babylonian interest in crushing Judah a few years later on.

And, Pap, yes. Another book, In Search of Ancient Israel by Philip Davies he does suggest that the "exiles" returning were nothing more than a handful of rulers sent to establish Persian authority over Judah so that Persia could concentrate on more important issues. These "rulers" were given a doctrine that has them being the priests of Yahweh, freed from captivity - with all the kings and their families conveniently dead - restored by the grace of Cyrus to "return" their country to Yahweh who looks suspiciously like the Persian creator god, Ahura Mazda.

Would the peasants care? As far as they were concerned they were trading one group of overseers ( Babylonian ) for another ( Persians masquerading as Jews!) Would they really care which hand held the whip?


As far as Ugarit goes, try this:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...20155.html

Ugarit was a town in Syria which was done in by the Sea People.

I'll drop in at AF and see what's going on but everytime there is a find of ancient writings you can bet your ass that xtian morons will come out of the woodwork insisting that "proof" has been found for their fucking bullshit stories. It rarely works out that way.

They pulled the same crap with the Ebla tablets ( which have nothing to do with "Israel" and everything to do with central Syria and the DSS which xtians were POSITIVE would prove their god boy and there is not a single mention of the fucker.

[salty]

You're the one that claimed that there was evidence for a flood. Should I link you to the posts? What's disappointing isn't that you didn't find any evidence, I knew before you began that you wouldn't. Whats disappointing is that you are unable to admit this, and instead make the statement that evidence for the flood narrative somehow depends on faith. It does not. Forgive me for calling bullshit when you claim to be thinking for yourself while quoting scripture.

So tell me, Salty, what have you learned? Don't even start in on some persecution bullshit. Who told you that you weren't beholden to us for any of this? Who told you to take your time? If you didn't want an earful, you shouldn't have posted that garbage.

I knew I was released when you responded with all that frustration and irritation. I'm touched that you had a sliver of hope for me, but I think that hope was that I would somehow strike "realization". The only thing I've realized is that I can't think for myself around you. I can't come to conclusions because you don't like the result and it's too difficult for your educated mind to find a civil way of displaying that.

Yes, I'm going to talk about your condescending methods, it's not for you to decide what effects me and what doesn't and what I can and can't mention. My will is my own, no one forced me to believe in God, no one forced me to come here, no one forced me to look over the topic of the flood. I felt compelled to answer for what I said because I'm working on becoming a better person, one that sounds the same no matter where I am, whether in "off topic" or in "religion", whether in person or on the internet. I don't hide my foolishness, as you can see it's all over this forum. I don't pretend I'm better than anyone or that anyone needs to heed my words, I just respond as I see fit. I'm here to participate and to learn about myself and some of you as well. I seem to be the only person that's okay with that.

What have I learned? I can't be treated equally here by you because I refuse to give up my "delusional" beliefs, I thought you had morals, but I guess equality isn't one of them.

[The Grand Nudger]

More ranting about persecution? Believe whatever you like. Don't claim evidence when you have none.

[salty]

Obviously there was no global flood, it's physically and logistically impossible. Go with the theory you brought up, the one about a local flood inspiring such writings as we find about the flood in Genesis. It still mightn't be right, but it's so much more plausible. You know, I know it, everybody knows it and so the idea that the bible is the literal word of god disintegrates. A question for you Salty, does that change your faith?

I do think it is more plausible for it to be local, but then I think of the ark and the animals, there would be no need for the ark if it was just a restricted thing...then again, what if God wanted to only flood Africa, then that could be considered local and the animals would still need saving....etc

All in all, I think the account can be seen from different angles, the information that I read over certainly did have me thinking, "Wow, I never really considered if history could show the flood. I wonder what else history can show about the stories in the Bible." So, I definitely felt like I should know more history, thank you all my atheist friends for getting me out of the shopping malls and into the books, but my faith is rooted in the visible changes in my personality, my mindset, my actions and in my responses. I have reason to believe that Christ is real because after accepting him I changed in ways that I was incapable of doing on my own. As you can see, that kind of reasoning isn't effected by what history tells me.

[Minimalist]

there would be no need for the ark if it was just a restricted thing.

Just keep following that line of thought and maybe you'll figure it out.

[frankiej]

"Wow, I never really considered if history could show the flood. I wonder what else history can show about the stories in the Bible."

That 90% of it never happened

[salty]

So, I'm curious about something, Salty.

You're hanging your hat on whether or not there was a "Flood." Do you buy the rest of the story? That a 600 year old guy and his 3 sons built a 450 foot long boat and gathered up 2 ( or 7 pairs ...depending on which version of the story you read ) of every animal and herded them onto the aforementioned ship?

That kangaroos were obtained from Australia? Bison from N. America? Alpaca from S. America? Polar Bears from the Arctic? Etc., etc. and that they all lived together on said boat until it crashed into a mountain and then they all what? Swam home?

How far are you willing to take this nonsense?

And No. Not only is the exodus a load of shit so is the entire idea of mass slavery in Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. That was not how they organized their building projects. They relied on a corvee labor system among their own populace.


However, by the time these stories were written down mass slavery was commonplace among the Greeks demonstrating once again that ancient writings tell us more about the lives of the authors than they do about the people they pretend to be commenting upon.

Minimalist. I'd like you to view what I wrote to bloody hectic.

It's hard to use the complexities of the Biblical stories to proove a point when my faith was formed upon the internal changes that happened to me as well as my external experiences. My faith is confirmed in the ways the Lord has shown himself in my life time and again, and my faith endures, not on facts that disprove events took place in the past, but facts that prove that I am doing God's will. I would tell you some stories, but I can't get serious with you. I wish I could, I'm sure you're interesting.

[ElDinero]

But salty, you are not getting it. Forget local/global. Saying that the reason you believe it needed to be global is because otherwise you wouldn't need the ark is asinine. There is no evidence that there ever was an ark! There's no reason to believe that any of that story took place. The animals, the ark, Noah, God. Forget them. The most plausible explanation is that there was a local flood. It grew in legend with other people adding bits to it in a Chinese whispers style. The story you know today is the result.

[frankiej]

You can't draw anything supernatural from a local flood... It doesn't lead to the conclusion of God causing it.
One more step towards your freedom.