Literal belief in the flood story

[Confused Ape]

We have presupposed the Biblical God for this thread.

Let's presuppose other deities just for a change. Why were humans created and why was there a flood?

Atra-Hasis

Atra-Hasis ("exceedingly wise") is the protagonist of an 18th-century BC Akkadian epic recorded in various versions on clay tablets. The Atra-Hasis tablets include both a creation myth and a flood account, which is one of three surviving Babylonian deluge stories.

Babylonia

Babylonia was an ancient Akkadian-speaking Semitic nation state and cultural region based in central-southern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq). It emerged as an independent state c. 1894 BC, with the city of Babylon as its capital. It was often involved in rivalry with its fellow Akkadian state of Assyria in northern Mesopotamia. Babylonia became the major power in the region after Hammurabi (fl. c. 1792 - 1752 BC middle chronology, or c. 1696 – 1654 BC, short chronology) created an empire out of many of the territories of the former Akkadian Empire.

Synopsis

The creation of humans from clay to do agricultural work.

Tablet I contains a creation myth about the Sumerian gods Anu, Enlil, and Enki, gods of sky, wind, and water, “when gods were in the ways of men” according to its incipit. Following the Cleromancy (casting of lots), sky is ruled by Anu, earth by Enlil, and the freshwater sea by Enki. Enlil assigned junior divines[6] to do farm labor and maintain the rivers and canals, but after forty years the lesser gods or dingirs rebelled and refused to do strenuous labor. Instead of punishing the rebels, Enki, who is also the kind, wise counselor of the gods, suggested that humans be created to do the work. The mother goddess Mami is assigned the task of creating humans by shaping clay figurines mixed with the flesh and blood of the slain god Geshtu-E, “a god who had intelligence” (his name means “ear” or “wisdom”).[7] All the gods in turn spit upon the clay. After ten months, a specially made womb breaks open and humans are born. Tablet I continues with legends about overpopulation and plagues. Atrahasis is mentioned at the end of Tablet I.

Humans became a nuisance.

Tablet II begins with more overpopulation of humans and the god Enlil sending first famine and drought at formulaic intervals of 1200 years to reduce the population. In this epic Enlil is depicted as a nasty capricious god while Enki is depicted as a kind helpful god, perhaps because priests of Enki were writing and copying the story. Tablet II is mostly damaged, but ends with Enlil's decision to destroy humankind with a flood and Enki bound by an oath to keep the plan secret.

The flood story.

Tablet III of the Atrahasis Epic contains the flood story. This is the part that was adapted in the Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet XI. Tablet III of Atrahasis tells how the god Enki warns the hero Atrahasis (“Extremely Wise”) of Shuruppak, speaking through a reed wall (suggestive of an oracle) to dismantle his house (perhaps to provide a construction site) and build a boat to escape the flood planned by the god Enlil to destroy humankind. The boat is to have a roof “like Apsu” (a subterranean, fresh water realm presided over by the god Enki), upper and lower decks, and to be sealed with bitumen. Atrahasis boards the boat with his family and animals and seals the door. The storm and flood begin. Even the gods are afraid. After seven days the flood ends and Atrahasis offers sacrifices to the gods. Enlil is furious with Enki for violating his oath. But Enki denies violating his oath and argues: “I made sure life was preserved.” Enki and Enlil agree on other means for controlling the human population.

Anyway, on to 'folktale' history with an example from Britain to illustrate what I mean.

Vortigern

Vortigern (/ˈvɔrtɨdʒɜrn/;[1] Welsh: Gwrtheyrn; Old English: Wyrtgeorn; Breton: Guorthigern; Irish: Foirtchern), also spelled Vortiger and Vortigen, was a 5th-century warlord in Britain, a leading ruler among the Britons. His existence is considered likely, though information about him is shrouded in legend. He may have been the "superbus tyrannus" said to have invited Hengist and Horsa to aid him in fighting the Picts and the Scots. But they revolted, killing his son in the process and adding Sussex and Essex to their own kingdom. It is said that he took refuge in North Wales, and that his grave is in Dyfed or the Llŷn Peninsula. He is cited at the head of the genealogy of the early Kings of Powys.

There's no evidence that Hengist and Horsa really existed but we do know that Angles and Saxons established kingdoms in what is now England. (The land of the Angles).

So on to another Bible story which might well have started out as 'folktale' history. This is just my own opinion, of course.

Abraham

Abraham (Hebrew: אַבְרָהָם‎ About this sound listen (help·info)), originally Abram, is the first of the three biblical patriarchs of Israel whose story is told in chapters 11 through 25 of the Book of Genesis.

Abram was called by God to leave his father Terah's house and native land of Mesopotamia in return for a new land, family, and inheritance in Canaan, the promised land.

Groups of humans were always moving around in pre-history. So, groups of people might well have migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan. We have no idea what the original 'folktale' history explaining this migration was but we do know how the story ended up. The settlers would have taken their Mesopotamian myths with them. When the Israelites adopted a monotheistic deity, the myths were adapted to suit the new religion.

1: In the original myth humans were created out of clay to do agricultural work. It was a group project because all the deities were involved. The story ended up as God creating Adam from the dust of the earth. When Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden, Adam's punishment was agriculture being very hard work.

2: In the original myth the capricious god, Enlil, decided to get rid of humans once and for all by sending a flood. The kind and helpful god, Enki, tells Atra-Hasis to build a boat so he, his family and his animals will be saved. Combining Enlil and Enki into one deity resulted in God being a deity who couldn't make up his mind about what he wanted to do where humans were concerned.

The name, Adam, has an interesting history, too.

Adam - Etymology

Adam (Hebrew: אָדָם, Arabic: آدم) as a proper name, predates its generic use in Semitic languages. Its earliest known use as a genuine name in Historicity is Adamu, as recorded in the Assyrian King List.[2] use as a common word in the Hebrew language is ׳āḏām, meaning "human". Coupled with the definite article, it becomes "the human".[3]

Its root is not attributed to the Semitic root for "man" -(n)-sh. Rather, ׳āḏām is linked to its triliteral root אָדָם (A-D-M ), meaning "red", "fair", "handsome".[4] As a masculine noun, 'adam [5] means "man", "mankind" usually in a collective context as in humankind.[4][6] The noun 'adam is also the masculine form of the word adamah which means "ground" or "earth". It is related to the words: adom (red), admoni (ruddy), and dam (blood).[7]

[Tonus]

Gotcha. It would be Biblically consistent to view the account as cause and effect. The wickedness was the cause and the judgement was the effect. We learn later that the problem wasn't solved, so why assume God meant it as a solution?

I think it's that sort of inconsistency that points to a human-made document, and the need for believers to carefully interpret it to appear differently.

Not intending to split hairs. While I do agree that it is logical to infer that God's actions were meant as a solution that doesn't necessitate it was. More investigation is required. Consider:
God is omniscient.

Omniscience is a tricky one, though. The Bible doesn't claim that god is omniscient, and at times it shows that he changes his mind (as he did when he decided to spare Noah). If man is made in god's image, and man is a creature given to experimentation and occasional failure on the way to reaching goals, it doesn't seem so odd to assume that god would be the same.

If God is omniscient then wouldn't He have always known?

Yes, or if he can really see into the hearts of men and determine what sort of person they are. But if that was the case, he could have headed off the problem long before it would have necessitated destroying almost all life on the planet. Otherwise we are left to wonder why he let things get to that point before taking action.

[Mystical]

Not to mention those babies in their mothers wombs couldn't possibly be evil <yet>. Which begs the question, why would God just override the whole free choice thing?

[Minimalist]

Uh-oh.....the fundies will shit their pants. Neil DeGrasse Tyson just let the cat out of the bag that Gilgamesh predates their Noah shit by a thousand years on Cosmos.

Buy ear plugs. The whining will be ceaseless.

[Confused Ape]

Uh-oh.....the fundies will shit their pants. Neil DeGrasse Tyson just let the cat out of the bag that Gilgamesh predates their Noah shit by a thousand years on Cosmos.

Buy ear plugs. The whining will be ceaseless.

Probably not. None of the Christians have commented on the post I made in this topic about the Atra-Hasis creation of humans and flood myth. It's even older than the Gilgamesh epic.

[MJ the Skeptical]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I225Vcs3X0g

[RobbyPants]

Not baseless. It is consistent with the account in question. Again, refer to burden of proof discussion and to previous discussion on evidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it is consistent with the account in question." The only time the Bible has ever explicitly said there were no children was during the creation story, as there were no people until Adam was created. Then they go on to... have kids. And they talk about the city that Cain started (a city populated with people, who presumably copulate). Then the world populates and becomes wicked.

I see nothing establishing "no children" as the consistent normal.

---

My mistake. I think I understand you now. Let me rephrase so as to not appear to me making an argument from ignorance. People are accountable for their own actions. God is justified in holding people accountable for their actions. Therefore God is justified in punishing people for their actions. This is in opposition to the argument that God is wrong to judge/punish people.
...
Sorry for the confusion, the point is that we recognize that people are responsible for their own actions.

---

Sure. We can be responsible, but that is a separate issue from a disproportionate response. If we continue the analogy that my daughters misbehave so I drown them, then we start to get more to my point. If I instead drown a parent and their children for the mistakes that the parent alone made, then you see the other half. My complaint wasn't "person X misbehaves and gets punished: no fair!", it's "person X misbehaves and person X and person Y gets punished: no fair!".

---

Within the framework of the argument, I would have to take the claim seriously. You have accepted magic as a possibility, I'm pretty sure that unicorns are magical. Seriously though, the claim is highly unlikely so no I wouldn't have to take the claim seriously with respect to it's likelihood but I would have to accept it as a realistic possibility within the framework of the argument. I would then have to accept that in light of that possibility I can no longer make my initial claim that there is no third magical option, there is one: magical unicorns.

---

No, you wouldn't. You're messing up set theory. You have shapes. Circles are shapes. Triangles are shapes. Circles are not triangles and triangles are not circles. Now, if I'm talking about triangles, you don't get to bring up circles and say "they're both shapes!". Just because they're both shapes doesn't mean that a circle has three sides and three points.

Likewise, when I'm talking about the story of the flood wherein God performs magic, you can't say "unicorns are also magical, therefore valid in the story.". There's no reason to assume unicorns, so just because they share some superficial traits doesn't mean they deserve consideration.

---

God lied to Abraham, and without a valid reason. Allegedly it was to test Abraham's faith; but being omniscient, God would have already known the extent of Abraham's faith.

So it seems God lied to Abraham because he wanted to deceive.

This is actually consistent with Christian apologetics, despite them not openly admitting it. God is pretty explicit when he tells us not to kill, yet he does it all the time. When pressed about it, Christians will say things like "God has no moral imperative not to kill us", or "those rules are for us, not God", or "Who are you to question the will of an infinite God?".

Similarly, God tells us not to lie. Now, the apologetics are pretty clear on this: God has no moral imperative not to lie to us, that rule is for us, not him, and hey, who are we to question him?

[orangebox21]

Humanicide.

No, he killed all the animals too.

Sorry for the confusion let me clarify. Humanicide was more of a question than a statement in response to:

I consider near omnicide far more wicked than anything we humans could have been doing.

If humans were eliminating humans (humanicide) for no other reason than their own pleasure, this would certainly qualify as worse than omnicide as you have defined it. On one hand you have punishing people for their wickedness, on the other hand you have people killing people for fun.

If you have an omniscient, omnipotent god, then there's never any reason for him to do anything other than the optimal solution to a problem.

How do you know that His actions in this case were not the optimal solution to the problem?

The "murder everybody" solution is just your god trying to dig himself out of a hole, in yet another act of his comedy of errors, but never forget that at any time he had the option to resolve his problems without killing anyone.

Again with the murder equivocation. What options do you have in mind?

Additionally, I'm not even in favor of the death penalty; do I really need to tell you that I believe life has inherent worth and should not be snuffed out, least of all if it doesn't even solve any of the problems it was done to solve?

While I'm not adamant one way or another I tend to also not be in favor of the death penalty. Perhaps for different reasons. Men are fallible and the death penalty is final. By nature fallible men cannot serve perfect justice. I think where you are running into trouble is that your viewing God like you view people. His ways are not our ways, nor his thoughts our thoughts.

If God exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful there would be no logical reason to believe that any of His actions were anything other than optimal. They would be perfectly 'thought out' and perfectly 'carried out.'

If he didn't need to murder them, and so far your argument seems to be that he didn't, then he wasn't justified in doing so. If there was any other option, and there was, then god selected one of the most cruel, and just went with it.

Again with the 'murder'. If killing someone is a just punishment then it is by definition not murder. In using this term you are using an argument by emotive language.

And that's even with me just accepting out of hand that the bible's claim that everyone was wicked is true, which I don't actually accept; it seems like an ad hoc rationalization to me, even within the context of the biblical narrative.

If you accept the claim that everyone was wicked as you have done above, calling it an ad hoc (a made up statement to justify a claim) is a self-refuting claim. While a statement can be either true or false, it cannot be both at the same time (which is what your statement does).

Certainly, but then we're also presupposing that the only account we have of this god comes from human authors in the thrall of that god:

We'd have to if we presuppose the Biblical God (see more discussion in the 'hidden' response below).

I can assume for the sake of argument that this god exists, but I'm still well aware that in that case the bible is little more than propaganda authored by proxies of the being in question.

Then you have not presupposed the Biblical God but simply God in general terms. The topic here is not one of deist but rather Biblical deism. See more discussion in the 'hidden' response below.

It's still just a set of claims that can be true or false as any other, regardless of whether or not it's discussing a real being.

---

To be theological we cannot presuppose the Biblical God and view the Bible as a set of claims that can be true or false. Consider:

Premise 1. 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.(2 Peter 1:20-21)
Premise 2. 19"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19)
Premise 3. 18so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, (Hebrews 6:18)
Conclusion: The words of the Bible are true.

Explanation: 2 Peter is saying while men penned the scriptures, the scriptures were not men's words, nor did they come about by the will of man, but they were under the sovereign control of God. This is what theologians call 'God breathed.' It should also be noted that when it says 'no prophecy' this means that 'all' scripture is written by God. Premises 2 and 3 state that God does not lie. So if all the words of the Bible are Gods, and God does not lie then all the words of the Bible are true.

At this point I must interject the circular reasoning argument upon myself to clarify. I agree that if I was using the above argument to prove the truth of the words of the Bible it would bear having to defend against the circular reasoning fallacy. However, if we presuppose the Biblical God (as we have for this conversation), I am under no obligation to prove the Biblical God exists but rather to show the logical consistency that if we presuppose the Biblical God we must also presuppose the Bible is true. The two cannot be divorced.

If the Biblical God is true then the Bible is true (as shown above), if some or all of the Bible is false then we would be making an argument with the premises that God does lie, and God does not lie. We would be introducing premises that would directly contradict one another.. We would be simultaneously assuming 'the Biblical God' and not 'the Biblical God'. Both of these practices violates the law of non-contradiction.

I would agree with your above statement if we hadn't presupposed the Biblical God.

---

So presupposing the biblical god does not mean we're presupposing an inherently just one: his actions will determine his just-ness,

Addressed above.

and it's my contention that they don't uphold that claim.

Where do you get your contentions from?

I think it's that sort of inconsistency that points to a human-made document, and the need for believers to carefully interpret it to appear differently.

That's a good point.

Omniscience is a tricky one, though. The Bible doesn't claim that god is omniscient,

---

Job 37:16

Do you know the balancings of the clouds,
the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.

1 John 3:19-20

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.

Isaiah 55:9

For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Job 28:24

For he looks to the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.

Hebrews 4:13

And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Isaiah 46:9

I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done.

Psalm 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

---

and at times it shows that he changes his mind (as he did when he decided to spare Noah).

A difficult understanding. I will defer to someone who knows more than I do: Does God change His mind?

If man is made in god's image, and man is a creature given to experimentation and occasional failure on the way to reaching goals, it doesn't seem so odd to assume that god would be the same.

That is a very logical approach to the subject. There are a few things to consider in your assertion. First, while man was created in God's image, that doesn't mean that man is God. Man being made in God's image does not necessitate that what man does God does or vice versa. We often can only understand God by viewing Him through human understanding which reduces Him to our level so to speak. Secondly, while man was created in God's image, man has fallen from that image and has been cursed. It is quite possible that in our created state we wouldn't make mistakes on our way to understanding.

Yes, or if he can really see into the hearts of men and determine what sort of person they are. But if that was the case, he could have headed off the problem long before it would have necessitated destroying almost all life on the planet. Otherwise we are left to wonder why he let things get to that point before taking action.

Why do you think He waited?

Not to mention those babies in their mothers wombs couldn't possibly be evil <yet>.

Still waiting for proof of that assertion.


Robby Pants

---

The code is acting up so I'll respond in a way that hopefully you'll understand what quote I'm responding to.

What I mean by 'consistent with the account in question' is that the account does not contradict the conclusion. Therefore, it is a possibility that is consistent with the account in question.

Actually the Bible does speak of another time in human history in which there were no children: the survivors of the flood, eight adults, no children.

7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. (Genesis 7:7)

and elsewhere:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1 Peter 3:20.

Note: 8 souls= four men and their four wives. Explicitly no children.


I agree that 'no children' is not the established consistent normal. The flood is also not the established consistent normal.

With respect to your X and Y punishment analogy. I think I understand your argument more clearly in that you find it unfair that a child gets punished for their parents mistakes. This again presumes that 1. there were children at the time of the flood, and 2. they were innocent (and were punished solely for the sins of their parents). These two premises have not been proven to be true.

To respond to the unicorn talk, truly, that was mostly an attempt at humor than a serious claim. As a suggestion, when you add to your argument in post #32 saying that:

Well, I mentioned all the things that God would have had to do to get from a flooded planet to where we are today. Given that we don't see any evidence anymore, that's proof that he magiced all the evidence away!

you open yourself to every conceivable and even non conceivable possibilities because you believe God 'magicked all the evidence away'.

---

[Rampant.A.I.]

No, he killed all the animals too.

Sorry for the confusion let me clarify. Humanicide was more of a question than a statement in response to:

I consider near omnicide far more wicked than anything we humans could have been doing.

If humans were eliminating humans (humanicide) for no other reason than their own pleasure, this would certainly qualify as worse than omnicide as you have defined it. On one hand you have punishing people for their wickedness, on the other hand you have people killing people for fun.

What the fuck? God, who repeatedly instructed humans to kill other humans "for fun" suddenly decided killing EVERY ANIMAL, PLANT, and HUMAN BEING, INCLUDING BABIES, CHILDREN AND PREGNANT WOMAN ON EARTH was morally superior to just wiping out the "evil people"?

[Mystical]

Not to mention those babies in their mothers wombs couldn't possibly be evil <yet>.

Still waiting for proof of that assertion.

Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God's revelation--whether general or specific--not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8).
2 Samuel 12:23, Romans 1:18–20 ,

Furthermore, belief is a necessary requirement for salvation John 3:18–19


Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God? No? Then that renders them with excuse.

Or are you one of those mental abusers that would make a mother think her baby died and went to hell?