/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Genesis shares features of other stories in the region because they actually happened. They're all telling the story of the same events from different perspectives.

>>676628

The other accounts are supposedly older in date though.

>>676631

Says some homo in an ivory tower

>>676631

Time of transcription =/= time of creation

The Genesis account was written by Moses, many centuries after the Flood happened. Genesis is probably a combination of oral traditions with influence from God by some mean (directly telling Moses, inspiration by the Spirit, etc.).

>>676631

"Supposedly". Be careful about accepting secular scholarship, they carry a whole lot of anti-Christian bias into their research which leads to incorrect conclusions. For example most secular scholars say the Gospel of Mark must have been written after 70 AD because Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple, and they reason that's impossible. If it was an actual prophecy (and there is no reason to believe it wasn't) then Mark could've been written as early as 55-60AD

The idea that Genesis was written during the Babylonian exile is speculation and nothing more. It could've been written hundreds, possibly even a thousand years earlier.

>>676631

>secular scholars and archeologists

There's your problem.

>>676636

>>676638

>anyone who says something contrary to my view is wrong because I say so

What happens if those scholars turned out to be Christians just as you are?

<inb4 no true scotsman

>>676638

>>676636

>>676633

>>676632

To be fair, when the guy in the video looked for criticisms on the Gilgamesh theory, he choose the most ridiculous looking website as a site for it. And didn't really pull anything else up.

>>676643

Huh? They're challenging the bias of your sources and you're saying their Christian? But they're not. We've read them and their opinions. Are you just not informed of whose opinion you're reading?

>>676645

>your sources

<implying "us vs them" mentality

I'd actually go over the papers and such in question, but more often than not I see Christians handwaving other fields, saying that they're "secular" as well.

>>676647

Secular scholarship is of no interest to Christians. What truth can they uncover when they do their "research" with the assumption that the Bible stories are mere myths? They've already ruled out finding the truth before they even begin.

>>676627

Sharing details does not mean they are the same story.

If that's the case all flood stories from across the world come from Sumeria

>>676649

>implying they're that similar aside from a flood

>>676643

>>676644

I'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me is wrong, I'm saying that that they probably aren't unbiased.

And I didn't see the video, I'll watch it later.

>>676627

The thing is, what's the proof that there's a causational connection between the two myths?

There are numerous creation stories over the whole world and all are pretty similar in their core.

>>676627

Knowledge is one.

Different people in different times with different languages talk and write about it.

>>676648

Ordinarily, I would understand the logic as trying to prove the authenticity of the Bible using contradiction: if we assume the Bible is false, then we should find irrefutable evidence that the Bible is actually true. But when it comes to historical forensics, it doesn't really work that way. Assumptions have to be made that influence the math and science behind the historical record. In other words, if we assume the Bible is false at the outset, then we will adopt methods, constants, and constraints that will produce the very result we assumed. Radiometric dating is one such common example of a method influenced by assumptions that should be familiar to many posters here.

>>676664

>radiometric dating

[Hovind intensifies]

>>676627

No, the myths of other religions share a remembrance of truth.

All cultures knew but then truth got corrupted after the confusion of tongues and the tales became corrupted by legends, fairytales and idolatry.

God then revealed himself to Abraham, then to Moses to teach them the truth and established a covenant.

> Story appears only in the Bible

< Hurr durr, wuere are the extrabiblical sources?

> Story also appears outside the Bible

< Hurr durr, this means the Bible story was just stolen

Atheists come up with an impossible standard that makes no logial sense, there is point arguing them.

>>676728

You've reached the next level.

>>676750

Looks about right so far. Godspeed, friend

>>676728

/thread

>>676747

>I'm wondering whether it was local or worldwide

One thing in Genesis that suggests it was local is the reference to Jabal who was "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock." To me this sounds like it's saying Jabal went off somewhere else and started a nomadic civilization that was not affected by the flood and still existed when Genesis was being written. However I could be reading this wrong. It could just be saying that Jabal was the first person to live in a tent while keeping livestock, at least the first to do so in a more advanced manner than what Able, for example, was doing.

One thing that suggests it was global is that civilizations all over the world tell the same story. Even the native Hawaiians have a flood story almost identical to the one found in Genesis. I guess it's possible they had an undocumented encounter with a person from one of the other civilizations that had a story of the flood, but why would that be the one thing they took away from this hypothetical encounter? The story of the flood, while very widespread, isn't something talks about much in any of the cultures that tell it. Even the Bible only talks about it for a few chapters then moves on. It doesn't make any sense that this hypothetical traveler would teach them the story of the flood and not any of the more central tenants of their religion/culture.

>>676760

>Jabal who was "the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock."

Sounds more like an origin for the nomads rather than just being part of an existing people.

<Hawaiians having an almost identical flood story

>Lalohona, a woman from the depths of the sea, was enticed ashore by Konikonia with a series of images. She warned him that her parents, Kahinalii and Hinakaalualumoana, would cause the ocean to flood the land so that her brothers, the pao'o fish, may search for her. At her suggestion, they fled to the mountains and built their home in the tops of the tallest trees. After ten days, Kahinalii sent the ocean; it rose and overwhelmed the land. The people fled to the mountains, and the flood covered the mountains; they climbed the trees, and the flood rose above the trees and drowned them all. But the waters began to subside just as they reached the door of Konikonia's house. When the waters retreated, he and his people returned to their land. This flood is called kai-a-ka-hina-lii.

Next to nothing matches, aside from a flood.

>traveller spread the flood story

Seems more like a case of cultural convergence and cross-pollination, given that the major civilizations were founded around rivers and floodplains and most of the smaller ones are kinda in contact with the others.

>>676760

Sounds more like a culture hero than a literal father. Noah after all kept livestock and famously dwelt in a tent but he wasn't a son of Jabal.

>>676767

This is the story I was talking about.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100242648

>>676773

Ehhh, seems a bit muddled in the details, plus you do have to wonder if missionaries had some influence later on.