[Sunshine 2118]

The ancientness of Egypt is currently without dispute.

Its mythology is considered one of the oldest in the world and it was written (codified) at an exceptionally early period in time. We can say it was even carved in stone in ca. 2340BCE in the pyramid of Pharaoh Unas, last pharaoh of the 5th dynasty. The language used in this pyramid, is considered archaic indicating great age.

Egypt is an excellent source in this matter because it is mentioned early as well in the Bible lending support to the importance of Egypt in the early lives of the Hebrew people.

http://www.britannic...9/Pyramid-Texts


There is no mention in any surviving religious, mortuary text indicating any worldwide flood of the Noah style in Egypt.

The answer has to be there is no support for a Noah style flood in Ancient Egypt. Therefore, those of us believing the Noah story might be be a local event find support in Egypt, of all places. Despite the multiple flood stories around the world there is a real problem, since Egypt doesn't have such a story.


I include one of my favorite paleolithic sites http://donsmaps.com/gobustan.html to me it speaks loudly of the Biblical story and in a realistic human way.


2118

[Deepwater6]

I don't remember reading about the great flood in ancient Egypt, but I do know the Bible speaks of the flood and Egypt although not together, that I know of. I seem to remember hearing that geologists found evidence of a world wide flood, I assumed that covered Egypt as well.

I think it's important to remember that back then the whole world was alot smaller to people than it is now. They didn't realize that North and South America as well as other continents were out there. A heavy rain or a tsunami that inundated a large region for an extended period of time could have been viewed as a flood sent by God.

I'm not an expert on dates, but the Bibles exact era is a mystery to me. You ask an interesting question.

[Eclogite]

Deepwater6, on 29 October 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

I seem to remember hearing that geologists found evidence of a world wide flood, I assumed that covered Egypt as well.

You misheard. Perhaps you are recalling one of these three observations:

1) Through geologic time there have been many occassions when there was widespread, often global, advance of the sea over low lying portions of the continents. Such advance could be rapid on the geological timescale, but slow - typically very slow - on the human time scale. I have seen (ineffectual) arguments presented by Young Earth Creationists and the like to the effect that these marine incursions were evidence of a series of floods culminating in Noah's flood. Like all YEC nonsense it stands up to reasoned observation as well as sozzled one legged man at the epicentre of a 8.7 magnitude earthquake.

2) As the 18th century, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution progressed; scholars sought an explanation for the strange boulders, or erratics, spread across northern Europe. These distinctive rocks, often igneous or metamorphic, lay atop softer, sedimentary, layers. Their probable origin could frequently be traced to outcrops hundreds of miles away. In some cases these erratics were associated with deposits of clay dozens or even hundreds of feet thick. The popular explanation was that these were the product of Noah’s flood. John Playfair, friend and defender of James Hutton and a leader of the Scottish Enlightenment, suggested in 1802 that they were evidence for an extensive glaciation in the geologically recent past. We now understand this to be the correct explanation.

3) At the end of the last ice age sea levels were significantly lower than they are today. Much of the southern North Sea was dry land (the Thames was a tributary of the Rhine); the Black Sea was a small lake isolated from the Mediterranean; the Persian Gulf was probably dry land; extensive parts of the South China Sea were above sea level. As the ice retreated sea levels rose and these areas and many like them were flooded. This, however, unlike Noah's flood, was a gradual event on a human timescale.

Quote

I think it's important to remember that back then the whole world was alot smaller to people than it is now. They didn't realize that North and South America as well as other continents were out there.

I believe the natives of North and South America knew they were somewhere.

[Deepwater6]

Thanks Eclogite, after some lite research I found that you are indeed correct. Now that I think about it I think I heard that from one of my friends who was defending his decision to be born again.

[Turtle]

Sunshine 2118, on 28 October 2011 - 09:30 AM, said:

...There is no mention in any surviving religious, mortuary text indicating any worldwide flood of the Noah style in Egypt.

this is not the case however for summerian text. the genesis account of the flood is a rewrite of the summerian account in the epic of gilgamesh & that story is the oldest surviving written story known. but of course, you knew that. we have our own flood here of this business and there is no need -none whatsoever- for us to resphlash it again.

hypog search results: "Gilgamesh"

[Sunshine 2118]

Turtle, on 29 October 2011 - 02:37 PM, said:

this is not the case however for summerian text. the genesis account of the flood is a rewrite of the summerian account in the epic of gilgamesh & that story is the oldest surviving written story known. but of course, you knew that. we have our own flood here of this business and there is no need -none whatsoever- for us to resphlash it again.

hypog search results: "Gilgamesh"

I regret Turtle, I was not writing of the tired old Gilgamesh story, but of Egypt. However, since you bring it up. I'ld be happy to deal with it, now.


Is it simply a rewrite of the Sumerian story, Turtle? Granted in some crowds it is still considered as such.

The story of Gilgamesh as we have it dates from ca. 2,150- 1800BCE. Alternatively, about the time that the Sumerian language is dying out and completely replaced by the Eastern Semitic language.

http://en.wikipedia....ic_of_Gilgamesh

The Gilgamesh story is generally considered to be referring to an excavated flood of the Sumerian plain dating to about 2,900BCE. http://wiki.answers....ic_of_Gilgamesh


The story incorporates the story of the immortal Utnapishtim-aka Ziusudra, who Gilgamesh goes to see in heaven to learn the secret of never dying.

Simple chronology allows for this breakdown of the Gilgamesh story: Utnapishtim survived the flood; Utnapishtim never died, but lives in heaven where he is visited by the great king, adventurer Gilgamesh a couple of generations later.

What, if I told you that Gilgamesh is a really a compilation of not one, but of three different people recorded in the Hebrew texts?

Genesis 5:20-24 Biblical Enoch never died but lives in heaven as the lineage makes clear the others die. Noah survived the flood, Genesis 7. Noah’s great-grandson is Nimrod, the great king, and adventurer Genesis 7:6-12.

Utnapishtim equals Enoch/Noah.

Gilgamesh equals Nimrod.


So much for rewrites

[Sunshine 2118]

Deepwater6, on 29 October 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

I don't remember reading about the great flood in ancient Egypt, but I do know the Bible speaks of the flood and Egypt although not together, that I know of. I seem to remember hearing that geologists found evidence of a world wide flood, I assumed that covered Egypt as well.

I think it's important to remember that back then the whole world was alot smaller to people than it is now. They didn't realize that North and South America as well as other continents were out there. A heavy rain or a tsunami that inundated a large region for an extended period of time could have been viewed as a flood sent by God.

I'm not an expert on dates, but the Bibles exact era is a mystery to me. You ask an interesting question.

Howdy Deepwater6 thank you for your consideration and comments.

There is great reason why you don’t recall reading ‘great flood in ancient Egypt’ in the myths of ancient Egypt. There isn’t any but the primeval flood which in some fashion agrees with Genesis 1, and the once yearly flooding of the Nile. http://en.wikipedia...._creation_myths

Since, Egypt recorded yearly floods and the records are still extant; dating from the 3rd reign 1st dynasty on the Palermo Stone concluding in the 3rd reign of the 5th dynasty records the yearly flooding (Wilkinson 2010: 45). Therefore, we know there could be no “worldwide flooding” after the reign of Aha (2nd king 1st Dynasty). http://www.britannic...0/Palermo-Stone

While you are correct that many ancient worlds considered only their world in their history and in this Egypt isn’t that much of an abnormality. Egypt pre-Bronze Age provides ample evidence that they knew Egypt existed in a greater world. Nubia suffered repeated Egyptian invasions during the 4th millennium. Lower Egypt up into the Bronze Age of Menes/Narmer was culturally closer to the established culture of the Levant than Upper Egypt. During the same 4th millennium up into the 3rd millennium of the 1st Dynasty there was some extensive trade between Egypt and Mesopotamia (Wilkinson 2010: 28-31). Making Egypt at an very early date aware of the world greater than just Egypt.

Wilkinson 2010: and page number for those interested is The Rise and Fall of the Egyptian Empire by Toby A.H. Wilkinson printed 2010 by Random House. I highly recommend it. Dr. Wilkinson is considered to be one of the foremost experts in Pre-Dynastic Egypt.

[Sunshine 2118]

Eclogite, on 29 October 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:

You misheard. Perhaps you are recalling one of these three observations:

1) Through geologic time there have been many occassions when there was widespread, often global, advance of the sea over low lying portions of the continents. Such advance could be rapid on the geological timescale, but slow - typically very slow - on the human time scale. I have seen (ineffectual) arguments presented by Young Earth Creationists and the like to the effect that these marine incursions were evidence of a series of floods culminating in Noah's flood. Like all YEC nonsense it stands up to reasoned observation as well as sozzled one legged man at the epicentre of a 8.7 magnitude earthquake.

2) As the 18th century, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution progressed; scholars sought an explanation for the strange boulders, or erratics, spread across northern Europe. These distinctive rocks, often igneous or metamorphic, lay atop softer, sedimentary, layers. Their probable origin could frequently be traced to outcrops hundreds of miles away. In some cases these erratics were associated with deposits of clay dozens or even hundreds of feet thick. The popular explanation was that these were the product of Noah’s flood. John Playfair, friend and defender of James Hutton and a leader of the Scottish Enlightenment, suggested in 1802 that they were evidence for an extensive glaciation in the geologically recent past. We now understand this to be the correct explanation.

3) At the end of the last ice age sea levels were significantly lower than they are today. Much of the southern North Sea was dry land (the Thames was a tributary of the Rhine); the Black Sea was a small lake isolated from the Mediterranean; the Persian Gulf was probably dry land; extensive parts of the South China Sea were above sea level. As the ice retreated sea levels rose and these areas and many like them were flooded. This, however, unlike Noah's flood, was a gradual event on a human timescale.

I believe the natives of North and South America knew they were somewhere.

Thank you Eclogite your comment needs no comment from me.

[Turtle]

Sunshine 2118, on 30 October 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

I regret Turtle, I was not writing of the tired old Gilgamesh story, but of Egypt. However, since you bring it up. I'ld be happy to deal with it, now.
...
So much for rewrites

i know exactly what you are writing about and frankly it's tired and unwelcome here at our board. pushing religious agendas is against our rules and i'm happy to deal with it now.

Science Forum Rules

hypography rules said:

...
■Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.
...

[Eclogite]

Sunshine 2118, on 30 October 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

What, if I told you that Gilgamesh is a really a compilation of not one, but of three different people recorded in the Hebrew texts?

I would ask you to provide some scholarly citations that went some way to establishing that statement.

[Sunshine 2118]

Eclogite, on 31 October 2011 - 02:51 AM, said:

I would ask you to provide some scholarly citations that went some way to establishing that statement.

You need scholarly citations to prove what is before your eyes if you read it? I included all the citations one needs to make an informed decision.

[Sunshine 2118]

Turtle, on 30 October 2011 - 03:58 PM, said:

i know exactly what you are writing about and frankly it's tired and unwelcome here at our board. pushing religious agendas is against our rules and i'm happy to deal with it now.

Science Forum Rules

Deepwater6, on 29 October 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

You ask an interesting question.

Thankfully not everyone feels as you do.

What is my agenda Turtle?

I understand on this board you can ignore users- perhaps you should put me on ignore since you know my agenda so well.



2118

[Eclogite]

Sunshine 2118, on 31 October 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

You need scholarly citations to prove what is before your eyes if you read it?

I'm afraid all I see presently is an assertion by you that runs counter to what I understand to be the current consensus view of scholars on the matter. You have offered an alternative view. I have asked, reasonably I think, for some research from a peer reviewed publication that explores the topic from this different perspective. It is unhelpful to the progress of the discussion to say - as you seem to be saying - I've told you what the facts are, now accept them.

In a nutshell I'm sceptical of your claim, but certainly entertain the possibility that it may be valid. I would certainly find it interesting to read something of the argument in more depth. This is not my field, though I have done minor eclectic reading in it. If this is indeed now the current view, I'd like the opportunity to bring myself up to date. If it is an alternativeproposal, I want to read some of the details - as I've said. If it is a hypothesis of your own you will need to offer more in the way of support than what seems to be a disgruntled "It's bloody obvious".

Sunshine 2118, on 31 October 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

I included all the citations one needs to make an informed decision.

I'm a great fan of wikipedia, but I wouldn't consider that wiki articles constitute proper citations. At any rate the first link lays out what I understand to be the consensus interpretation - "Most scholars accept the priority of the Mesopotamian flood story." So, based on the material you have provided the informed decision I lean to is that you are mistaken. Now, if you wish to convince me or anyone otherwise would you provide appropriate citations.

[Sunshine 2118]

I regret you are off topic and since dealing with the last off topic post was so not rewarding. I see no reason to indulge your skepticism when you admit it isn’t your field.

Start an appropriate thread I will be more than happy to continue the conversation. If I see it, it too would be within my scope of purview.

The real, educated, and polite manner of moving a discussion forward is to read the offered citations, then come back with your opinions. Maybe even, search out a better citation just to be sure.

http://www.ancientte...mian/gilgamesh/

However, I did it for you and I hope you enjoy ancient text translations. I do, because I have been reading them for years. However not everyone is me, and I chose to use a good site for its easy reading. I will be happy to loan you my Kramer, if the new link isn’t up to your eclectic reading ability. However, honestly, he isn’t much better than the original but he does include the story of Gilgamesh in it.

Now, back to the topic... Does Ancient Egypt support….

[Eclogite]

Sunshine 2118, on 01 November 2011 - 12:19 AM, said:

I regret you are off topic and since dealing with the last off topic post was so not rewarding. I see no reason to indulge your skepticism when you admit it isn’t your field.

This is not a matter of indulging my scepticism. You speak as if my scepticism were a 'bad thing'. Scepticism is vital to any scientific process. Scepticism lies at the heart of science and is built into the scientific process. It is not only natural to be sceptical of a new claim, it is mandatory. As such my lack of expertise in this field is wholly irrelevant. A non-standard claim has been made - it should be properly justified. That is the convention on forums such as this and is even reflected in the rules.

If, in fact, your claim is the standard viewpoint - and I am simply misinformed - then please educate me with appropriate, substantial references. I don't believe this is an unreasonable request. I can see no good reason not to do so. If there is one, perhaps you will share it.

You note that the discussion is off topic: this is not entirely true. The broad subject is Noah's flood. The origin of that story is germane to the discussion. Remember that in discussion forums quite wide latitude is granted to what is on topic, since an important underlying goal is to promote interesting discussion. Regardless of this you chose to introduce this aspect of the topic and it is appropriate from the standpoint of forum rules and general unwritten conventions that having done so that you support your claim. You have not done so.

Quote

The real, educated, and polite manner of moving a discussion forward is to read the offered citations, then come back with your opinions.

I did read the citations. I pointed out that the first one supports what I understand to be the consensus view, rather than your claim. I then expressed the opinion that this leans me towards believing your claim is wrong.

I am encouraging you to better explain your views to me. I don't understand your reluctance to do so. I would also welcome clarification as to whether you are saying this is 1) the conventional view 2) a minority view 3) your own hypothesis. The links you have provided, including the last one, do not address the hypothesis, but are simply about the Gilgamesh epic, or Egyptian dating.

I don't see a need for opening a new thread for this minor diversion. Simply clarify the nature of the hypothesis and provide supporting citations. I'm not asking you to 'prove' anything, just offer material that suggests/supports/inclines one to believe the hypothesis.