/lit/ - Literature

>>17474221
time travel?

>>17474221
If you search about it, you will see that myth of flood is normal in my religions and mythology. I assume that either it came from the end of the Ice Age, which is why many people of different places of the world has their own version of this myth, or perhaps because for all those people millenniums ago the whole world was all they knew about and any kind of flood they had to face was like the whole world was suffering from it.

>>17474345
D I A S P O R A

>>17474221
Look up the Black Sea flood hypothesis.

>>17474221
Could it be...stories from people in the same area draw from the same sources?
Nah, too far-fetched. It's probably aliens.

>>17474221
Literally the Sherlock Holmes of onions

>>17474221
There was a flooding period in Mesopotamia that led to I think a foot of land being flooded a year for like a century or something crazy. Give that flooding story a few centuries to change and morph into an epic global flood and then have the regions dominant power spread their culture around the middle east, india, anatolia, the balkans, and the nile river, and you end up with very similar stories in a lot of different cultures stemming from one event. Also jews wholesale copied other religions

>>17474380
>draw from the same sources
>implying that Genesis did not draw from Gilgamesh

>>17474345
I think there was a big flood at one point, and also atlantis was probably real. There's usually truth behind these stories, maybe not all of it is true but it's based on something that is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis#:~:text=In%201997%2C%20William%20Ryan%2C%20Walter,around%207550%20calendar%20years%20BP).

>>17474525
Can you prove it draws from Gilgamesh instead of an earlier source or even a historical event? Not that it really changes anything one way or the other, there is a reason that kind of myth is so common.

>>17474221
woah!
just wait until you learn about deucalion.
your schizophrenia is really gonna kick in then

>>17474221
My Bible says explicitly in the notes that there is a similarity between those myths

>>17474221
You are just now realizing that there was a worldwide flood that lives on in the collective consciousness of the people descended from Atlantis?
Here's a real redpill:
>researching the traditions of the Aztecs
>It tells how Tezpi embarked in a spacious vessel with his wife, his children, and several animals, and grain, whose preservation was essential to the subsistence of the human race. When the great god Tezcatlipoca decreed that the waters should retire, Tezpi sent a vulture from the bark. The bird, feeding on the carcasses with which the earth was laden, did not return. Tezpi sent out other birds, of which the humming-bird only came back with a leafy branch in its beak. Then Tezpi, seeing that the country began to vegetate, left his bark on the mountain of Colhuacan.
Gilgamesh and Genesis can be explained by geography. This can't.

>>17474865
Meds

>>17475022
i hope those notes where from Christ himself you heathen.

>>17475164
Retard

>>17475140
Or the less schizoid take, that many cultures lived near water sources, and natural disasters such as a flooding could have had a major impact on their lives, eventually leading to wild stories passed on

>>17475219
>yeah man these two cultures separated by a gigantic ocean have the same exact legend with the same exact details
They come from a common Atlantean source. The Aztecs even claim so.
Also you mean schizo, not schizoid.

>>17475164
>>17474865
That anon is right, there was likely a large flood caused by the rupture of ice dams at the end of the last glaciation period.

>>17475200
KEK

>>17474221
The inner tribes of aborigines have a religion which talk of a sky father and a great flood.

>>17475228
>yeah bro every geology related field concludes that it's impossible for a global flood to be remotely feasable, but this congressman says it's true!!!
The "details" come from one source, whose author is a hack and offers no proof of his claims either

>>17475358
>>yeah bro every geology related field concludes that it's impossible for a global flood to be remotely feasable, but this congressman says it's true!!!
But they don't? The end of the Younger Dryas geological period? Meltwater Pulse 1B? Global superflood events? Why are you appealing to a mythical consensus that doesn't even exist?
The details are knowledge derived from studying the Aztecs. It's funny that you deny that, seeing as it's something academics actually have a consensus on. You can research it yourself if you want more knowledge. The author does provide a sources: Alfred Maury and the Aztec Codices, to name two. I should have put the link to the section, but it seems you already found it. It also seems like you didn't read any of it, so here you go:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/atl/ataw/ataw205.htm

>>17474221
looks like we have independent confirmation that floods were a. problem in the acient middle East then

>>17475206
>>17475229
I mean, the Mediterraneans myths.

>>17474525
>implying Gilgamesh didn't draw from Genesis (KJV)

>>17474221
Who is uta-naphishtim?

>>17475219
>he doesn't know St.Thomas Aquinas came to the Americas –where he was known as Quetzalcoatl– from who the Aztecs came to know about the great flood
ngmi

>>17475793
>St.Thomas Aquinas
I meant Thomas the Apostle, got confused

>>17475449
Then why do aborigines in the middle of Australia have a mythology around a great flood?

>>17474221
>He just learned about comparative mythology
Both myths are based on the same historical event btw

>>17474345
Big brain explanation:
Atlantis was where the medditerranean sea is now. The water level rose around the earth and that ancient civilization was destroyed. The kingdoms that diverged from it became Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamians and semites are different branches from the same Atlantis society. So we’re the Greeks, basically everything that surrounds the Mediterranean sea

>>17475853
>Atlantis was where the medditerranean sea is now.
Atlantis is in the area of the Azores islands. Plato puts them in the Atlantic ocean, as do the Egyptians, and they both knew what the Mediterranean sea was. They found pyramids under the Azores islands, I would say it's a good place to put them. There are remnants of their blood in the Basque and Berber peoples, as evidenced by the high amount of Rh negative blood and their myths & language. "Atlantis", while having genetic components, should be used to refer to Atlantean cultural and mythological influence. It's not something like Aryan. Anyway, they migrated East after the deluge to Gobekli Tepi, that's where the Atlantean aspects of Semitic culture derive.
They were a maritime civilization that journeyed to South America, this is where the Atlantean elements of Aztec culture derive, as evidenced by their myths and records.
>So we’re the Greeks, basically everything that surrounds the Mediterranean sea
The Greeks are Indo-European, while there might be some syncretic Atlantean elements. What we might call proto-Indo-Europeans came from what Greeks identified as Hyperborea, but modern genetic research puts this closer to Siberia with Ancient North Eurasian populations.

>>17476143
take your meds

>>17475140
Atlantis is literary fiction invented by Plato, there is no evidence for it.

>>17475437
A sea level rise isn't the same as an instantaneous flood that cover the whole world, as happens in ancient near eastern mythology

>>17474221
The flood myth occured all around the globe but yes the tribesmen shamelessly copied from the Sumerians.

>>17474345
Not really. If you look at what these "Flood Myths" entail, the vast majority have nothing to do with an ark, two of every animal, a man chosen to repopulate the world by heaven, or judgement of man. For example, the Finnish "flood myth" involves a giant animal being gutted by the Gods, resulting in everything being created from its corpse (this is also the Germanic "flood myth"). The Paleo-Siberian "flood myths" involve someone, called an Earth Diver, diving to the bottom of the sea and moving dirt around to form the continents (sometimes, what he instead does is scoops it up and drops it on a big turtle's back). Others, like the Chinese "flood myth" don't involve a global flood at all, but rather is just the story of a demigod figuring out irrigation and dams (there's a second "flood myth" that results in the universe coming undone, such that water flows uphill and fires light where they shouldn't, but that also isn't a universal flood as there's areas that have water that "unflood").

The only thing that can be said is that flooding is scary. Anything more than that is just the various Semitic peoples taking a Sumerian myth of an actual event (the flooding of the Gulf of Iran entirely with water, and the Mesopotamian marshes, which are only just now coming out of a very long period of flooding).

>>17476370
in earlier versions of the iliad story the siege of troy was shorter as it had only happened a while before, yet as the story was passed down, after many years the meaning of words changed and it was altered through the chaos of storytelling, thus the siege was then said to have taken 50 years which is ridiculous.
Take also for instance the word "thumos", which in the iliad (excuse me if im mixing it up with another word) was more like a part of the physical body, but later came to mean something more spiritual, ie the spirit. First more of an organ and then a metaphysical spirit
the point is stories can get exaggerated over time, but also the meaning of words can change
so then might it not be surprising that a word which in earlier times was basically referring to the "world" of the original orator (which was more like a region of the world to us as he knew not of the wider world) might be a bit smaller? and over time, through a simple misunderstanding or a change in the language the world of the original story which could just mean "the world" or region of the originator could have become interpreted as the entire planet, which need not be the case.
Perhaps the flood did happen, it certainly did not encompass the entire world, but perhaps it may have just encompassed the originators world?

>>17476143
>Atlantis is in the Atlantic Ocean
Get a load of this guy

>>17476207
read up on some modern archaeological, geological and genetic studies, if you are smart enough

>>17477199
send links

>>17475219
>Or the less schizoid take
Boooooo
Boring

>>17477389
Look into David Reich for genetics research. Look into Graham Hancock (popular writer, he gives the evidence but isn't an authority on a lot of it) for evidence of an advanced antediluvian civilization.
Here is a very good talk by David Reich:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ1npkBQGV8
It's not about Atlantis but it's a good start in understanding the origins of humans and civilization in general.

>>17474221
>Jew
>stealing
NO WAY

So I understand that the Gilgamesh story is older, and I understand the cultural reasons for flood narratives.

What I want to understand is how do christians or catholics specifically rationalize the fact that the biblical flood narrative is a copy of older ones from Gilgamesh? I'm not a christian btw I'm just curious and no one I've asked has given me a legitimate answer

The Flood was real. The whole story was kept whole in the Hebrew's oral tradition, while their descendants who wrote Gilgamesh had their butchered version.

>>17478254
It's not a copy...who told you that Gilgamesh was written first? Even if you could prove such a thing, could it not be that it was simply written down first, but in the Hebrew oral tradition first?

>>17478264
Gilgamesh is older than old testament

>>17478267
Literally everyone knows that Gilgamesh is older than the old testament. Archeology tells us that. It's the oldest epic that we have evidence of

>>17478276
"Literally" everyone besides me I guess. I also was unaware that "archaeology" could tell us anything--I always assumed that we found archaeology as it was, and that it was fallible humans doing the work of interpretation.

>>17478297
Yes everyone besides you. And yes archaeology does tell us stuff. your assumptions were wrong.

>>17478276
>huur duur oral tradition doesnt exist

>>17478331
My assumptions "were" or "are" wrong? For an anon on a literary board you have a pretty loose grasp on the English language. I also would advise against accepting at face value whatever "archaeology" tells you--everything they "know" comes through the interpretations of fallible humans with agendas and prejudices. Think for yourself, man!

>>17478354
>Resorting to criticizing my grammar
As long as retards like you can understand me I know enough. Also I will not take any of your advice fool

>>17478340
If it exists for the jews then it existed for the people who wrote Gilgamesh. Implying that the story existed long before it was ever written down. The multiple copies of the story written in different languages also corroborate this

>>17478368
Grammar is the vehicle of your thoughts and the structure of your communication. Why should I take your ideas seriously when you can't articulate them properly?

>>17478433
Because unlike me, your brain is full of horse crap

>>17476143
I like this type of thing. Where can I read more?

>>17478439
I know for a fact that (1) my brain is not full of horse crap and (2) that I know more about reality than do you, since I know that the Bible is true in every word and sense, while you believe what you are told by the "experts" that Gilgamesh inspired the Bible and not vice versa.

>>17478480
>The bible is true in every word and sense
I seriously doubt you know more about reality than I do considering you believe that the Bible, a book over 1000 years old, is true in every word and sense. Which version of the Bible are you talking about? Wasn't it translated dozens of times? Do you mean the King James Version which is missing books? Or do you mean the Septuagint or vulgate? Weren't those two arbitrarily put together by a council that deliberately excluded dozens of other books?

Let's not forget that the historical timeline of the Bible is that the earth is only 2000 years old, and while many scholars and priests reject that belief, it is one drawn from Biblical sources

>>17478558
The Bible describes the earth as being about 6,000 years old, which I believe. And by the Bible I mean the King James Version, the only version authorized by God in the English language. It is not missing any books.
>t. picrel

>>17478575
How can you believe legitimately that the earth is only 6,000 years old? How can you say that the King James Version was authorized by God? It removed the deuterocanonical books that have existed in latin bibles since the vulgate.

Also you being a creationist is enough proof for me to discount everything you've said. You ignore history and the biological record which, along with numerous other sources, correctly estimate the Earth's age to be closer to 4.5 billion years

>>17478297
>it was fallible humans doing the work of interpretation.
Right, thats only the case when others do it, but not when you do it. Lol

>>17478593
Creation is a long and difficult topic, but let me just sow some doubt in that certain brain of yours with one question. Scientists judge the age of the earth by noting current rates of decay and extrapolating backwards from them--i.e., we are driving 60 mph now, so an hour ago we were 60 miles back. However, science has no way of knowing (1) what the rates of decay were in the past, and (2) are completely unaware as to the effects that Creation had on matter in the first moments. How can science know that during the "Big Bang" that time moved at 1/1,000,000 of the time it does now, and that all of our current calculations are off? The only reasonable answer is that it can't. Einstein showed that mass and light=energy. The physics of the Big Bang are not even close to being fully understood, especially when it comes to judging the age of the earth.

The Catholic Church butchered the Bible and based the Vulgate off of the Alexandrian texts.

>>17478642
Did Jesus speak English?

>>17478642
You have never bothered reading up on the issue, you are a christian because you dont like to read and think.

>>17478662
The King James is the authorized English version. There is an authorized Chinese version, Spanish version, etc. God promised to preserve his Word in each language. In English, we have the King James. And I am a Christian because I was baptized by the Holy Spirit in college after being a lifelong atheist and picking up the KJV gospels simply to read some of the most beautiful English ever written.

>>17478642
but people like this IRL push me away from religion

>>17478672
This is Job ch. 4 in it's entirety from the KJV:

THEN Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said,
2 If we assay to commune with thee, wilt thou be grieved? but who can withhold himself from speaking?
3 Behold, thou hast instructed many, and thou hast strengthened the weak hands.
4 Thy words have upholden him that was falling, and thou hast strengthened the feeble knees.
5 But now it is come upon thee, and thou faintest; it toucheth thee, and thou art troubled.
6 Is not this thy fear, thy confidence, thy hope, and the uprightness of thy ways?
7 Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?
8 Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.
9 By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.
10 The roaring of the lion, and the voice of the fierce lion, and the teeth of the young lions, are broken.
11 The old lion perisheth for lack of prey, and the stout lion’s whelps are scattered abroad.
12 Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof.
13 In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men,
14 Fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.
15 Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:
16 It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
19 How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?
20 They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it.
21 Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? they die, even without wisdom.

>>17478692
You know that the English KJB is a translation of the Latin text of the vulgate which you claim is butchered

>>17478642
Study this article, then start exploring on your own and come back when you understand it al.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044/

>>17474221
It's in reference to when the Tigris and Euphrates were rising rapidly due to ice melting

>>17478719
The KJV is not a translation of the Vulgate.

>>17478692
>a lifelong atheist
So you where a Christian even back then, since atheism and the atheist movement is Christianity light.

>>17478704
I prefer the old Dutch of the Statenvertaling. Go read books on the subject and stop quoting the Bible.

>>17478738
I understand strata perfectly well. Do you also know that we find trees upright going through "millennia" of strata, and that after Mt. St. Helena erupted in WA that there was strata formed in a matter of hours, that if scientists had found elsewhere would show "millennia"? Do you really think that I have not looked at all the evidence before? Like I said, I was a lifelong atheist before being saved.

>>17478747
There is no such thing as Christianity lite. There is being saved and there is being lost. Knowing Jesus is the only difference

>>17478763
No you havent, you just read bible websites, which is where you found those tidbits.

You hate modern science, because it shows us a large and mysterious universe, you are christian because you reject religion.

>>17478746
Oh you're right, it's not a translation of the vulgate. It's a translation of a translation of a translation multiplied by 8 plus a revisionist rewrite. That makes it much more authoritative

>>17478774
Atheism = christianity

If you are trult no longer christian, atheism doesnt matter, you will redifine or replace God with something else.

>>17478780
I think you should open your mind, friend. Science today is driven by a single agenda and you seem to have accepted it wholesale. You are no smarter than those who believed in humors or geocentricity, you were just born at a different time. You must look inward to find truth, and not just accept what you are told by gnostics.

Our sun novas every now and then according to the Diehold Foundation
>history has patterns because they have to fill in the blanks every time

>>17478763
>Like I said, I was a lifelong atheist before being saved.
Why do christcucks keep using this line? It never works

>>17478803
>Science today is driven by a single agenda
Accuracy?

>>17474221
>>17474261
>>17474345
>>17474363
>>17474383
>>17474865
>>17474963
>>17475022
>>17475140
are all of you wankers only just noticing that there are similarities between different mythologies? have none of you bastards heard of the collective unconscious

>>17478881
All you have to do is look and see that it is all driven by atheistic materialism...anything else is verbotten. Look up Rupert Sheldrake if you don't want to take my word for it (or your own observations, you know!)

>>17478873
Why would I lie about this..? Do you really believe that I am a Christian because I was born one? Or that my family is (they're not)? Do you really think that lowly of other people?

>>17478891
Or, and hold on to your chair, because you might fall off of it, civilizations tend to form around rivers, which can cause floods.

Shocking, I know

>>17478891
The collective unconscious is about unconscious archetypes that are present throughout world mythologies and legends due to innate psychology. What this thread is about is comparative mythology based on historical events and trying to figure out civilizational correspondence/influence. Rather than the collective unconscious, all of this belongs to the collective conscious.

>>17478896
>Rupert Sheldrake
Parapsychology isn’t banned, it’s just not science because it can’t be tested, which is a requirement of science

>>17478901
>Why would I lie about this..?
Because you can’t handle the inevitable reality of death, and need to cope somehow, and Christianity’s pay to play forever scheme is the perfect way to cope?

>>17478906
That's still within the realm of comparative mythology, which I believe that anon you're replying to is referencing considering the Jung concept he mentioned

>>17478803
I will not open my mind, fuck off with your degenerate hippy speak, you people undermine our society with your progressive christian values of forgiveness

>>17478922
>That's still within the realm of comparative mythology
Yes, it just doesn’t try to read people’s minds, and works with something we can actually demonstrate

>>17478906
What type of juvenile logic is this? How many floods from rivers decimate an entire civilization? Why do so many civilizations place such a great emphasis on a cataclysmic flood in their collective memory?
>>17478933
>Yes, it just doesn’t try to read people’s minds, and works with something we can actually demonstrate
Oh please, demonstrate that for every civilization with a cataclysmic flood myth, there is a localized flood in the geological record that accounts for it. That other post you made is pure ad hoc speculation.
Comparative mythology isn't the end all be all, but if myths match up 1:1 between civilizations, you can expect to see correspondence or influence. The most basic example is Norse, Greek, and Vedic mythologies. What you have to do next is find archeological and genetic evidence for the claims, which we have plenty of in this case.

>>17478921
The body dies anon, but the soul does not. All religions and most philosophies on earth recognize this simple fact. Even science's conservation of energy recognizes it. And deep down you do, too.

>>17478958
>How many floods from rivers decimate an entire civilization?
>people never exaggerate or change stories for their own purposes
If only we could filter Jungians from /lit/

>>17478960
>And deep down you do, too.
I love how you can apparently read my mind without showing any ability towards it. Quick, I’m thinking of number between 1 and 10, what number am I thinking of?

>>17478967
Why are you people bringing up Jung? This is historical and anthropological, not psychological. Jung does not care if the mythologies actually happened or if they influenced any other civilization. I am more concerned with the geological and genetic evidence, as I said in my post, the correspondences between mythologies only gives you a nudge in the correct direction.

>>17478375
>Implying that the story existed long before it was ever written down
Yes exactly. So one written record doesnt necessarily invalidate later written records.

>>17478972
You're a human being, aren't you? And I know that all human beings know that their soul will not die, that they will experience outside of this material world. It was the first thing we ever knew.

>>17479017
>their soul
You haven’t even established what a soul is, let alone demonstrated that we have one. It just fits neatly into the guilt tripping to keep your ancient MLM scheme going

>>17479026
Your soul is what never sleeps, the part of you that watches your dreams. It is the source of your being and the part of you that never dies.

>>17479053
That sounds vague enough to be completely unfalsifiable

Anyway, you can stop with your tactics to try and guilt trip me into believing. It doesn’t work when you’ve figured out the power structure behind Christianity, which is selective observations and interpretations, infinite debt and violence, all aimed at behavioral control, which you fell for and try to perpetuate, just like with a MLM scheme.

>>17479071
>That sounds vague enough to be completely unfalsifiable
The claim that claims must be falsifiable to be worth anything is not falsifiable
QED

>>17479084
>trying the old ‘you can’t falsify falsifiability’
I’m glad you posted this, because now I can point out exactly how stupid this is. Falsifying something is little more than proving something wrong. When you say ‘you can’t falsify falsifiability’, you’re basically saying ‘you can’t prove wrong the act of proving things wrong’. Now, think about what you’re doing here. You’re basically accepting as valid the very concept you’re trying to demonstrate as invalid. In your sentence, you use the word ‘falsify’ twice, yet you view the first one as valid, while you use the second as invalid, despite that it refers to the same concept.

This tells me that you’re a moron who never actually thinks about the propaganda lines he uses

>>17478958
The reason Jungian archetypes are not a good guide for comparative mythology is because they are self fulfilling. Any type x that occurs in most cultures almost automatically fits into the Jungian model (highly simplified, I know). But there are two problems with this. 1. Any type that truly (unknown to us though) arises from a source other than the collective unconscious across several cultures is indistinguishable from one that does (i.e. not testable). 2. There is no proper criteria for determining a meaningful level of abstraction in defining archetypes. The way we categorize archetypes is arbitrary and heavily reflects the meaningful aspects of a myth to a modern reader that may not have been meaningful at all to its original audience. Jungians need to reconcile these two problems at least. I have yet to see a successful attempt.

>>17479110
>You’re basically accepting as valid the very concept you’re trying to demonstrate as invalid. In your sentence, you use the word ‘falsify’ twice, yet you view the first one as valid, while you use the second as invalid, despite that it refers to the same concept.
I'm afraid you do not understand the point of the argument. I do not agree with the fact that things must be falsifiable to be true, that is what you claim. Just as an aside, we are talking about the criterion of falsifiability, not just falsifiability. Anyway, if you don't get it, it's a proof by contradiction. I assume it is valid, it leads to a contradiction, so it is invalid. To be more clear I'll phrase it in terms of premises and conclusions.
P1: Claims must be falsifiable for us to accept them. (Your position)
P2: The claim "Claims must be falsifiable" is not falsifiable. (Given)
C: We cannot accept the claim "Claims must be falsifiable".
I do not hold the first position, but you do. This leads you to necessarily accept the conclusion. I am only "accepting as valid the very concept you’re trying to demonstrate as invalid" for a simple proof by contradiction, which is how they work.

>>17479158
I may have messed up the wording, but you get the point. Your point of contention should be aimed at premise 2; it will not be productive to argue against the method of proof by contradiction (unless you don't accept the law of excluded middle). Premise 2 is impossible to argue with which is why no one claims that claims must be falsifiable for us to accept them. Besides you, I guess.

>>17479158
>P2: The claim "Claims must be falsifiable" is not falsifiable. (Given)
Anon, this accepts the very thing it tries to invalidate. Your conclusion is based on the acceptance of the criterion of falsifiability, which you’re trying to invalidate. Your argument cuts off the very branch you’re sitting on. I can’t even begin to describe how stupid this is

>>17479181
Yes, that is how a proof of this type works. For example, in proving the irrationality of the square root of two, you act as if it is rational for all of the premises. Only until you derive a contradiction does the conclusion arrive. If it didn't accept the thing it is invalidating, it wouldn't be a valid argument.

>>17479181
Also, premise 2 is just a fact. What matters is whether or not this is a problem. You accept the claim, so it is a problem. I do not, so it is not. It is all quite simple.

>>17479186
Anon, think about this: what are you rejecting, and why are you rejecting it?

>>17479202
I am rejecting the claim that claims must be falsifiable for us to accept them. I reject this because I understand falsification is an arbitrary criterion by which to judge knowledge and that there are other valid avenues to divine truth.

>>17479205
And why do people generally reject ideas?

>>17479219
Because they are false. This does not mean they are falsifiable, that is what you are assuming. In my epistemology, you do not need to prove things are false to know things are false.

>>17478575
>authorised by God
It's authorised by Cambridge university, meaning they're the only place allowed to print them in England for international sale. That's not a mark of veracity from the Lord, it's a copyright. God's favoured version will not be the one cut up and censored by a fat debauched monk five fifteen hundred years after the Crucifixion.

>>17479224
>Because they are false. This does not mean they are falsifiable, that is what you are assuming.
>proving something false is not the same as falsifying
Anon, it has the word ‘false’ literally in it. You must be a troll. No one can be this stupid

>>17479234
Sigh. It's a basic distinction. One is a way to get to truth, the other is the truth value of a proposition. You can accept Marx's theory of dialectical materialism as true and Spengler's theories about the cycles of civilization as false even though both are not falsifiable. They cannot be proven false, no amount of evidence can prove that they are false.

>>17479234
It's funny, you say I am accepting what I am trying to invalidate when that is the entire point, but here you're doing the equivalent of assuming your epistemology is correct and saying mine is wrong because it goes against your assumption. It's tiresome. Try reading my last two posts with the claim in mind that things do not need to be falsifiable in order to know that they are true or false.

>>17479071
>That sounds vague enough to be completely unfalsifiable
It can be experienced through meditations. Certainly sounds verifiable to me.

>>17479239
>One is a way to get to truth, the other is the truth value of a proposition.
The former is just a more general way of putting the latter. I also don’t think you have an epistemology, you just assert something, and then when someone presents anything counter to it, you go ‘nuh-uh’. That’s not an epistemology, that’s just living in denial

>>17479244
>you say I am accepting what I am trying to invalidate when that is the entire point
Your entire point is that you’re dumb? I already figured that out

>>17479248
Which are known to be very reliable, where no one ever comes up with wildly different conclusions through the same activity. Must be demons or something

>>17475140
I remember that in Lame Deer Seeker of Visions he wrote about a Sioux myth about some kind of deluge and a woman that was rescued by a bird that took her to a high mountain and there she gave birth to the ancestors of the nation. Not sure I remember the details correctly but it was something of this nature.

>>17479249
>The former is just a more general way of putting the latter.
No, they are different in kind. Methodology is separate from the truth or falsity of a statement. You can use multiple methodologies to come to the same true conclusions.
>>17479249
>I also don’t think you have an epistemology, you just assert something, and then when someone presents anything counter to it, you go ‘nuh-uh’. That’s not an epistemology, that’s just living in denial
I do, you asserted a claim, I countered the claim, what I am doing now is trying to convince you that you are wrong. I will not outline aspects of my epistemology if you cannot accept this basic fact.
Your arguments so far have been:
>denying the validity of proof by contradiction
>assuming your epistemology to counter mine, the equivalent of you saying you are wrong because I am right

This thread got went downhill fast. I'm sorry Gilgamesh poster

>>17479273
>You can use multiple methodologies to come to the same true conclusions.
Yes, but they will all involve the possibility of proving your idea wrong, which is what falsifiability is

>>17479249
Usually when people hear the argument they counter with something like pragmatism, a hierarchy of certitude, appeals to the impossibility of true knowledge, etc. They don't double down and accept an obviously false assertion.
>>17479283
I contributed relevant info in the beginning of this thread (I am that anon that was talking about Tezpi and mentioned the Younger Dryas, and Gobekli Tepi). It was dying, now this autistic argument revived it.

>>17479302
>Usually when people hear the argument
No, they usually walk away because it’s fucking retarded

>>17479294
>Yes, but they will all involve the possibility of proving your idea wrong, which is what falsifiability is
I can't get over the fact that you are just straight up assuming this, like you can't even fathom the possibility of it being otherwise. Here are examples of claims that are not falsifiable but can be true or false, or as I claim can be known to be true or false:
>the world is in a state of flux
>mathematical objects exist
>time is a succession of moments
>the universe is fundamentally material
None of these are predicated on the idea that you can prove that they are wrong (prove as in rigorously prove, anything else isn't falsification) or that there is evidence that they are wrong. There are other avenues to attain knowledge.

>>17479317
>Here are examples of claims that are not falsifiable but can be true or false
>falsifiable
>can be false
These are synonymous, as are ‘you’ and ‘retard’. Now I understand why Popper just walked away, there’s simply no point in trying to argue with someone who’s completely stupid

>>17479336
Yawn, confusing false with being able to be proven false. You're not learning, anon.

>>17479336
It's good that you accept that they can be false, I thought you were completely against metaphysics. Since I'm sure you think one of them is false, please prove it to me.

>>17475200
tfw the church wont let you have a copy of Christ's personal bible.

>>17478692
>God promised to preserve his Word in each language.
no he didn't.

>>17474952
Considering that Gilgamesh, behind Enuma Elish and Erra & Ishum, was by far the most popular literary text during the 1st mil. BC, and that the aristocrats and elites of the exiled Jews probably learned cuneiform in Babylonia (check similarities to general Babylonian literature and perhaps also birth incantations in a supremely learned text like Job), and that Genesis was probably compiled soon after the exile, it seems likely that the writer(s) of Genesis drew directly from Gilgamesh, instead of Atra-hasis or other, similar myths.

>>17478340
>the story of Noah is older than Gilgamesh even though the oldest manuscripts of Gilgamesh are from the 18c. BC because it's oral TRADITION duude! who cares if the Hebrew people didn't even exist in the 18c. BC?

>>17476501
I never said all those myths had anything to do with ark, just that perhaps a global flood(or many local ones) really happened.

>>17478672
A Christian came up with the big bang theory, you know.

>>17475164
where's the fun in that faggot?

>>17479525
Abraham saw the destruction of the Cities of the Plain and founded the Hebrews and Arabs, it's likely they or the story of Noah from him

>>17478254
What I really want to understand is why anyone should give a shit. What matters, to my mind, is whether it's based on a real event. Not which written source is oldest or whatever.

>>17478354
>Think for yourself, man!
The scope and breadth of human knowledge has increased much too far to allow anyone to "think for themselves" on anything but a very small range of topics, and is increasing exponentially, and ever fragmenting into more particular fields of expertise. "Just, like, think for yourself bro!" is not serious advice in this day and age. You will always have to take someone's word on something.

>>17479782
Obviously it's based on a real event. But how can christians reconcile their faith when they know that that story is a copypasta

>>17479687
Christianity is a dogmatic cult, not a culture, if the big bang is a novel idea then it cant be christian, neither can the persons who believes in it.

>>17479017
>And I know that all human beings know that their soul will not die, that they will experience outside of this material world. It was the first thing we ever knew.
No, you do not know and cannot know this, anon, and to delude yourself is unwise. This is a true example of projection.

>>17479224
>In my epistemology, you do not need to prove things are false to know things are false.
This is the epistemology of all those possessed by an ideology. If you are certain of the truth, your ears are closed to truth. May God have mercy on your soul

>>17479825
But why should that matter? I really don't see why.

>>17479882
Christians say that the bible is divinely inspired, if they're story is just a copy from an older source then it invalidates that claim about their faith

>>17479715
>Abraham was real

>>17474221
are you new to books? are you new in this world?
cause you sound like you are

>>17479956
>doesn't realize that this is a thinly veiled bait thread meant to rile christcucks up
first week?

>>17480001
oh yeah im so riled up
grr
can hardly contain myself

>>17480009
if you'd bothered to skim the thread you'd have seen that it had some desired effect

>>17479888
Do they? I still don't see why that should necessarily contradict it, however I don't think too many Christians would say that the entirety of the Bible is inspired as opposed to some things the prophets said or whatever. There is far too much variety in the kinds of writings that it contains.

>>17480043
you are correct, i didnt bother
you are probably correct that there are angery Christians in here
perhaps then you may be correct on OPs intentions, even still not making my initial message wrong

those stories are similar because they are archetypes and they speak of things far too deep to easily have discussion about.. doesn't change the fact that the OP is a faggot if he didn't know that; doesn't change the fact that I'm not if he did

>>17479347
>I thought you were completely against metaphysics
Here’s news for you: outside of philosophy, nobody gives a shit about metaphysics. Researchers certainly don’t. There are no Thomistic research programs going on in physics right now. No faculty on any university outside of philosophy and theology are looking into the useful applications of the Second Way. The only people who care about Thomism are other Thomists, and being a Thomist is mostly just a circle jerk over Aquinas’ face.

Outside of the religion it defends, virtually nobody cares about religious ‘philosophy’, because it doesn’t provide us with any useful predictions by which we can assess its accuracy. You guys are basically to knowledge and research what psychic investigators are to detective work, dopey timewasters with nothing useful to say

>>17478449
Revolt Against the Modern World

>>17474221
The Gilgameshian flood occured in circa first quarter of fourth millennium before Christian era, as a disruptive consequence of the usurpation of Saturn/Sabaoth by Jupiter/Satan, by way of contract between Ialdabaoth, and Satan; the Noachian flood transcurred circa second quarter of third millenium before Christian era, most probably due to electromagnetic contact with Venus, and certainly by way of Ialdabaoth.

>>17474221
The Gilgameshian flood occurred in circa first quarter of fourth millennium before Christian era, as a disruptive consequence of the usurpation of Saturn/Sabaoth by Jupiter/Satan, by way of contract between Ialdabaoth, and Satan; the Noachian flood occurred in circa second quarter of third millenium before Christian era, most probably due to electromagnetic contact with Venus, and certainly by way of Ialdabaoth.

>>17479835
I didn't say it was Christian, I say it came from a Christian to go against what you said that Christians don't like to read or think. For someone who says that, you have no problem in accepting an idea that came from the mind of a Christian, one that dislike reading and thinking.

>>17480174
thanks bud, very cool

>>17480081
>Here’s news for you: outside of philosophy, nobody gives a shit about metaphysics.
This explains a lot of trends in modern society.

The Arc Story predates Gilgamesh too.

https://newrepublic.com/article/116287/babylonian-tablet-describes-noahs-ark-pre-bible

4,000 years old, some of the earliest writing.

>>17480556
Which are still not as cringe inducing as LARPing in Medieval armor while Sabaton’s The Last Stand plays in the background

>>17480174
Meds, etc. etc.

>>17480072
>even still not making my initial message wrong
you believe that making bait threads is the mark of a neophyte?
>doesn't change the fact that the OP is a faggot if he didn't know that
he's a faggot regardless, it was a shit thread no matter what he wanted, although what he wanted is clear

>>17480792
well, who else can you refer to as a noob if not someone like him?

on the more serious note, i suppose i agree with you.. he is hardly worth the time - my intentions were somewhat hopeful, though i hate hope as such

>thread about Mesopotamia (and the Old Testament) becomes christfagging
sigh...

>>17476143
Based

>all the tards trying to explain it away
Its pretty clear there was a big flood at some point
The stories are too similar, too many people have it, and even ancient peoples could distinguish between a local flood and something bigger

>>17478254
>is a copy of older ones from Gilgamesh?
They could both have been derived from a single, much older source.

>>17478780
>You hate modern science, because it shows us a large and mysterious universe, you are christian because you reject religion.
this is the most cringe-worthy line I have ever heard. Science has becoming a religion of pretending we know much more than we do. Science isn't and will never be the be all end all.

>>17481938
they probably weren't

>>17478746
why are americans like this? What is it about the american spirit that continually brings them back to their deranged puritan theology?

>>17480081
>There are no Thomistic research programs
Actually, there are. Thomism plays a huge role in post- and de-colonial theology. Most theology degrees essentially use Aquinas and Augustine to demonstrate the absurdity of a creator deity and the need for Social Justice. Not even memeing, go look up the dissertations for any major university's theology program, 99% of it will be "Using Aquinas to help de-structuralize the post-inter-a-structural impacts of racism on LGBTBBQP+ Black Jewish Womyn of Colour".

>>17480067
The Bible being a factual document, divinely inspired or literally word for word correct, is necessary for Christianity as it's existed essentially since Aquinas. It's totally possible to be a Christian and reject this idea, but then that's rejecting the Christianity that 99.99% of Western Christians hold as "Christianity". At that point, you're basically just becoming an Odinist or Hindu or whatever other shit by proxy.

>>17478254
Sumerians copied the Jews, all languages descend from Biblical Hebrew, read Augustine, case closed.

>>17482624
Imagine believing this

>>17483465
double baiting is still baiting

>>17482617
>divinely inspired or literally word for word correct
You are talking out of your ass. Those are two different things. The Church does not hold that the Bible is "word for word" correct.

>>17476358
No, its a story told by Plato about a story that his uncle heard about from scholars in egypt about an ancient civilisation. Try reading the original before dismissing it.

>>17474221
>God sends flood
>the chosen people of God describe the precceding and subsequent events correctly
>some pagans also descended from the boat guy, like everyone else on Earth now, write a garbled account of the same event
What's the issue supposed to be here?

someday i will choke the dumb bitch

>>17474221
Almost like something actually happened

>>17483631
It not his uncle, a character in one of his dialogues who's uncle heard it via a long chain of people going back to someone who heard it in Egypt. Even within the fictional dialogue Plato goes out of his way to make the story essentially a rumour.

>>17484834
Did Noah take 2 of every animal onto the ark, or 7 pairs of the clean animals and 2 pairs of the unclean?

>>17474221
If you research it, the Biblical account of the flood is the only one where the ark is hydro-dynamically stable and is well planned enough to be feasible.

>checkmate atheists

>>17474221
it's proof the deluge happened, you just can't make that shit up

>>17479661
what do you honestly think is more likely, that humans around the world have a similar experience of and reaction to uncontrollable water which becomes imbued with meaning or that that there was a worldwide flood that somehow left no physical evidence behind?

>>17485827
the ark is the body of christ, and has the same dimensions as a human body scaled up to massive scale. same as the temple of solomon

/x/ tier thread

>>17486972
The first case is more likely, but that is why I said this
> I assume that either it came from the end of the Ice Age, which is why many people of different places of the world has their own version of this myth
>or perhaps because for all those people millenniums ago the whole world was all they knew about and any kind of flood they had to face was like the whole world was suffering from it.

>>17482541
Or they could. The problem doesn't change, saying that both were derived from a single source or that Noah's ark is a copy of Gilgamesh's tale means the same: Noah's ark is not original.

>>17474345
For several thousand years, as sea level was slowly rising, people slowly moved away from their coastal settlements, leaving behind ruins, maybe some stone structures like monoliths. Centuries later, other people came along and saw remnants of old settlements sticking out from the water along the coastline, and not knowing the age of things figured a single calamity had drowned them, and then the waters had receded again. Now any such ruins are hundreds of feet below the surface.

>>17475803
I like the idea of it being Aquinas more

>>17475299
This is very interesting, can you recommend any books that deal with this subject?

>>17474345
List of catastrophic events that pre-historic man knew about:
1) floods
2) fires

>>17476358
>Atlantis is fictional

>>17478891
>are all of you wankers only just noticing that there are similarities between different mythologies?
exactly
>have none of you bastards heard of the collective unconscious
nevermind you're a retard

>>17483518
>The Church does not hold that the Bible is "word for word" correct.
You, alongside most Christians, do, however. And that's the problem: you do, so whenever someone comes along and provides even a single piece of evidence that the Bible is "wrong" (whatever that means) about something, the whole thing falls apart.

>>17474221
Egypt doesn't have a deluge myth afaik. I am a Christian and I don't think this directly impacts the story. It could have been a localized flood hence why Mesopotamian cultures have deluge stories but distant cultures do not. You have to consider what "world" would have meant to people at the time. With their ability to travel, your "world" would have been a lot smaller than our "world."

>>17492771
Yeah a localised flood where the water was higher than mountains. That explanation doesn't fly, the story as we have it is mythology. Floods are commonplace along river system like in Mesopotamia, I don't see the need to hypothesise a particular flood to inspire the myths.

>>17481932
I honestly think that there was a flood back in the days when humanity numbered in the hundreds, maybe low thousands
A large regional flood could realistically have taken out a yuge chunk of the entire population at that stage, if we were yet to spread out much geographically ( maybe just people who had migrated out of Africa, from what I understand all non-africans descend from two or three small groups who left the continent)

>>17485276
Yes.

>>17493571

>>17475803
Lol was gonna say, "how did I miss that one?"

>>17478593
KJV deuterocanon exists dummy, most prots now use copies without it but that doesn't change that it was a part of the translation and many older copies have it

>>17493571
It's possibly around the Ice Age, only 10000 yrs ago

>itt /lit/ discovers cultural influences

bump

what is gopher wood, bros?