Noah, Utnapishtim, and the Flood

[Scarletprayers]

AK, do you mean exposing instead of exploiting???

[apothanein kerdos]

AK, do you mean exposing instead of exploiting???

Actually, for once, it wasn't a typo.

I believe the Bible purposefully exposes the faults of all the characters so that it can exploit these faults as well. It shows that any good they did was not in their own strength. Unlike the Greek characters in Homer's Iliad that were noble at heart (or their wrong actions were somehow justifiable), or other mythical books that put an emphasis upon man, the Bible has no problem showing that man is in desperate need of God because he is fallen. This is a form of exploiting what is there - it's bringing to light a weakness for your own benefit.

[Scarletprayers]

AK, do you mean exposing instead of exploiting???

Actually, for once, it wasn't a typo.

I believe the Bible purposefully exposes the faults of all the characters so that it can exploit these faults as well. It shows that any good they did was not in their own strength. Unlike the Greek characters in Homer's Iliad that were noble at heart (or their wrong actions were somehow justifiable), or other mythical books that put an emphasis upon man, the Bible has no problem showing that man is in desperate need of God because he is fallen. This is a form of exploiting what is there - it's bringing to light a weakness for your own benefit.

I get cha!

[roselady]

Ya know I dont really know, but I do know Noah spent a long ole time on that boat, can ya say sea sickness? Glad it dont rain like that anymore, I would never find an umbrella that would hold up. Guess I am grateful for that rainbow ya know? A little promise he made us ya know?

Dear friends of worthy,

I posted the original topic in Worthyboards on asking if anyone had done any research on Utnapishtim and Noah, and the parallel stories...wondering if they could be the same person...

...My room mate brought this up, and he knows that I am on Worthyboards. In going back through those posts, many of them were extremely rude and SOOOO NOT ME!

My room mate, apparently got into worthyboards one night for the sole purpose of causing trouble, and evidently he offended some people. FresnoJoe, you especially deserve a sincere apology for my room mate's behavior. Know that I have put a lock on my computer and don't let him use it. Again, I apologize for his comments.

That being said, I was wondering if anyone knows any information on the similarities, and the possibility that Noah and Utnapishtim could be one and the same. I am a Christian and DO believe in the authority of Scripture, but I do like to pair up that Scripture with the other Histories...I've been doing some research recently on the Creation story in Genesis and the Native American spirituality of the Great Manito, the Evil Manito, and the first humans. The parallels are AMAZING.

Anyways, does anyone have any comments or information? Evidently Tubal Cain had some interesting points as well.

Thank you all for your understanding and have a blessed Easter (Feast of the Resurrection of our Lord, I should say).

The difference between the two seems subtle, but is actually vast. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, where we find this story, it is presented in a mythical fashion. After the flood occurs Utnapishtim and his wife are granted immortality. In other words, he is almost deified and looked upon as holy and amazing. Noah, on the other hand, is shown to be a normal man and a sinner. It shows him getting drunk and naked soon after the flood subsides.

In other words, Noah is not deified or even shown to be that great of an individual - he is shown as someone who survived a tragic event and sinned after...and also died. The Bible is unique in that its heroes all have flaws, and it has no problem exploiting these flaws.

[Floatingaxe]

roselady...

Ya know I dont really know, but I do know Noah spent a long ole time on that boat, can ya say sea sickness? Glad it dont rain like that anymore, I would never find an umbrella that would hold up. Guess I am grateful for that rainbow ya know? A little promise he made us ya know?

You are too cute!

[CaritateDei]

Utnapishtim was a mythological figure, so why would that have any bearing whatsoever on the real and living Noah? The relation of the story of the flood would have been passed down through the tribes after Noah, and due to the dispersion of peoples, the story would change a bit, due to the grapevine effect, but this entity, Upnapishtim is totally fictional anyway.

Not all Christians take the flood narrative as a literal/historical account. Regardless, understanding other ancient Near Eastern literature helps us to understand the Bible better. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods want to destroy man because man is too noisy. Utnapishtim is saved by a god that is sympathetic to man. In the Bible God destroys the earth because of the wickedness of man and saves Noah and family because they are righteous. Such a comparison reveals an entirely different theology between the two cultures.

Being that Gilgamesh was recorded first, could it be that the story of Noah was adapted to bring more to believe in the one true God? Is there any archaeological evidence of a flood that destroyed the entire world, or was it just the land between the Tigris and Euphrates? Could they all simply be allegorical?

Utnapishtim means "the one who saves." Noah, the one who was righteous. Could they be the same person, only told with different names?

[Ovedya]

Utnapishtim was a mythological figure, so why would that have any bearing whatsoever on the real and living Noah? The relation of the story of the flood would have been passed down through the tribes after Noah, and due to the dispersion of peoples, the story would change a bit, due to the grapevine effect, but this entity, Upnapishtim is totally fictional anyway.

Not all Christians take the flood narrative as a literal/historical account. Regardless, understanding other ancient Near Eastern literature helps us to understand the Bible better. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods want to destroy man because man is too noisy. Utnapishtim is saved by a god that is sympathetic to man. In the Bible God destroys the earth because of the wickedness of man and saves Noah and family because they are righteous. Such a comparison reveals an entirely different theology between the two cultures.

Being that Gilgamesh was recorded first, could it be that the story of Noah was adapted to bring more to believe in the one true God? Is there any archaeological evidence of a flood that destroyed the entire world, or was it just the land between the Tigris and Euphrates? Could they all simply be allegorical?

Utnapishtim means "the one who saves." Noah, the one who was righteous. Could they be the same person, only told with different names?

No.

[CaritateDei]

Utnapishtim was a mythological figure, so why would that have any bearing whatsoever on the real and living Noah? The relation of the story of the flood would have been passed down through the tribes after Noah, and due to the dispersion of peoples, the story would change a bit, due to the grapevine effect, but this entity, Upnapishtim is totally fictional anyway.

Not all Christians take the flood narrative as a literal/historical account. Regardless, understanding other ancient Near Eastern literature helps us to understand the Bible better. For example, in the Epic of Gilgamesh the gods want to destroy man because man is too noisy. Utnapishtim is saved by a god that is sympathetic to man. In the Bible God destroys the earth because of the wickedness of man and saves Noah and family because they are righteous. Such a comparison reveals an entirely different theology between the two cultures.

Being that Gilgamesh was recorded first, could it be that the story of Noah was adapted to bring more to believe in the one true God? Is there any archaeological evidence of a flood that destroyed the entire world, or was it just the land between the Tigris and Euphrates? Could they all simply be allegorical?

Utnapishtim means "the one who saves." Noah, the one who was righteous. Could they be the same person, only told with different names?

No.

Is there any way to know this answer through reason, or is it simply through faith in the "pleasant poetry of Genesis?" - Inherit the Wind

[Ovedya]

Are there any "Utnapishtists" around to argue for it?

[apothanein kerdos]

Dear friends of worthy,

I posted the original topic in Worthyboards on asking if anyone had done any research on Utnapishtim and Noah, and the parallel stories...wondering if they could be the same person...

...My room mate brought this up, and he knows that I am on Worthyboards. In going back through those posts, many of them were extremely rude and SOOOO NOT ME!

My room mate, apparently got into worthyboards one night for the sole purpose of causing trouble, and evidently he offended some people. FresnoJoe, you especially deserve a sincere apology for my room mate's behavior. Know that I have put a lock on my computer and don't let him use it. Again, I apologize for his comments.

That being said, I was wondering if anyone knows any information on the similarities, and the possibility that Noah and Utnapishtim could be one and the same. I am a Christian and DO believe in the authority of Scripture, but I do like to pair up that Scripture with the other Histories...I've been doing some research recently on the Creation story in Genesis and the Native American spirituality of the Great Manito, the Evil Manito, and the first humans. The parallels are AMAZING.

Anyways, does anyone have any comments or information? Evidently Tubal Cain had some interesting points as well.

Thank you all for your understanding and have a blessed Easter (Feast of the Resurrection of our Lord, I should say).

The difference between the two seems subtle, but is actually vast. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, where we find this story, it is presented in a mythical fashion. After the flood occurs Utnapishtim and his wife are granted immortality. In other words, he is almost deified and looked upon as holy and amazing. Noah, on the other hand, is shown to be a normal man and a sinner. It shows him getting drunk and naked soon after the flood subsides.

In other words, Noah is not deified or even shown to be that great of an individual - he is shown as someone who survived a tragic event and sinned after...and also died. The Bible is unique in that its heroes all have flaws, and it has no problem exploiting these flaws.

Just reposting my reply since it answers your questions CaritateDei...

I should add that when looking to find the correct history on something, we generally look for the less sensationalized form of history. In other words, if we read a historical account that said Alexander the Great killed 10,000 Persians by himself and never died but rose into immorality, we would have a sensationalized version of Alexander the Great. Assume we come across a document about him, that accounts for the same event, but is written 200 years after the first document and says, "Alexander the Great led about 5,000 troops against 10,000 Persians and won a great victory. He fought in the battle and at one point was by himself, killing many Persians. He later died on his track home from a fever."

Which account would you believe? By your own standard from the Noah vs. Gilgamesh debacle, you would have to accept the former account because it was written earlier than the latter account. However, almost all historians would accept the latter because it is less sensationalized and more plausible.

When we apply this standard to this debate, Noah's story comes out the winner.