Introduction Throughout history the myth of a world covering flood covering the earth has been known by many cultures and disregarded by scientists or realists. recently, the idea of a flood covering parts of the world, evidence found in soil erosion, has been more accepted in the scientific community. One main reason many would consider it true is the widespread of one idea in multiple cultures around the world; all varying in details but having the main focus of a flood. We all have heard stories passed down from generation to generation each time slightly different from the last. two different people can tell the same event, and have two different stories; Which is why many people don’t trust documents or stories from as 700 BCE., there
…show more content…
because a form of deity(s) wanted to wipe out wickedness, but saw compassion for one man. what happened to them?Both men were given specific instructions to build a cube like boat, almost mirror images of one another, which had an ingenious specific design to where Collins explains “It would be almost impossible to tip over—even if the Ark were somehow tipped over 60°, it could still right itself”. Both took their families -although in Gilgamesh he took more than immediate family - and a certain amount of animals.both have extremely similar conclusions, showing that they both land and make offerings that are pleasing and both were presented differently with a rainbow; granted one represents a promise of never harming the earth again and the other is somewhat of celebration by accident and …show more content…
Ararat and Mt. Nisir are about 300 miles apart”(Lorey), yet they are two different areas in which the stories were circulating.The main difference is what separates the realities of the two, the saviors of the men. Yahweh was a main religion for the Hebrews then and even if a culture didn’t believe in it, they knew of Him. Any religion that has multiple gods over certain elements lean much more on the mythological theories, which shows the first is be more believable. Gilgamesh divides the anger, compassion, and celebration between several impersonal celestial beings and Genesis was focused on one humanlike God.
Conclusion
The theory that one of these stories came first and that the other plagiarized is still up for debate, but there is no evidence to show for it yet. Whether or not one is complete truth and the other handed down from a misinterpretation is not clear either. There are so many parallels and they both originate from the same geographic area that one can speculate they are the same story; later on adapting to the cultural setting in which they were
because a form of deity(s) wanted to wipe out wickedness, but saw compassion for one man. what happened to them?Both men were given specific instructions to build a cube like boat, almost mirror images of one another, which had an ingenious specific design to where Collins explains “It would be almost impossible to tip over—even if the Ark were somehow tipped over 60°, it could still right itself”. Both took their families -although in Gilgamesh he took more than immediate family - and a certain amount of animals.both have extremely similar conclusions, showing that they both land and make offerings that are pleasing and both were presented differently with a rainbow; granted one represents a promise of never harming the earth again and the other is somewhat of celebration by accident and …show more content…
Ararat and Mt. Nisir are about 300 miles apart”(Lorey), yet they are two different areas in which the stories were circulating.The main difference is what separates the realities of the two, the saviors of the men. Yahweh was a main religion for the Hebrews then and even if a culture didn’t believe in it, they knew of Him. Any religion that has multiple gods over certain elements lean much more on the mythological theories, which shows the first is be more believable. Gilgamesh divides the anger, compassion, and celebration between several impersonal celestial beings and Genesis was focused on one humanlike God.
Conclusion
The theory that one of these stories came first and that the other plagiarized is still up for debate, but there is no evidence to show for it yet. Whether or not one is complete truth and the other handed down from a misinterpretation is not clear either. There are so many parallels and they both originate from the same geographic area that one can speculate they are the same story; later on adapting to the cultural setting in which they were