So to sum up:
Well that’s converted me … :smack:
Nonsense! Terry Pratchett has confirmed that there’s only one giant turtle, swimming through space. 
Well, the Sumerian King List says Dumuzid the Shepherd lived for 36,000 years so that’s good enough for me!
Worship Inanna!
Yes. And who then wrote that you hadn’t contradicted my assertion.
Well, it was a quickly composed remark, and inexact. “Supposed” can mean “thought by a representative number of interested people to do x…” And in this case, although truthfully, I had no specific meaning beyond my own understanding when I first made the remark, this is the meaning that should be taken. Poly correctly listed Cambell as one source for this understanding, but the discussion goes at least as far back (in modern times) as Frazer’s The Golden Bough. Pinning down the origins of most myths is rather difficult (even with modern urban myths), but most started from oral tradition and were tweaked over time by the story tellers.
There are a bunch of different types of myths, aren’t there? Creation myths, hero myths, “just so” type myths, etc. Every culture has 'em, and they all exist in a mythological construction shared inside the culture (and therefore instantly recognizable and familiar). Many myths revolve around the deeds and dealings of the major characters who/which inhabit the mythology, whose characteristics are distilled from archetypical human and animal characteristics. They tend to illustrate those archetypes in an accessible way, and thus to show some ‘basic truths’ about the human condition.
The creation myths are generally tied up in a religious mythology, and because of that are perhaps taken more seriously than other kinds of myth simply because the users of religious mythology are heavily invested into that system of belief. Even so, many (probably most) religions recognize the allegorical quality of their own mythology.
Poly - I’d be delighted to have a discussion about this with you, prr, dropzone and whoever else is interested. (Even the OP if (s)he shows up again.) I’m travelling a bit today, but I could join back in tonight and tomorrow in this or any subsequent thread.
I’m Christian. I was raised a literalist, although I’m not now. It was difficult for me to learn how to deal with stories like, say, the Flood. I wondered, if one part isn’t literally true, how can any of it mean anything?
I got over that with a study of how and why the Bible got put together, who wrote, edited, and redacted it.
Take that Flood story for example. LOTS of cultures have universal flood stories, and some would say this means Scripture is just so much fiction as well. But it was written that way to make a point. At the time it was finally written down, after being kicked around as oral history, the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. It wasn’t particularly onerous, they just couldn’t go home. As a minority the were in danger of being assimilated. Think Pilgrims in the Netherlands. So to keep their own culture and religion distinct they had to make a point as to(Quoting Tevye) “who they were, and who God expected them to be.”
So the Flood story in the Bible differs in some points from other similar tales. First off, the ark is not a ship, guided by people. It’s a box with no method of guidance by it’s passengers. This symbolized the dependence of humaity on God. After the waters have receded, Noah built an altar and made a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God. God notes and approves, but, unlike the Babylonian pantheon for example, he isn’t dependent on Noah’s worship. The Babylonian gods gather around the uplifted smoke and say, basically, “Oh boy, we have somebody to worship us again, we’re gonna get fed and not waste away!”
It’s the differences in the story that make the point, not the similarities. From it we learn how we stand in relationship to God, and it honestly doesn’t matter if the story is literally true.
Or at least this is how I view things now.
I thought it was obvious… I read it in the Bible
On a strictly suprficial level, since Noah had two of each animal, what exactly did he sacrifice? Could this explain the disappearance of the dinosaurs - they were saved from the flood but sacrificed afterward?
“Sorry, T-Rex, God needs a sacrifice. I guess I could burn one or both of you - either way, your species is finished.”
Hijack: why is it that whenever anyone clones dinosaurs, they either start with carnivores or have lots of them fairly soon? Why not get various species of cute cuddly ones first, instead of raptors and Rex?
It wasn’t two of every animal:
I’m pretty sure most of us around here are familiar with that term! :dubious:
Those who aren’t newbies know to read the rules of a board before posting.
Just saying.
I’m assuming that there is rose-colored glass
in this copper window. 
Where are you, girl?
If you are a college student, then many of us were dealing with trolls before you ever used a computer. Due to the inflammatory nature of troll accusations, they are forbidden in every Forum on the SDMB except the BBQ Pit.
Do not accuse other posters of being trolls in Great Debates (or elswhere outside the Pit).
[ /Moderating ]
Dude, how long were they cooped up in the Ark? And don’t you guys prefer the sacrifice of calves and such? It was the firstborn calf. Anyway, the dinos got it from the cosmic rays that got in after all those stratospheric clouds condensed into rain. That’s why the post-Noachic prophets didn’t live so long. Nobody can hold up 969 years under all those cosmic rays, y’know.* I mean, DUH.
Interesting! So, which animals were considered “clean” and which were considered “unclean”?
Were clean animals those considered edible?
It’s in Leviticus 11:3 I think.
It’s best portrayed at www.thebricktestament.com
Brick Testament is the entire bible portrayed through
Lego sets and pieces. Search for “Kosher”.
Probably because Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts (for the most part), as opposed to the bible, which is at best an anthology of fairy stories.
Why bother preserving unclean animals? I mean, if Noah and family were Jewish, all their descendents would be Jewish, so who would be eating the unclean ones?
Who eats bald eagles now? And yet we consider it worthwhile to preserve them.
Not everybody does, clearly, or they wouldn’t be endangered. Besides, that in no way explains why Noah would gather up and seek to preserve swine, which by all indication have no biblically acceptable use.