Noah's Ark

Johan

Active member
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE OF THINGS UNSEEN! How boring would this thread and the Bible be if Everything was explained leaving no questions? Can You imagine??
 

Tennessee R

New member
I can't even start to imagine. There would really not be any need for the Archaeology section.
Good point, Indy Johan.
 

OldawanKenobi

New member
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE OF THINGS UNSEEN!

So now faith requires evidence?Interesting.So,in order to believe in something,that 'something' must first prove its existence?


How boring would this thread and the Bible be if Everything was explained leaving no questions?

I would agree with that statement.I would add to it that interpretations are fine so long as they are based on available evidence.I'm not out to prove or dis-prove the accuracy of the Bible,but I still have not seen any archaelogical/geological evidence of Noah's flood.The evidence 'should' be there,and should be easy enough to find,but it isn't.
 

Doc Savage

New member
OldawanKenobi said:
I have no agenda either way,but shaky evidence is shaky evidence.

In the spirit of archaeology, what is your definition of shaky evidence? This isn't a confrontational gesture...just one intellectual to another.
 

OldawanKenobi

New member
No problem,I don't mind answering the question at all.In this particular case,I find that there are quite a few holes in the Noah story.

-The fact that we know that the flood myth was prevalent in the Middle East for some time before the Hebrews adopted it.In the 'Epic of Gilgamesh',the boat was referred to as a 'barque',so we can see that even the terminology was borrowed.I think it's fine as a moral lesson,but as history?Borrowed history at that?

-The construction of the ark itself.Does it seem likely that one small family could have built the size boat they would have needed in order to house that many animals in the short amount of time that they had?

-I guess the biggest hole is that there's just not enough geological evidence to support the theory of such a flood's occurence.I know I say that a lot,but it just seems like the most obvious(and easiest)way to prove the story's validity,but,again,the evidence just is not there.
 

Doc Savage

New member
OldawanKenobi said:
-The fact that we know that the flood myth was prevalent in the Middle East for some time before the Hebrews adopted it.In the 'Epic of Gilgamesh',the boat was referred to as a 'barque',so we can see that even the terminology was borrowed.I think it's fine as a moral lesson,but as history?Borrowed history at that?

Just because it was recorded first by others doesn't mean it was told first by others.

-The construction of the ark itself.Does it seem likely that one small family could have built the size boat they would have needed in order to house that many animals in the short amount of time that they had?

If I'm not mistaken, they had 120 years, ample time to build an ark of those dimensions. By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

-I guess the biggest hole is that there's just not enough geological evidence to support the theory of such a flood's occurence.I know I say that a lot,but it just seems like the most obvious(and easiest)way to prove the story's validity,but,again,the evidence just is not there.

I would direct you to www.drdino.com, as Dr. Hovind explains all the geological data much better than I can. Various valid scholars agree that the geological upheaval that created this lovable planet's topography and substrata is better explained by one cataclysmic event rather than eons of chaos. After evaluating the research and conclusions of the ilk of Dr. Kent Hovind and Dr. Walt Brown, I'm inclined to agree.
 

Tennessee R

New member
Oldawankenobi said: "-The construction of the ark itself.Does it seem likely that one small family could have built the size boat they would have needed in order to house that many animals in the short amount of time that they had?"


Genesis 5: "And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth"

Genesis 7: "And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth."

This indicates that Noah might have had more than 75 years to build, and prepare the Ark, and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)


I have done a search on the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, and have not found Barque, or bark (Another spelling for the same). Could you point me out these things? (I'm supposing you are talking about Tablet 11?)
 
I

Indy_Jones88

Guest
here in Kansas, there is a Church. This Church is built to look like Noah's Ark. It is supposedly the same size and shape as the one in the bible. It is interesting to drive by and look at and think about.

(Just a little info I thought I might throw in, You guys should come and visit to see it.)
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I believe I have seen a picture of that church.

Here is an interesting exerpt from the Book The Genesis Flood
How many animals needed to be brought aboard?

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

But, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals, far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens.
Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the dinosaur or the elephant, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 361 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. The Ark had plenty of space."

Intetesting to think about it from a fesability point of view, none the less...
 

Tennessee R

New member
Very good, PaleHorse.
Yes, they would not have needed to carry a cocker spaniel, and a chiuaua, and a german shepherd.
Just a couple of 'dogs'.

Microevolution has proven to work (The small genetic changes, such as crossing a german shepherd with a doberman), although there is no proof of macroevolution ever working (A monkey turning into a man, or crossing an ostrich with a cow, and getting a cow with wings.)

As Kent Hovind would say, very similar to what was in your post, PaleHorse,
all you would need are babies for transporting in the Ark.
Just be sure to get a pink one and a blue one. ;)
 

OldawanKenobi

New member
I tried the dr.dino link,but it wasn't working for me(?)Thanks for posting it,DS.I would like to check that site out.

'Just because it was recorded first by others doesn't mean it was told first by others'

If this were a philosophy or literature class,I would agree with you.However,since this is dealing with the science of archaeology,we have to go by the evidence that we have.Assumptions based on that evidence may be reasonable,but assumptions based on 'what if' are little more than guesswork,unless new evidence is found.


'...and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)'

Nor does it say that he did.If we are going to take the Bible as a historical document,then we have to take it literally,or not at all.From the material,we have to assume that he had no help(beyond his family).


By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

The general tendency is for life expectancy to improve over time,so by that,the descendants of Noah(i.e.,you and I)should be able to outlive him by a number of years.Why don't we?

I have done a search on the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, and have not found Barque...

I have the Penguin Classics version,page 108.


As Kent Hovind would say...all you would need are babies for transporting in the Ark

I'm assuming that both you and Hovind are qualified zoologists?Just out of curiosity,were(are)any of the individuals consulted in PaleHorse's post qualified zoologists?Or naval engineers for that matter?
 
Last edited:

whipem

Member
This regards Pale Horse's last post, where it was suggested that there were approximately 8,000 species at the time. The Bible says in Genesis 2:19 (NIV) , "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man [Adam] to seewhat he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature that was its name." I'm focusing on the last sentence. In my opinion, there would have been a much lesser number of species at the time, because it would be rather difficult to name 8,000 species (unless you disregard insects, arachnids, etc., but there would still be fewer species), unless a great amount of microevolution took place in that time. With that said, Pale Horse, I am not trying to correct you, I am just offering a theory. Corrections, anyone?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
OldawanKenobi said:
'...and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)'

Nor does it say that he did.If we are going to take the Bible as a historical document,then we have to take it literally,or not at all.From the material,we have to assume that he had no help(beyond his family).


By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

The general tendency is for life expectancy to improve over time,so by that,the descendants of Noah(i.e.,you and I)should be able to outlive him by a number of years.Why don't we?
[/B]

I like your style, test and retest.

I will pick two things to discuss with you, old wise one.

First, I applaud your insight concering the reading between the lines of the Bible. I don't agree with it. People do it all the time. But one thing that is very important to remember is that the Old testament was translated from the Hebrew language, which is very similar to the East Asian languages in that it deals with pictures and symbols. It differs from the New testament language which is Greek. It is far more structured on logic and concrete images.

Know that will help a bit when it comes to understanding how the Bible is translated. But that doesn't mean you can read what wasn't there. Noah and his family was commissioned by God to build the ark. The reason given is because he was the only man righteous on the Earth.

Why would unrighteous men sentanced to death help a righteous one? What is written is easy enough to understand on a very literal level.

The Second part will take a bit more from you. It asks that A) You believe in the Fall of man (to the point of discussion) B) that the Earth's axis tilted to the current 22 degree, and C) that the effects of sin and the commission of God to Abraham that the number of a mans days be 120 years. If you won't allow any of these premises into the arguement, I won't be able to go further with my discussion....
 

Tennessee R

New member
Pale Horse said:
I like your style, test and retest.

I will pick two things to discuss with you, old wise one.

First, I applaud your insight concering the reading between the lines of the Bible. I don't agree with it. People do it all the time. But one thing that is very important to remember is that the Old testament was translated from the Hebrew language, which is very similar to the East Asian languages in that it deals with pictures and symbols. It differs from the New testament language which is Greek. It is far more structured on logic and concrete images.

Know that will help a bit when it comes to understanding how the Bible is translated. But that doesn't mean you can read what wasn't there. Noah and his family was commissioned by God to build the ark. The reason given is because he was the only man righteous on the Earth.

Why would unrighteous men sentanced to death help a righteous one? What is written is easy enough to understand on a very literal level.

The Second part will take a bit more from you. It asks that A) You believe in the Fall of man (to the point of discussion) B) that the Earth's axis tilted to the current 22 degree, and C) that the effects of sin and the commission of God to Abraham that the number of a mans days be 120 years. If you won't allow any of these premises into the arguement, I won't be able to go further with my discussion....


Me (Tennessee):
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure who this is addressed to.
I will repost the origional posters above the messages:



OldawanKenobi said:
I tried the dr.dino link,but it wasn't working for me(?)Thanks for posting it,DS.I would like to check that site out.


Me (Tennessee):
Try www.drdino.com

Doc Savage said:
'Just because it was recorded first by others doesn't mean it was told first by others'

Oldawan said:
If this were a philosophy or literature class,I would agree with you.However,since this is dealing with the science of archaeology,we have to go by the evidence that we have.Assumptions based on that evidence may be reasonable,but assumptions based on 'what if' are little more than guesswork,unless new evidence is found.

Me (Tennessee):
'This indicates that Noah might have had more than 75 years to build, and prepare the Ark, and the Bible says nowhere that he did not hire help. (i.e. anyone will work for money)'

Oldawan:
Nor does it say that he did.If we are going to take the Bible as a historical document,then we have to take it literally,or not at all.From the material,we have to assume that he had no help(beyond his family).

Doc Savage:
By the Biblical account, they lived a lot longer in those days.

Me (Tennessee):
The Bible plainly states how long major people lived, and it starts at about 500 to 900 years. Right after the flood, life spans dropped to about 100 to 150 years. Probably because of different atmospheric conditions after the flood, although this is theory.

Oldawan:
The general tendency is for life expectancy to improve over time,so by that,the descendants of Noah(i.e.,you and I)should be able to outlive him by a number of years.Why don't we?

Me (Tennessee):
I have done a search on the entire Epic of Gilgamesh, and have not found Barque...

Oldawan:
I have the Penguin Classics version,page 108.

Me (Tennessee):
Thank you.

Me (Tennessee):
As Kent Hovind would say...all you would need are babies for transporting in the Ark

Oldawan:
I'm assuming that both you and Hovind are qualified zoologists?Just out of curiosity,were(are)any of the individuals consulted in PaleHorse's post qualified zoologists?Or naval engineers for that matter?

Me (Tennessee):
I'm not. Kent was a science teacher before he started the seminar tours. You can probably e-mail him, and he can give you references about this, and I'm not sure about APaleHorse.
 

Pilot

New member
OldawanKenobi stated that "Biblical archaeology is often not really about archaeology at all. More often, it's about people trying to validate their own faith/beliefs, sometimes at the expense (and abuse) of archaeology." I have found that this subject isn't a one-way street. Just as often, there are people who are trying to advance their own pre-conceived notions/disbeliefs concerning Biblical archaeology. They don't believe that there was a universal flood, that the Red Sea parted, etc. and they tend to ignore any evidence to the contrary. I don't necessarily find these people to be open-minded either. For example, Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code is widely supported by some scholars, even though it is a work of fiction. On the other hand, there are a number of Biblical scholars who have refuted the claims of his book. Theories are nice to speculate over, but quite often, no one really knows, and we should say so. Many times I have wondered that the facts and evidence that some archaeologists and paleontologists speak about with such certainty is simply a misreading or misinterpretation of the facts.
 

Johan

Active member
Hey guys let me in here! You said we have to "assume his family built it because it doesnt say other wise"...Um...thats a contradiction...like you said it doesnt say either way so NO we CAN"T make any assumptions. Anyway, if this was Noah's mandate by GOD don't you think God would make sure it get's done. I mean Comon!! It's God. "Through Him all things are possible". "God shall supply all your needs according to his riches in Glory". I mean how did the Israelites deystroy the city of Jericho just by marching around it and blowing trumpets. God doesnt and never has offered full fledged evidence...that would leave us with nothing to search for...it would take the mystery out of it...IT WOULD REQUIRE US NOT TO HAVE FAITH"
 

Doc Savage

New member
Two schools of thought...one takes the Bible and tries to make it fit science. The other takes science and makes it fit God's Word. Both take an equal amount of faith. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't thought this thing through. Personally, I've tried them both, and my choice makes the most sense to me. I pray for others who make this choice to do it with wisdom and understanding, not just knowledge.
 

mra

New member
My two cents:
Seashell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world.
According to tree rings, the oldest tree is 4300 years old.
At the current growth rate, measured over 20 years, the oldest reef is less than 4200 years old.
Based on the current rate of expansion, the oldest desert is 4000 years old.
If the human population doubled every 147 years, to get 6 people to multiply to 6.44 billion, it would take 4410 years.

I realise these examples are based on assumptions, but they are reasonable assumptions, and show that humans starting over from 4400 years ago is not without evidence.

......how fast WAS that calf going?.....
 

Tennessee R

New member
mra said:

......how fast WAS that calf going?.....

Ha ha. So you are a city boy.....Oops, I mean aware of Kent Hovind too? :)
Only people who have been to one of Kent's seminars, or have his tapes know what the above means. ;)

Anyway, good points. And of course, the 4500 years or less explains the date of the flood.
 
Top