Noah's Ark

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sounds like they were just making it up as they were going along.

Obviously, that is what a non-believer would think.  

But no one can read Jesus' and Peter's comments and honestly say they were trying to convey that the story of the Flood was simply an analogy.  They treated it just as literally as the other stories they cited.

The bible's own interpretation of the Flood is that it was a literal event, even though it is symbolic of other areas of doctrine.

(It must be noted for the record that I have absolutely no reason to argue that it is literal if I didn't believe the bible treated it as literal.  I don't belong to a church that would kick me out for believing it is merely an analogy.   I simply find no basis that the bible treats the account as merely an analogy, in fact, I find much evidence to the contrary.)

[Joe Republic]

You're quite the fan of the deus ex machina, aren't you?

Just sick and tired of people making unsubstantiated assumptions.

So are we, believe me.

[John Dibble]

And no, I don't buy into all the bloody conspiracy theories websites that may cover Noah's ark.  I believe solid scientific evidence is required if I'm going to make a factual statement.  And right now I'm making such a statement: there is a huge bloody boat up on Mount Ararat.

Then give me a credible source. Even the majority of the Christian sites I'm reading on the subject aren't claiming the ark has been found on Ararat, only that it is speculated.

[afleitch]

There were not 11 billion people at that time as farming methods could not support them (we can hardly support 6 billion people now) There is no fossil or bone evidence to suggest anyone has lived to be 900 years old. Women only produce enough ovum to sustain fertility until their 40's and 50's. Whether or not they lived for 900 years they could not have had multitudes of children.

[Richard]

And how could they feed those 11 billion people with primitive farming methods?

Who said anything about primitive farming methods?

You're quite the fan of the deus ex machina, aren't you?

How the hell is that deus ex machina?  I didn't even mention God.  No wonder Mcleans' says what it does.

[Everett]

There were not 11 billion people at that time as farming methods could not support them (we can hardly support 6 billion people now) There is no fossil or bone evidence to suggest anyone has lived to be 900 years old. Women only produce enough ovum to sustain fertility until their 40's and 50's. Whether or not they lived for 900 years they could not have had multitudes of children.

Indeed. Who knows if it was actually 900 years, literally? There could have easily been some kind of translation error. Try replacing 900 "years" with 900 "months"; that might seem more reasonable, at least nowadays.

[Gabu]

And how could they feed those 11 billion people with primitive farming methods?

Who said anything about primitive farming methods?

You're quite the fan of the deus ex machina, aren't you?

Just sick and tired of people making unsubstantiated assumptions.

...says the person who is claiming that Noah's Ark was entirely real, that Noah's Ark has been found, that people lived to 900 years of age, that there used to be 11 billion people on Earth before the flood...

And how could they feed those 11 billion people with primitive farming methods?

Who said anything about primitive farming methods?

You're quite the fan of the deus ex machina, aren't you?

How the hell is that deus ex machina?  I didn't even mention God.  No wonder Mcleans' says what it does.

It doesn't have to literally involve God to be a deus ex machina.  That answer just seemed to be rather, shall we say, convenient.

[Richard]

And no, I don't buy into all the bloody conspiracy theories websites that may cover Noah's ark.  I believe solid scientific evidence is required if I'm going to make a factual statement.  And right now I'm making such a statement: there is a huge bloody boat up on Mount Ararat.

Then give me a credible source. Even the majority of the Christian sites I'm reading on the subject aren't claiming the ark has been found on Ararat, only that it is speculated.

I don't care what Christian websites think or say or claim.

Start by reading Graham Hancock's Fingerprint of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth's Lost Civilization.  And in case you're wondering about his credentials, Graham Hancock was formerly Eat Africa correspondent for The Economist and a correspondent for the London Sunday Times.  In this book, he discusses older civilizations.  He draws conclusions, but in a very general way that you will realize once you read it.  He isn't there to indoctrinate you with his views, but rather, he wants to raise questions.

Next read Jonathan Gray's Dead Men's Secrets.  I know this author personally.  This book is not a narrative; it contains exhibits of "misplaced" archeological evidence.  For example: aluminum belt buckles were discovered in a very old sealed Chinese tomb.  Western civilization didn't discover aluminum until the 1800s, much less understood how to work with it.  In another example, the temple of Ba'albek had stones quarried (they knew it was quarried because several miles away there is a half-quarried stone still in the quarry) and they were over 700 tons each.  The largest crane today have issues with 200 tons.  No known technology can construct buildings with stones weighing 700 tons.

These are two introductory books.  After that, I have many more to recommend.

...says the person who is claiming that Noah's Ark was entirely real, that Noah's Ark has been found, that people lived to 900 years of age, that there used to be 11 billion people on Earth before the floor...

Those are theories, and I'm not about to make a case for that.  To do so will require several hundred pages.  I'm giving summaries and simple alternastives to some of the arguments.  The UK homo guy proposed "primitive farming methods" and I countered with an alternative.

[Richard]

There were not 11 billion people at that time as farming methods could not support them (we can hardly support 6 billion people now) There is no fossil or bone evidence to suggest anyone has lived to be 900 years old. Women only produce enough ovum to sustain fertility until their 40's and 50's. Whether or not they lived for 900 years they could not have had multitudes of children.

Indeed. Who knows if it was actually 900 years, literally? There could have easily been some kind of translation error. Try replacing 900 "years" with 900 "months"; that might seem more reasonable, at least nowadays.

Once, twice, perhaps thrice, but not more than 10 times over.

[Joe Republic]

For example: aluminum belt buckles were discovered in a very old sealed Chinese tomb.  Western civilization didn't discover aluminum until the 1800s, much less understood how to work with it.

Since when has Ancient China been considered 'Western civilization'?  They also invented fireworks, you know, but actually kept making them so that they could claim the credit for it.

In another example, the temple of Ba'albek had stones quarried (they knew it was quarried because several miles away there is a half-quarried stone still in the quarry) and they were over 700 tons each.  The largest crane today have issues with 200 tons.  No known technology can construct buildings with stones weighing 700 tons.

Sounds like a mystery like the Egyptian pyramids, or Stonehenge.

Those are theories, and I'm not about to make a case for that.  To do so will require several hundred pages.  I'm giving summaries and simple alternastives to some of the arguments.  The UK homo guy proposed "primitive farming methods" and I countered with an alternative.

Classy.

[J-Mann]

I'm sure that something happened -- there are a great many flood myths throughout historical cultures, such as the Gilgamesh Epic of the great deluge.  This event was probably big enough to affect many cultures throughout the Mesopotamian region, and a flood that devastated the fertile crescent is not out of the question.  So far as Western writing is concerned, that would have been "the world" at the time that we traditionally date Noah as living in, so the stories are probably not out of line calling it a worldwide flood.

In terms of Noah, I think you detractors are trying to take the story a little too seriously.  In the Bible, it effectively makes a point (as someone earlier pointed out that parables do), and perhaps all it amounted to in reality was a farmer gathering his livestock (maybe two of each so as to start new herds, flocks, etc.) and family into a hastily built boat in order to escape a flood, which subsequently wiped out his villiage (and possibly all of the surrounding villiages and/or most of Mesopotamia). 

When the floodwaters receded, the family started afresh, fully vindicated by a powerful God who wiped out all other sinners.  The ancients interpreting events in that way is not out of the ordinary, nor is it surprising that other similar stories could have come from similar survivors around the region in the form of different flood epics.  That such powerful tales survived via oral tradition is hardly novel.

A literal Biblical interpretation is quite unlikely, given that there are up to 1.75 million distinct species (and likely many more back then).  You all make good points -- a true interpretation of the Noah's Ark story doesn't take into account the genetic diversity required to restart populations or the farming methods that would be needed to supply such a society (or the one that apparently sprang from the remnants of Noah's family).

I've seen the evidence for archaeological discoveries, and as far as I've seen or heard, the evidence is sketchy -- both sides make claims for and against.  This, I believe is a picture of the boat or boat-shaped structure that Richius is referring to.  It's doesn't exactly scream "ARK" to me, but I'm sure there's more research to be done.

And afleitch -- you said it: thank God I'm Catholic and can appreciate the story and accept that God was behind a flood without taking everything in the Bible so damn literally.  The folks 6000 years ago just didn't have the capacity to describe things literally, nor did they have writing methods to write it all down till much later.  A lot gets flubbed up in oral tradition.

[afleitch]

alternastives to some of the arguments.  The UK homo guy proposed "primitive farming methods" and I countered with an alternative.

Cheers Richius..very robust.

[KEmperor]

Regarding the first book, I clicked on your link and read the reviews.  One of them made a very obvious point if you think about it:

"if crustal displacements DO happen as frequently as the author suggests, then, do to latitude change of certain locations, any star aligments to dates like 10500 BC or 15000 BC are completely invalid. If crustal displacement theory is correct, then these star aligments are not. Two of Hancock's longest-running central themes are mutually incompatible right from the start. "

[Emsworth]

Numerous cultures across the world have a great flood myth. Floods appear in the Bible, the Quran, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the Hindu Puranas, Greek mythology, Norse mythology, Inca mythology, and so forth.

Obviously, this does not prove that the whole world was actually consumed by a flood at any particular time, and it certainly does not prove that the flood was caused by God. However, it might indicate that there is probably an historical basis for a flood story of some kind. Perhaps the end of the Ice Age, and the related rise in sea-levels, led to the rise of these legends?

[Gabu]

In terms of Noah, I think you detractors are trying to take the story a little too seriously.

It would be hard to debate with those who take it seriously if you didn't take it seriously in your rebuttals.

[J-Mann]

Perhaps the end of the Ice Age, and the related rise in sea-levels, led to the rise of these legends?

Very interesting hypothesis.

[J-Mann]

In terms of Noah, I think you detractors are trying to take the story a little too seriously.

It would be hard to debate with those who take it seriously if you didn't take it seriously in your rebuttals.

Haha...touché.

[Yates]

The logical consequences of the story of Noah's Ark are astounding if it is indeed literally true:

- There are hundreds of thousands of species of animal.  Noah would have had to build his ark large enough to accomodate two of everything.  If we reject the theory of evolution, this includes such things as two elephants, two rhinoceroses, and all of the acquatic life present on the planet, including all of the whales (and presumably he would need to build a tank big enough to hold all of the acquatic life, since he needed to keep them alive for forty days and forty nights).

- Noah would have had to get all of the animals.  This includes all of the acquatic animals that live on the ocean floor.  Noah must have built one hell of a diving suit to accomplish this feat.  Noah would also have had to capture two lions, two cheetahs, two bears, etc. without having the animals kill him.

- Noah and his family would have to monitor every single carnivorous species twenty-four hours a day to ensure that nothing ate anything else.  This includes all of the acquatic life.  I suppose that diving suit will come in handy here as well.

- Somehow, God caused it to rain so much that all of the water-dwelling animals would die as well.  I'm not sure how this one would work.

- What if there were, say, a Himalayan guru living on a mountain some 1,000 meters above sea level?  It would take no less than 5.11 x 10²² liters of rain water to drown this person.  That's 51,100,000,000,000,000,000 liters.  That's an average rainfall of 1.28 x 10¹⁹ liters per day.  That's an awful lot of rain, and I'm not even touching on how long it would take the sun to naturally evaporate that much water.

Of course, this could all be explained away by saying "God allowed it to happen", but if God could do all of the above, why did he need Noah to go to all the trouble to make the Ark?  Couldn't he just have snapped his fingers and have all of the bad people on the world disappear?

That is perhaps the most intelligent argument I have seen regarding this issue.

[Richard]

For example: aluminum belt buckles were discovered in a very old sealed Chinese tomb.  Western civilization didn't discover aluminum until the 1800s, much less understood how to work with it.

Since when has Ancient China been considered 'Western civilization'?  They also invented fireworks, you know, but actually kept making them so that they could claim the credit for it.

You're missing the bigger picture.  This is what happens when I don't write proper essays on the topic.  Let me rephrase that: Technology to work with aluminum isn't supposed to  have been available to the ancient Chinese, yet they worked it.  They later lost that ability, and only recently regained it again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sounds like a mystery like the Egyptian pyramids, or Stonehenge.[/quote]
Ah yes.  The pyramids.  Some people still believe the Egyptians built them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classy.
[/quote]
His name is hard to remember.

[Richard]

Regarding the first book, I clicked on your link and read the reviews.  One of them made a very obvious point if you think about it:

"if crustal displacements DO happen as frequently as the author suggests, then, do to latitude change of certain locations, any star aligments to dates like 10500 BC or 15000 BC are completely invalid. If crustal displacement theory is correct, then these star aligments are not. Two of Hancock's longest-running central themes are mutually incompatible right from the start. "

Crustal displacement is not discussed to a large extent in this book.  He mentions it.  He also clearly states that he does not know whether to believe this theory or not; afterall, it is Hapgood's theory.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

As an agnostic, I'm open to anything, but the story of Noah's Ark really seems to be a mythological interpretation of the floods many of the early river valley civilizations would experience during large rainstorms.  In fact, an almost exact copy of the story of Noah can be seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh, written around the same time as the Old Testament.  Not only that, but it was certainly impossible for one man to bring all the species of the Earth onto one boat, considering that no one in the Middle East knew anything about the western continents. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A massive flood of some type probably did happen. Do I believe in the story literally? No. One rather obvious hole in it: What did the carniverous animals eat while on board?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As an agnostic, I'm open to anything, but the story of Noah's Ark really seems to be a mythological interpretation of the floods many of the early river valley civilizations would experience during large rainstorms.  In fact, an almost exact copy of the story of Noah can be seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh, written around the same time as the Old Testament.  Not only that, but it was certainly impossible for one man to bring all the species of the Earth onto one boat, considering that no one in the Middle East knew anything about the western continents. 

Noah didn't bring the animals to the ark, the animals came to Noah:

Gen 7:8-9 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

One rather obvious hole in it: What did the carniverous animals eat while on board?

Hole closed...all animals ate plants at that time:

Gen 1:29-30 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That works if you choose to reject all science and believe in fundie literalist garbage that flies in the face of all science and logic today, along with that evolution never happens and that the Earth is 6000 years old. Luckily my church is enlightened enough not to.