Tablet Gives New Details on Noah's Ark

[JustMeSee]

British Museum: Prototype for Noah's Ark Was Round - ABC News

A recently deciphered 4,000-year-old clay tablet from ancient Mesopotamia — modern-day Iraq — reveals striking new details about the roots of the Old Testament tale of Noah. It tells a similar story, complete with detailed instructions for building a giant round vessel known as a coracle — as well as the key instruction that animals should enter "two by two."

Interesting.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Figuring that the bible was pretty detailed on the size of the vessel, I am not shocked. Religions steal from each other all the time.

 

[Seipai]

I have seen that article elsewhere. It is a Babylonian account of the flood, and as you know the ancient Hebrews lifted their story from that myth. It also describes the boat, or coracle, as being circular. Of course since many different people lived close to water there are many different flood stories. For those that actually use boats the boat used always matches the local boats.

So it is not really a story about Noah's Ark, it is more about where the Noah's Ark story came from.

 

[EternalDragon]

I have seen that article elsewhere. It is a Babylonian account of the flood, and as you know the ancient Hebrews lifted their story from that myth. It also describes the boat, or coracle, as being circular. Of course since many different people lived close to water there are many different flood stories. For those that actually use boats the boat used always matches the local boats.

So it is not really a story about Noah's Ark, it is more about where the Noah's Ark story came from.

Babylon came after the Flood so it's the other way around.

 

[Seipai]

Babylon came after the Flood so it's the other way around.

There was no flood so how could Babylon have come along later?

 

[EternalDragon]

There was no flood so how could Babylon have come along later?

Noah predates Babylon.

 

[46AND2]

Noah predates Babylon.

The story of Noah came after Babylon. Noah's existence has no attestation, other than the story...which came after Babylon.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by EternalDragon

Noah predates Babylon.
​

The story of Noah came after Babylon. Noah's existence has no attestation, other than the story...which came after Babylon.

Dear Readers, ED is correct since Noah arrived some 10k years ago.
Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Many people confuse Babel, the first Human city on our Planet, with Babylon, which came thousands of years AFTER Noah arrived.

Babel was in Northern Mesopotamia and Babylon was in Southern Mesopotamia, and built by the Sumerians some 6,000 years ago. God Bless.

In love,
Aman

 

[46AND2]

Originally Posted by EternalDragon

Noah predates Babylon.
​

Dear Readers, ED is correct since Noah arrived some 10k years ago.
Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Many people confuse Babel, the first Human city on our Planet, with Babylon, which came thousands of years AFTER Noah arrived.

Babel was in Northern Mesopotamia and Babylon was in Southern Mesopotamia, and built by the Sumerians some 6,000 years ago. God Bless.

In love,
Aman

You entirely missed my point. And I know the difference between Babel and Babylon.

 

[classicalhero]

I have seen that article elsewhere. It is a Babylonian account of the flood, and as you know the ancient Hebrews lifted their story from that myth. It also describes the boat, or coracle, as being circular. Of course since many different people lived close to water there are many different flood stories. For those that actually use boats the boat used always matches the local boats.

So it is not really a story about Noah's Ark, it is more about where the Noah's Ark story came from.

A boat described in this tablet would not be a sea worthy boat, but the one described in the Bible is an excellent ship for simply floating in rough seas and the general ratios are used nowadays on those big ships that transport cargo. You can see which account is taken from the other. The Bible's description is accurate, whereas other accounts have inaccuracies in it.

 

[CabVet]

A boat described in this tablet would not be a sea worthy boat

Can you demonstrate this use math and physics?

 

[46AND2]

A boat described in this tablet would not be a sea worthy boat,

This is only your assumption. You have nothing to back this up. Even the article stated that THEY DIDN'T KNOW if it was seaworthy or not. But they are going to find out.

but the one described in the Bible is an excellent ship for simply floating in rough seas and the general ratios are used nowadays on those big ships that transport cargo. You can see which account is taken from the other. The Bible's description is accurate, whereas other accounts have inaccuracies in it.

Actually, it is questioned whether a WOOD boat those dimensions would be seaworthy.

You have no basis to claim that the Bible is more accurate here than the other accounts. You just REALLY want it to be so.

 

[MarkT]

The story of Noah came after Babylon. Noah's existence has no attestation, other than the story...which came after Babylon.

Let's just say everyone in the ancient world believed the flood did happen.

 

[Strathos]

Let's just say everyone in the ancient world believed the flood did happen.

Well, everyone in the general area of where it did happen (the middle east/Mesopotamia). The evidence seems to support the local flood hypothesis.

 

[MarkT]

Well, everyone in the general area of where it did happen (the middle east/Mesopotamia). The evidence seems to support the local flood hypothesis.

The Bible says all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered by water and all flesh died that moved upon the earth. So the local hypothesis is wrong.

The point is the people who wrote about the flood believed it happened.

 

[Seipai]

The Bible says all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered by water and all flesh died that moved upon the earth. So the local hypothesis is wrong.

The point is the people who wrote about the flood believed it happened.

Why do you say that? The Bible has been wrong hundreds of times why do you think it is correct this time when there is no evidence that supports the worldwide flood claim.

 

[Strathos]

The Bible says all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered by water and all flesh died that moved upon the earth. So the local hypothesis is wrong.

The point is the people who wrote about the flood believed it happened.

Technically if you look at the original Hebrew it says all of the "eretz" was covered, that is a word that is more properly translated as "land" rather than "earth", as in, the local land. You can believe a global flood if you want but as the geological evidence all indicates a flood on that scale didn't happen, and I don't believe God would deceive us by planting all of that false evidence in His creation, I personally subscribe to the local flood theory.

 

[MarkT]

Technically if you look at the original Hebrew it says all of the "eretz" was covered, that is a word that is more properly translated as "land" rather than "earth", as in, the local land. You can believe a global flood if you want but as the geological evidence all indicates a flood on that scale didn't happen, and I don't believe God would deceive us by planting all of that false evidence in His creation, I personally subscribe to the local flood theory.

Consider the meaning of the word 'firmament'. It is a ceiling separating one floor from another. The floor of one apartment, for example, is the ceiling of the apartment below it. So look at the physical evidence. If there was a floor separating the waters from the waters, we should see it. And we do.

We see the continents, the shape of the continents, the way the continents fit together. Science talks about drift, but there is a better explanation. We see the continental shelf under 300 meters of water. We see how the crust drops off abruptly.

So consider this, the ancient seas were no more than 300 meters deep. The sea floor separated the waters above the floor from the waters below the floor. You can call it a firmament. You can call it a crust, a thin crust separating the waters above from the waters below.

The waters below the floor were deep, even miles deep. When the waters from below the floor came to the surface, the entire earth was flooded for a 150 days until the earth's crust could not support the weight of the waters which were now above the crust.

Then the ancient sea floor collapsed under the added weight of the water that had come from below the sea floor. Therefore the ancient sea floor, the crust between the Americas and the continents of Europe/Africa fell into the deep, displacing the waters and creating the North and South Atlantic oceans.

There would have been immediate run off as water fell into the deep once again and dry land appeared.

That's my theory so far. You might also think there was land between the continents, not just a sea, or maybe there was one big continent with seas where the continental shelf is evident.

 

[CabVet]

Let's just say everyone in the ancient world believed the flood did happen.

No, since there is no evidence for that, let's just not say it.

 

[CabVet]

Consider the meaning of the word 'firmament'. It is a ceiling separating one floor from another. The floor of one apartment, for example, is the ceiling of the apartment below it. So look at the physical evidence. If there was a floor separating the waters from the waters, we should see it. And we do.

We see the continents, the shape of the continents, the way the continents fit together. Science talks about drift, but there is a better explanation. We see the continental shelf under 300 meters of water. We see how the crust drops off abruptly.

So consider this, the ancient seas were no more than 300 meters deep. The sea floor separated the waters above the floor from the waters below the floor. You can call it a firmament. You can call it a crust, a thin crust separating the waters above from the waters below.

The waters below the floor were deep, even miles deep. When the waters from below the floor came to the surface, the entire earth was flooded for a 150 days until the earth's crust could not support the weight of the waters which were now above the crust.

Then the ancient sea floor collapsed under the added weight of the water that had come from below the sea floor. Therefore the ancient sea floor, the crust between the Americas and the continents of Europe/Africa fell into the deep, displacing the waters and creating the North and South Atlantic oceans.

There would have been immediate run off as water fell into the deep once again and dry land appeared.

That's my theory so far. You might also think there was land between the continents, not just a sea, or maybe there was one big continent with seas where the continental shelf is evident.

Some imagination you have there my friend. Got evidence for any of that?