Noahs ark

[korn1]

What is your view on this? Could it be possible? Thanks in advance for answers and sorry if this wasted your time.

 

[The Nihilist]

It did happen, but his name wasn't Noah.
Gilgamesh flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zebra1552]

What is your view on this? Could it be possible? Thanks in advance for answers and sorry if this wasted your time.

Yes, possible. Almost anything's possible.

 

[jayem]

Possible that a handful of people could have built a watertight boat and survived a local flood.

Not possible that they could have collected 2 (or 7) members of every living animal species--which in addition to 4500 types of mammals would have to include 1,000,000+ species of insects, 200,000+ other invertebrates, 8000 species of birds, 8000+ species of reptiles, and 5000+ species of amphibians. And all living widely scattered over the world. Not to mention all the unicellular organisms like protozoa. Of which there may be 10s of millions. And how would marine fish and invertebrates survive the ocean's salinity being so greatly diluted by all that extra water? How would plant species survive the all of the land being deluged to the highest mountains?

Not a chance this is real.

 

[Chesterton]

What is your view on this? Could it be possible? Thanks in advance for answers and sorry if this wasted your time.

If it's possible that an almighty God exists, then certainly Noah's Ark is possible. A person who argues against the logistics involved is just saying "I don't believe in God".

 

[Zebra1552]

Possible that a handful of people could have built a watertight boat and survived a local flood.

Not possible that they could have collected 2 (or 7) members of every living animal species--which in addition to 4500 types of mammals would have to include 1,000,000+ species of insects, 200,000+ other invertebrates, 8000 species of birds, 8000+ species of reptiles, and 5000+ species of amphibians. And all living widely scattered over the world. Not to mention all the unicellular organisms like protozoa. Of which there may be 10s of millions. And how would marine fish and invertebrates survive the ocean's salinity being so greatly diluted by all that extra water? How would plant species survive the all of the land being deluged to the highest mountains?

Not a chance this is real.

Hi, I have a dumb question for you. Where does it say they collected every single species of animal? I don't remember reading that in Genesis.

 

[jayem]

Hi, I have a dumb question for you. Where does it say they collected every single species of animal? I don't remember reading that in Genesis.

Genesis 7:1-4:

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (NIV) (emphasis mine)

If you take it literally, the phrase "every kind" means just that. Even if we exclude invertebates (and there's no reason that we should) that still leaves thousands of species, from all over the world that 4 men and their wives and children have to collect in 7 days. An absolute impossibility, unless you believe in supernatural intervention.

 

[Penumbra]

If it's possible that an almighty God exists, then certainly Noah's Ark is possible. A person who argues against the logistics involved is just saying "I don't believe in God".

Not necessarily. One can believe in god and still think the story is bogus.

If an omnipotent god wanted to wipe mankind from the planet, he could instantly and effortlessly make every human vanish without some complex scheme to flood the planet except for some ark and kill all of the animals in the process and then hide the evidence.

In the story, Noah is tasked with much of the logistics. He builds an ark of specified volume (which is not even remotely close to the volume it would need to be), and then has to collect them all into the Ark as they come to him within seven days. Then for around five months he would have had to deal with tons of daily animal food, waste, fresh water, and so forth which would take thousands of people to do (no to mention food and water would be hard to come by). There's no reason to employ Noah and his family if they are only going to do 0.000001% of the work anyway. It's an old Mesopotamian myth that makes for an interesting story but nowadays it shouldn't be taken as history.

Hi, I have a dumb question for you. Where does it say they collected every single species of animal? I don't remember reading that in Genesis.

Yeah it says every animal.

Besides the alternative is that only a tiny subset of animals were saved, and then somehow hyper-evolved into the millions we have today within a few thousand years and then left contrary evidence so nobody knows.

Genesis 7:1-4:

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (NIV) (emphasis mine)

If you take it literally, the phrase "every kind" means just that. Even if we exclude invertebates (and there's no reason that we should) that still leaves thousands of species, from all over the world that 4 men and their wives and children have to collect in 7 days. An absolute impossibility, unless you believe in supernatural intervention.

It does say that the animals came to him. He didn't have to travel to Australia, but instead somehow Kangeroos would have had to transverse some oceans and the continent of Asia to get to him, and then somehow all get back to the right places around the world and leave no evidence when the flood ends.

-Lyn

 

[Zebra1552]

Yeah it says every animal.

Besides the alternative is that only a tiny subset of animals were saved, and then somehow hyper-evolved into the millions we have today within a few thousand years and then left contrary evidence so nobody knows.

Um... a few thousand years? Where are you getting THAT figure?

Genesis 7:1-4:

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." (NIV) (emphasis mine)

And that's the problem with the NIV. It doesn't include any of the nuances that you find in the original language, or even in something as simple as a lexicon. Still, it says the point was to keep their 'various kinds alive', NAS reads 'to keep offspring alive'. This begs the question, how many kinds of animals were on earth at the time? Is it in the thousands? Hundreds? And how do we come to that figure?
Furthermore, how many of those animals existed in places that were unaffected by said flood? Were their places unaffected, if the point was to wipe out all of sinful mankind? There are many questions to which we don't have the answers and we make assumptions to justify our various positions.

If you take it literally, the phrase "every kind" means just that. Even if we exclude invertebates (and there's no reason that we should) that still leaves thousands of species, from all over the world that 4 men and their wives and children have to collect in 7 days. An absolute impossibility, unless you believe in supernatural intervention.

Well, gee, God told them to do it, so it would make sense that there was supernatural intervention. But why does it have to be every single animal? Because your lovely English translation says so?

 

[Penumbra]

Um... a few thousand years? Where are you getting THAT figure?

People who suppose Noah's Ark is literal (and world-wide instead of local) tend to believe that the Earth is literally a few thousand years old, or they believe in gap theory. They usually conclude <10000 years based on genealogies listed in the Bible.

Besides if Noah's around during this time, then the event is less than a few hundred thousand years old, unless Noah isn't a homo sapien.

And that's the problem with the NIV. It doesn't include any of the nuances that you find in the original language, or even in something as simple as a lexicon. Still, it says the point was to keep their 'various kinds alive', NAS reads 'to keep offspring alive'. This begs the question, how many kinds of animals were on earth at the time? Is it in the thousands? Hundreds? And how do we come to that figure?
Furthermore, how many of those animals existed in places that were unaffected by said flood? Were their places unaffected, if the point was to wipe out all of sinful mankind? There are many questions to which we don't have the answers and we make assumptions to justify our various positions.

Well, gee, God told them to do it, so it would make sense that there was supernatural intervention. But why does it have to be every single animal? Because your lovely English translation says so?

You're using belittling language to address the fact that most people don't study dead or dying languages to learn the nuances of ancient myths?

Going by English translations, the story seems to clearly imply that the flood was world-wide, unless the English translations are so badly butchered that every other word is totally wrong. It's not like changing one world will change the scope.

-It talks about God being angry that he had made mankind
-It says he will wipe them from the face of the earth
-It says he will remove creatures from the ground and birds from the air
-God says to Noah he's going to put an end to "all people"
-It says he'll destroy all life under the heavens
-And then as pointed out, it says he will take every animal
-It says all the high mountains were covered by water

The author seems to clearly imply that he imagines this flood being worldwide, unless virtually every English word in Genesis is wrong. But if that's the case the book is worthless anyway, right?

-Lyn

 

[Chesterton]

Not necessarily. One can believe in god and still think the story is bogus.

Sure anyone can think it's bogus, but if you want to argue it's impossible, you have to argue that there is no God.

 

[Zebra1552]

People who suppose Noah's Ark is literal (and world-wide instead of local) tend to believe that the Earth is literally a few thousand years old, or they believe in gap theory. They usually conclude <10000 years based on genealogies listed in the Bible.

Great... and what if their calculations are wrong, or, better yet, what if the genealogies aren't of the same family line and don't give ages?

Besides if Noah's around during this time, then the event is less than a few hundred thousand years old, unless Noah isn't a homo sapien.

How so?

You're using belittling language to address the fact that most people don't study dead or dying languages to learn the nuances of ancient myths?

Yes, because people somehow get this idea that just because they read an English translation it's somehow 100% what the author intended... not to mention the cultural differences. Then they expect me to listen to their claims that it's wrong? Not very logical.

Going by English translations, the story seems to clearly imply that the flood was world-wide, unless the English translations are so badly butchered that every other word is totally wrong. It's not like changing one world will change the scope.

-It talks about God being angry that he had made mankind
-It says he will wipe them from the face of the earth
-It says he will remove creatures from the ground and birds from the air
-God says to Noah he's going to put an end to "all people"
-It says he'll destroy all life under the heavens
-And then as pointed out, it says he will take every animal
-It says all the high mountains were covered by water

The author seems to clearly imply that he imagines this flood being worldwide, unless virtually every English word in Genesis is wrong. But if that's the case the book is worthless anyway, right?

Unless the flood itself was real and many of the details were merely meant to illustrate a point- like how sinful people had become. There are many possibilities, yet people like to take one of two sides on the flood- I see no point in taking one side or the other, because the evidence doesn't lead to one side or the other.

 

[Penumbra]

Great... and what if their calculations are wrong, or, better yet, what if the genealogies aren't of the same family line and don't give ages?

Then they'd be totally and completely wrong and would look silly for over-analyzing a bronze-age myth. (I'm not a creationist. You seemed surprised that I'd mention the few-thousand-year-old-creation-idea as though it were some fringe concept that some Christians have. It's pretty strong at least in America and has groups that believe it elsewhere as well.)

How so?

Because homo sapiens have only been around for a few hundred thousand years, unless you're taking the myth over concepts of geology, biology, and so forth.

Yes, because people somehow get this idea that just because they read an English translation it's somehow 100&#37; what the author intended... not to mention the cultural differences. Then they expect me to listen to their claims that it's wrong? Not very logical.

You haven't addressed any of the points I listed. You're also creating a strawman by saying that people here are assuming it's 100% what the author intended, which nobody claimed. I pointed out a long list of things why it appears to imply a world-wide flood, so if it's even, say, 70% what the author intended, it still is a strong indicator that he meant a world-wide flood.

Unless the flood itself was real and many of the details were merely meant to illustrate a point- like how sinful people had become. There are many possibilities, yet people like to take one of two sides on the flood- I see no point in taking one side or the other, because the evidence doesn't lead to one side or the other.

Depends what evidence you're talking about. If we're talking geological evidence, then yes, it does lean to one side.

It's probably impossible to know why it was written and whether the author intended it as a literal story or as an example story. Most stories written during that time were passed by oral tradition so it's probably not as though the author crafted it purely out of his imagination anyway.

-Lyn

 

[jayem]

Sure anyone can think it's bogus, but if you want to argue it's impossible, you have to argue that there is no God.

Not quite. You can believe there is a God, but just argue that the Genesis story is a man-made myth unrelated to God.

 

[Penumbra]

Not quite. You can believe there is a God, but just argue that the Genesis story is a man-made myth unrelated to God.

I get what he's saying now.

He's agreeing that one can believing in God and yet not believe in this ark story, but is saying that if one directly says that the story is "impossible" then they are not believers in a god. (Or at least a powerful god. I mean, such a god to make this possible would have to be able to manipulate spacetime pretty drastically.)

I'd still argue that if a powerful god exists, he'd have a million-and-one less ridiculous ways to render humanity nearly extinct, but the word "impossible" wouldn't be applicable there.

-Lyn

 

[Zebra1552]

Then they'd be totally and completely wrong and would look silly for over-analyzing a bronze-age myth. (I'm not a creationist. You seemed surprised that I'd mention the few-thousand-year-old-creation-idea as though it were some fringe concept that some Christians have. It's pretty strong at least in America and has groups that believe it elsewhere as well.)

It is not a strong concept among those who are familiar with critical thinking and logic, however, nor do I think it should be.

Because homo sapiens have only been around for a few hundred thousand years, unless you're taking the myth over concepts of geology, biology, and so forth.

Consider me illiterate when it comes to 'age of the earth' nonsense.

You haven't addressed any of the points I listed. You're also creating a strawman by saying that people here are assuming it's 100% what the author intended, which nobody claimed. I pointed out a long list of things why it appears to imply a world-wide flood, so if it's even, say, 70% what the author intended, it still is a strong indicator that he meant a world-wide flood.

I addressed them perfectly. I asked you a what if. This thread is about possibilities, correct? Not probabilities or certainties.

Depends what evidence you're talking about. If we're talking geological evidence, then yes, it does lean to one side.

According to an ideologically based system of determining fact from fiction. Sorry, but I'm skeptical of both side's assertions. I thought I made that clear.

It's probably impossible to know why it was written and whether the author intended it as a literal story or as an example story. Most stories written during that time were passed by oral tradition so it's probably not as though the author crafted it purely out of his imagination anyway.

-Lyn

What is emphasized most in the story? The animals, the people, or the fact that people messed up? The OT has a theme just like any other book. That theme doesn't change much throughout the entire OT. Man sins, God corrects. Ignoring this theme for this story seems particularly foolhardy.

 

[70x7]

Kind and species are different, kinda disheartened the atheists missed that one because that is such a cornerstone for thier ideology.
You can't use "facts" of one view to use as a foundation for truth opposing another view. That makes zero sense. Im saying the human age issue. Noah very well could only be 4000ish years old and there is evidence to support a young earth theory. Saying humans are millions (pinky in mouth) of years old, is based off a theory as well so using that assumption in an attempt to disprove 6000 years is an argument of bias opinion and not anything concrete.
There was nothing "local" about the flood as evidence is seen all over the globe or strata layers and closely knit fossils thousands of miles apart (my favorite is how the leaves of plants implanted themselves in rock over millions of years instead of dissolving). So to answer the original question...YES ABSOLUTLEY!! Noahs Ark was possible and did exist.

 

[exotic walrus]

I don't think I have touched on a single issue to do with Christianity since being here so with all reserve I say the following...

If you believe in the story of Noah's Ark and by extension that it explains the world's distribution of species you are a f delusional idiot but then again this post follows the claim that there is evidence for young earth theory so nothing is really surprising on these forums.

 

[Muad Dib]

I reckon we could do it nowadays, ofc with all the animals frozen and no guarantees that they will ever wake up.

It is an old Sumerian myth though, from the epic of Gilgamesh, was a good read and Gilgamesh is a pimp. But its not really worth the effort of trying to reconcile it with a modern scientific world view.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Is it "possible?" Maybe.

Does the evidence we have today tell us that it happened? No.