I got a question about Noah and the flood.

4Real,

I have been staying on tiopic, until recently. When Toltec, decided he would go insane. I feel the need to defend myself, as I'm being attacked for thing's I haven't even done. Toltec, was asked to provide proof of something he had said. He failed to do so, despite being asked more than once. As a result of my impatience, and rudeness, he has decided to say I'm a child abuser, a lier, a con man (in regard's to me and JTL being the same), a socio-path, and much more. All without any refrence of thing's I've posted that would give him this impression.

The child abuser part.

He must've misread, misunderstoood, or didn't even bother reading my post's, this is the only way he would have been able to say what he said.

Socio-path...

He claim's this due to my enjoyment of game's geared at my age level. I find it very odd.

Lier,

I'm not sure where he is getting this from.

Con man,

He think's me and JTL are the same people, based on his evidence that we alway's agree, and were both warned at the same time awhile back. I was warned for a reason, but according to Toltec, JTL was warned for no reason, at the same time as me. This show's total lack of knowledge of what he's talking about, as we were both warned for the same thing!
He also should have asked a MOD if we were the same before posting such nonsense.

He has said all these thing's without much, or any refrence at all, to anything that give's him that impression.

Hi 4Real the problem with that is that it would have to be a very large planet. Consider that even if the moon were to come closer the effect would not result in such an event.

Toltec,

And an astroid, which is a hell of alot smaller than our own moon, would have the devastating effect's you described? If our own moon came close, say... within 5,000 mile's. You don't think that would have much of an affect at all? Considering the moon is the cause of our tide's? The largest astroid in our solar system, Ceres, if it passed by, wouldn't even have near as much affect as the moon would at that range. Now add a planet, that would be truly devastating.

4Real: I'd have to get the numbers from an astronomer, but a "near miss" by a planet wouldn't be a "near miss." As soon as it got close enough to affect the earth, the gravity fields of BOTH planets would be pulling them together. You'd have the bigger one sucking off the smaller one's atmosphere before they crashed, for one thing.

Byrd,

It depend's on how fast the rouge planet is travelling. If it's going fast enough, it can go past us, but it will knock us out of orbit too...

James, I don't think that many planets travel through the solar system at Warp 5. It would take a lot of velocity to joggle orbits and not get caught.

I know it's unlikley to happen, but it could happen

The discovery of Ron Wyatt in the Ararat Range is indeed interresting, it seems to fit perfectly with the story of the flood and the ark. Ron Wyatt also claimed to have found the Ark of Covenant and all the relics of the Meeting Tent. Also he claimed to have found Sodom and the Red Sea crossing, Mount Sinai etc. wyattarchaeology.com has more on his bible related arcaeological discoveries.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Does anyone have any idea how large a boat would have to be to fit every creature twice from this earth onto it? Its only some 9-10 thousand years old of a story right? Im not sure so someone fill me in on the time frame. I am currently under the impression that according to the bible the earth is about 15 thousand years old, but I am probably wrong significantly.

Anyway, if by some unimaginable feat of engineering, Noah did build an ark big enough to fit every living thing two fold onto it, (I guess besides fish, maybe) I highly doubt we would be having any trouble finding it.

The story of Noahs ark is clearly a fairy tale much like the rest of the bible. As much as some people will hate me for this, the bible is not a history book. Some things, yes, im sure did occur. But there are clearly many issues with reality and the bible that cannot be compatible.

Originally posted by Bruno
When it started raining and Noah had all the animals on board. God open up the heavens and the fountains of the Earth. It rained 40 days and forty nights until all was consummed or covered by water. After the 40th day it stoped raining and the waters receeded.
Now as I see it everthing is covered in water, even the tallest mountains. Thats a heck of a lot of water, RIGHT.
RECEEDED TO WHERE????

Sorry to return to the original question, but I thought that this might be of interest to Bruno. Everyone knows how much a cubit is, right? There is some degree of doubt regarding the precise length of the Biblical cubit, although most scholars seem to favour a length of around 1.5 feet (18 inches). Assuming the cubit to have been 1.5 feet, the Biblical Ark would have been 45 feet high, 75 feet in width, and 450 feet in length.

Okay, so if 1 cubit is approx. 1.5 feet or 18 inches, then 15 cubits is 22.5 feet or 270 inches. With these measurements in mind, please read the following few verses from the KJV,

Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So how do you guys interpret this statement? 22.5 feet of water is hardly enough to cover the earth, as it exists today. Do you think that the earth was flat all over and the mountains and canyons developed as a result of the Earth opening up to swallow the water? Nobody ever seems to mention this verse when they discuss the Flood, yet it seems like an extremely relevant topic.

Any opinions?


[Edited on 16-12-2003 by jezebel]

Originally posted by Seapeople
Does anyone have any idea how large a boat would have to be to fit every creature twice from this earth onto it? Its only some 9-10 thousand years old of a story right? Im not sure so someone fill me in on the time frame. I am currently under the impression that according to the bible the earth is about 15 thousand years old, but I am probably wrong significantly.

Anyway, if by some unimaginable feat of engineering, Noah did build an ark big enough to fit every living thing two fold onto it, (I guess besides fish, maybe) I highly doubt we would be having any trouble finding it.

The story of Noahs ark is clearly a fairy tale much like the rest of the bible. As much as some people will hate me for this, the bible is not a history book. Some things, yes, im sure did occur. But there are clearly many issues with reality and the bible that cannot be compatible.

Good point. And what about mammal's that live in salt/freshwater
but lay their eggs in a nest, on land,eg crocodiles, turtles.
The concept of the Ark is impossible

The movie I am using is TITAN AE. Great animated movie! Anyway...

The world was to be destroyed by aliens. The humans constructed a giant ship (The Titan), to house the ALL of the world, including every animal/plant/etcetera type creature.

The way this was done was by storing DNA genetic samples of the creatures. Not actually keeping the animals on the ship, just their genetic make-up, stored in a handy little vial.

When dealing with the mysteries of religion, and the connections to aliens, this may be a possibility. The vast ocean Noah sailed could have been a metaphore for outer space. The ark could have been a UFO. Who knows?

Here are some things you have said.

"Does anyone have any idea how large a boat would have to be to fit every creature twice from this earth onto it? Yes

"The story of Noahs ark is clearly a fairy tale much like the rest of the bible." Not one part of the bible is farytale

This is taken from www.answersingenesis.org

Many skeptics assert that the Bible must be wrong, because they claim that the Ark could not possibly have carried all the different types of animals. This has persuaded some Christians to deny the Genesis Flood, or believe that it was only a local flood involving comparatively few local animals. But they usually have not actually performed the calculations. There are two questions to ask:

How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19�20 and Genesis 7:2�3.

Genesis 6:19�20:
�And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.�

Genesis 7:2�3:
�Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.�

In the original Hebrew, the word for �beast� and �cattle� in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for �creeping things� is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.

However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah�s business. Noah did not need to take plants either�many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.

Clean animals: Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means �seven� or �seven pairs� of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each. The term �clean animal� was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that �Scripture interprets Scripture�, the Mosaic Law definitions can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few �clean� land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

What is a �kind�? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits.4 The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).

One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the �kind� may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the �kind� with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.

For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.

Woodmorappe totals about 8000 genera, including extinct genera, thus about 16,000 individual animals which had to be aboard. With extinct genera, there is a tendency among some paleontologists to give each of their new finds a new genus name. But this is arbitrary, so the number of extinct genera is probably highly overstated. Consider the sauropods, which were the largest dinosaurs�the group of huge plant-eaters like Brachiosaurus, Diplodocus, Apatosaurus, etc. There are 87 sauropod genera commonly cited, but only 12 are �firmly established� and another 12 are considered �fairly well established�.5

One commonly raised problem is �How could you fit all those huge dinosaurs on the Ark?� First, of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. Second, as said above, the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated. But these numbers are granted by Woodmorappe to be generous to skeptics. Third, the Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by �teenage� or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe�s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.

Another problem often raised by atheists and theistic evolutionists is �how did disease germs survive the flood?� This is a leading question�it presumes that germs were as specialized and infectious as they are now, so all the Ark�s inhabitants must have been infected with every disease on earth. But germs were probably more robust in the past, and have only fairly recently lost the ability to survive in different hosts or independently of a host. In fact, even now many germs can survive in insect vectors or corpses, or in the dried or frozen state, or be carried by a host without causing disease. Finally, loss of resistance to disease is consistent with the general degeneration of life since the Fall.6

Was the ark large enough to hold all the required animals?
The Ark measured 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.

If the animals were kept in cages with an average size of 50x50x30 centimetres (20x20x12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 (cubic centimetres) or 4800 cubic inches, the 16,000 animals would only occupy 1200 m3 (42,000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1000 cm3, all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah�s family and �range� for the animals. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes in Genesis 6:19-20, so Noah probably would not have taken them on board as passengers anyway.

Tabulating the total volume is fair enough, since this shows that there would be plenty of room on the Ark for the animals with plenty left over for food, range etc. It would be possible to stack cages, with food on top or nearby (to minimize the amount of food carrying the humans had to do), to fill up more of the Ark space, while still allowing plenty of room for gaps for air circulation. We are discussing an emergency situation, not necessarily luxury accommodation. Although there is plenty of room for exercise, skeptics have overstated animals� needs for exercise anyway.

Even if we don�t allow stacking one cage on top of another to save floor space, there would be no problem. Woodmorappe shows from standard recommended floor space requirements for animals that all of them together would have needed less than half the available floor space of the Ark�s three decks. This arrangement allows for the maximum amount of food and water storage on top of the cages close to the animals.

Food requirements
The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. Perhaps Noah fed the cattle mainly on grain, plus some hay for fibre. Woodmorappe calculated that the volume of foodstuffs would have been only about 15 % of the Ark�s total volume. Drinking water would only have taken up 9.4 % of the volume. This volume would be reduced further if rainwater was collected and piped into troughs.

Excretory requirements
It is doubtful whether the humans had to clean the cages every morning. Possibly they had sloped floors or slatted cages, where the manure could fall away from the animals and be flushed away (plenty of water around!) or destroyed by vermicomposting (composting by worms) which would also provide earthworms as a food source. Very deep bedding can sometimes last for a year without needing a change. Absorbent material (e.g. sawdust, softwood wood shavings and especially peat moss) would reduce the moisture content and hence the odour.

Hibernation
The space, feeding and excretory requirements were adequate even if the animals had normal day/night sleeping cycles. But hibernation is a possibility which would reduce these requirements even more. It is true that the Bible does not mention it, but it does not rule it out either. Some creationists suggest that God created the hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark, but we should not be dogmatic either way.

Some skeptics argue that food taken on board rules out hibernation, but this is not so. Hibernating animals do not sleep all winter, despite popular portrayals, so they would still need food occasionally.

Conclusion
This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah�s Ark. Many Christians believe that the Bible can only be trusted on matters of faith and morals, not scientific matters. But we should consider what Jesus Christ Himself told Nicodemus (John 3:12): �If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?�

Similarly, if the Scriptures can be wrong on testable matters such as geography, history and science, why should they be trusted on matters like the nature of God and life after death, which are not open to empirical testing? Hence Christians should �be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you� (1 Peter 3:15), when skeptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known �scientific facts�.

Christians would be able to follow this command and answer skeptics� anti�Ark arguments effectively, if they read John Woodmorappe�s book Noah�s Ark: a Feasibility Study. This remarkable book is the most complete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. For example, some skeptics have claimed that the post-Flood ground would be too salty for plants to grow. Woodmorappe points out that salt can be readily leached out by rainwater.

Woodmorappe has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti�Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the Biblical account, and other relevant questions. Nothing else like this has ever been written before�a powerful vindication of the Genesis Ark account.

�It has just the sort of facts and details that kids find fascinating, and would make an excellent source of information for enhancing Bible study projects and class lessons on the Ark and Flood. Anyone interested in answering the many questions about the ark, especially from skeptics, would be advised to read Noah�s Ark.�7


Its only some 9-10 thousand years old of a story right? Im not sure so someone fill me in on the time frame. I am currently under the impression that according to the bible the earth is about 15 thousand years old, but I am probably wrong significantly."

dude, the whole old testament is made up of FABLES to explain the way the world works and how one should go about living their lives. they are tall tales, elaborated stories of what actually occured, or explanations of the way things are.

basically, its advanced aesop.

Originally posted by jezebel
Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

So how do you guys interpret this statement? 22.5 feet of water is hardly enough to cover the earth, as it exists today. Do you think that the earth was flat all over and the mountains and canyons developed as a result of the Earth opening up to swallow the water? Nobody ever seems to mention this verse when they discuss the Flood, yet it seems like an extremely relevant topic.

when i read this i was like whoa! but my bible says-
18 The water became deeper, and the boat drifted on the surface.
19 It became so deep that it covered the highest mountains;
20 it wento n rising until it was about twenty-five feet above the tops of the mountains.

difference in scripture i see!
hmm...

oh well, this really does not twinge my interest, i just thought the difference was peculiar. but the story is a STORY anyways, it says so-

"this is the story of noah"

oh well i know that isnt supposed to be literal, so dont throw bricks at me.
but still, its a fable to me.

"dude, the whole old testament is made up of FABLES to explain the way the world works and how one should go about living their lives. they are tall tales, elaborated stories of what actually occured, or explanations of the way things are."

Try to actually prove your point with facts instead of accusing the bible of this or that based on opinion.

Recied to where? u ask?

well if God was omnipotent enough to make all that water appear (worldwide) dont you think he can take it away

the bible says the world is only roughly about 6,000 years old so... dont no how noah turned up 100,000 years ago!

another question where did the water appear from:
It came from those fountains yeah and this bubble of water that supposedly apeared when God seperated he waters to make sea and sky. but is that enough water to cover our little plannet! I would think God has alot to do with all of this. its not natural! World wide floods dont happen

Neither does rising from the dead or direct healling miracles. Doesnt make sense scientificly but my point is ....

Since when did God conform with science anyway!

Beanie makes a good point, only way for the things to happen in the Bible is to believe in an all powerful invisable person that lives in the clouds. Sorry, but that is not a good arguement. I could say well, Martha Stewart isn't guilty, but all mighty powerful invisable people who live in the clouds made the jury vote like that.

See, if you use all mighty powerful invisable people who live in the clouds to prove your point, you can prove anything. I can prove bigfoot impregnated the Loch Ness Monster. How? My all mighty powerful invisable people who live in the clouds told me so. You can't prove they didn't, so they must have done it.

Good bloody question. You gave my husband and I something to think about.

hey! it's god! he can do anything! he probably just drank it or something. or maybe THATS y the eart is covered with so much water.......nah
o well