Noah's ark ? How ?

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by Leveller
The story of Noah is a direct lift of a Babylonian story called the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I believe that it is the other way around.

yea you might want to check the dates on that one. i believe the gilgamesh storie is older and some believe that it may have been borrowed from another story even older

OK! OK! Here it is.Thge ark was possible. Remember, Noah had tools with which to build a very large vessel. He had stone tools and the help of three son's none of whom had been to ship building school in Switzerland.
Noah sent his very large fleet of super tankers about the world collecting either two or seven pairs (depending on which contradicting scripture you read) of every life fore on earth. They had to have many large Eucalyptus trees (live) for the Koalas they brought back from Austraila, even though Noah didn't even know about Gernamy let alone Austrailia. How many species of beetles 50 - 60 thousand, not to mention stinging insects, and millions of other insect species. Ats? You say! fa-get-about-it. The ark would have been so tall that Noah would require protective clothing, which would have been available from NASA and oxygen as the deck would have been in the Mesophere, not to mention very cold, about -93 degreed C. But, what's a climb of 52 miles among friends in their 600th year?
So, possible, yes but we couldn't do it.
You'd think when the ancients made up wild stories they might have given some consideration to how people who could read might look at the yarn.
skep

Originally posted by skep
OK! OK! Here it is.Thge ark was possible. Remember, Noah had tools with which to build a very large vessel. Noah sent his very large fleet of super tankers about the world collecting either two or seven pairs

You had alot of sarcasm but I am just answering a couple of them for now.

Noah had 100 years to build the ark. God brought the animals to Noah, noah didn't have to go get them. When you leave God out of an equation, you are leaving out the solution to a problem.

from what i saw on some tv thing a while back the translation of some of the things may hve been out or misinterperated.
from what i remember the measuring units were probably smaller than what has been stated.
also the animals that had to be collected were more pairs of the local farming type animals making the amount that had to be collected was closer to about 20 pairs.(i think)
both these things mean the ship wasnt as large as stated and also it didnt need to be as large as stated.

this sounds to be more realistic to me. but thats just my opinion on what ive heard on the subject.

Who says that it was even real? (sorry about the one liner)

Originally posted by sepryo
About the flood thing, is it possible there was an earthquake somewhere nearby & it caused like a tsunami type thing to happen hence the ark?

I also saw on some tv show about how Gibraltar & Morocco were once joined by a stretch of land which held the Atlantic out of the Med region & something happened & the Atlantic broke through flooding the Med region. Possible something like this could be the flood being talked about? I know it's in the wrong area but it's not that far away & effects could have been felt in Noah's direction ???

According to the bible, that was probably part of what happened...

...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up

Before the flood all the waters were in one place and as well as the land mass was connected.
Genesis1:9
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

After the flood there was a division of the continenets and a division of peoples.

1 Chronicles 1:19
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

Originally posted by plague

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by Leveller
The story of Noah is a direct lift of a Babylonian story called the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I believe that it is the other way around.

yea you might want to check the dates on that one. i believe the gilgamesh storie is older and some believe that it may have been borrowed from another story even older

how about they're 2 DIFFERENT storys of the same thing. there are also more storys related to a big flood from other ancient cultures. maybe some are a bit off but doesnt this say something about that there actually was a big flood???

Originally posted by Leveller
The story of Noah is a direct lift of a Babylonian story called the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Use the Boolean search function and you will see that much has been written about the subject here on ATS.

www.ancienttexts.org...

Is it a direct lift, or a story retold by someone else that experienced the same thing? I find it funny that just because 5 different civilizations talk about the same incident that 4 of them must have been copying one. Perhaps, just perhaps, someone from each civilization survived to tell the story to their own people.

The ark story is a story. One stolen, as told numerous time's on this thread. Also, let's take into account that the area in which noah lived and gathered animals, not EVERY animal that lived on the ground and breathed through the nostrils existed in his area. There are some species native only to south america, widly seperated by the atlantic ocean. Theres no story of noah leaving his little plot of land to sail there, nor is there any evidence that these animals built a boat to cross the vast distances to reach noah and his ark. Yet they still live where they live in almost defiance of god's so called flood. Hell, Noah and the people of the time didn't even know the americas existed. Even in the early 1400's we still had doubt's and you can thank your religion for that.

Also, take a look at my thread in my sig. I'd realy like to see someone of faith tell me what they think.

forget the boat, how did he get penguins form antartica, spiders from central america, polar bears from alaska, kangaroos from australia, galapagos finches, etc etc etc

its a fable people, allegory at best

Maybe there weren't as many species then as there are now? Perhaps they've evolved over time to be what they are now. Crossbreeding does happen, and new creatures are created that can and do become secular to an area.

No, the numbers don't add up, but that shouldn't take away from the validity of the story; simply because a few people don't believe it doesn't make it any more or less true. I believe it's a true story, but my belief doesn't make it so. The simple fact is that there's no way to know for sure, as none of us were there. We cannot confirm nor deny the existence of said incident based on anecdotal evidence alone. In other words, either believe it or don't, as it doesn't make a crap's bit of difference either way.

Actually, it does take away the validity of the story. Not only does it not describe many of these animal's, some of these animals evolved in their current habititat's ONLY. It's not like a camel crossed the ocean to australia to become a kangaroo.

If there's no way to know for sure, then I would like to lay claim to a myraid of other fictional stories as being true, based upon your very premise that there's no way to know for sure. Therefore, if your going to believe in the biblical stories, one should also believe in the fantasy stories. They are all accurate historical documents of life in another dimension and we should be teaching this in school.

In fact! I'm propose we start a movement to get this taught in history classes across the world! It's time we educated the mass's!

What you fail to realize is that the land used to all be together, in one large landmass, that much has been shown to be accurate. In the time that this was the case, said animals most likely ran all over the huge supercontinent. It's possible then that all of the animals could have been collected into a ship big enough to support all of them, as few as there were then, and the ship left as the world flooded.

We must stop having this notion that everything has always been the way that it is now, as that's just not true. The world changes, we change, and so do the animals and peoples all around it.

Originally posted by TheBorg
What you fail to realize is that the land used to all be together, in one large landmass, that much has been shown to be accurate. In the time that this was the case, said animals most likely ran all over the huge supercontinent. It's possible then that all of the animals could have been collected into a ship big enough to support all of them, as few as there were then, and the ship left as the world flooded.

We must stop having this notion that everything has always been the way that it is now, as that's just not true. The world changes, we change, and so do the animals and peoples all around it.

most biblical scholars put the origin of the planet at about 10,000 years ago
(The defining characteristic of this belief is that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old, rather than the age of 4.5 billion years estimated by a variety of scientific methods including radiometric dating. )
en.wikipedia.org...



are you suggesting pangea existed in its original form 10,000 years ago ?
(The continents apparently first coalesced to form Pangaea about 300 Mya (million years ago), giving rise to several prominent mountain ranges by the process known as orogeny.)
en.wikipedia.org...

TheBorg,

This only add's to the evidence and proof of monotheism's evollution with societies discoveries and change's. Ancient man didn't write of a super-continent, but he did write of a great ocean that went as far as the eye can see, so to speak. Right there, the religous attitude of adopting the pangea continent to explain away the animals seen on noahs ark is a religous evolutionary change. The bible never taught of a super-continent, but science did, so religion stole this super continent, changed it's belief's of what's taught in the bible to make the bible appear more valid. which in this case is does not.

I suggest you read the link in my sig.

Originally posted by Produkt
TheBorg,

The bible never taught of a super-continent,

Yes it did/does.

Genesis 1:9
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1 Chronicles 1:19
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

Genesis 1:9
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Very vauge, also written from a time period where man once thought the earth was flat. Also, extremly left open to interpretation. Let the water's under heaven be gathered together unto one place could be interpreted to also say water from the firmament gathering together in one place, being the planet earth. And let dry land appear doesn't say let dry land appear as one super-continent, it just says let dry land appear.

1 Chronicles 1:19
And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan.

This is also vauge, but after reading the rest of the scripture I would surmise "divided" to mean the world at the time was in conflict ... divided in belief's. As archeological/historical refrences show, indeed at this period of time the earth was divided in belief's. Again, no refrence to a super-continent or the division of land itself is anywhere in chronicles.

who said it was made in 7 days?

If Noah did in fact build the ark then he wasted his time! There is NO evidence whatsoever of any flood, even at the the end of the last ice age, that covered the entire Earth. If the story had been talking of the end of the last ice age which had taken place over 10-20,000 years ago (which is the time frame for the 3 huge floods that did in fact happen), the bible is way off in its time line of an Earth thats only about 6,000 years old.

The Epic of Gilgamesh should be looked as proof that, like most religions, Christianity borrowed from older sources in order to make the religion "seem" older when in fact the bible was written around 1,000 years after the fact.

For even more evidence that the bible borrowed from other sources, compare holidays with those of known Pagan holidays. Constantinople in an effort to convert believers over to Christianity more easily, took Pagan holidays and changed them to Christian holidays!

Have fun with that notion