Noah and the Ark

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

NOW, there's a whole slough of other problems with this nice little story we tell kids in Sunday School.

But just think about the DUNG on board. We need some farmers to get on here to talk about shoveling the manure pit.

We've had dogs growing up, and my folks had to practically KILL us to shovel the doo. If it was summer time, the back yard stunk, and those soft, mushy piles were tough to stomach while hucking them over the fence and into the neighbors yard!!!

This ship was bursting at the seams with every conceivable form of waste you can imagine, and Noah's fired up staff probably talked about mutiny.

Anyone on here ever have a bird cage? How about Iguanas? Hamsters?

During the past couple of hundred years when ships sailed long distances the only thing the people had to drink was beer. Water simply did not stay fresh long enough for trips lasting months. Now the Ark was floating for more then a year -how did they store both the quantity and quality of water needed to keep the people and animals alive?

I know... God COULD have kept it supernaturally fresh, but lets look at all the miracles God would have been required to do for the story of Noah's ark to be literal: Keep the water fresh, as well as providing a constant source of NEW clean water. Keeping the ark 100% water tight. Lowering the appetite of the animals enough for them to survive on almost no food for over a year. Someone transporting certain animals to parts of the world separated by thousands of miles of water.
I have to ask... why do all those miracles then ask Noah to spend over a hundred years making an ark that would not be capable of surviving on its own? It would be like God saying "I want you to build me a space ship out of oak and pine...". In fact a space ship would be nearly as likely.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No.

1) It doesn't fit the description of the ark in Genesis which had "decks."

2) The sheering forces of the wave action against the sides of a wooden raft of 300+ feet would be as strong as against the hull of a vessel. The wooden members would have rippled. Even when not moving under power, the 9 masted schooners were described and showing a "serpentine" action as the water broke across the length of the hulls. This opened huge gaps in the planking and caulking and required that the pumps be running at virtually all times. Wood is too flexible at these lengths.

3) The weight of the animals, food and fresh water requires displacement such as you can get from the hull of a ship.

4) The stability of a weighted raft would have been terrible.

5) The animals, humans and the food stuffs would all be exposed to the elements.

6) The raft itself would have moved like a serpent up and over the swells and troughs in the sea. This would have exposed both the Ark/Raft and its contents to even greater peril as the decking seperated and crushed back together again.

What if the flood current was more of a rising than a flowing? Remember were not talking about a river over flowing

What if the raft had a keel?

What if the raft was covered?

A flood would be currents of water but not necessarily waves you see on an ocean, would it?

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by pelathais

. You are also making a good argument for taking the Bible out of the public schools.

and you're not?

[berkeley]

Prax,

A global flood would have waves...

[berkeley]

Arph.. Arph

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

During the past couple of hundred years when ships sailed long distances the only thing the people had to drink was beer. Water simply did not stay fresh long enough for trips lasting months. Now the Ark was floating for more then a year -how did they store both the quantity and quality of water needed to keep the people and animals alive?

I know... God COULD have kept it supernaturally fresh, but lets look at all the miracles God would have been required to do for the story of Noah's ark to be literal: Keep the water fresh, as well as providing a constant source of NEW clean water. Keeping the ark 100% water tight. Lowering the appetite of the animals enough for them to survive on almost no food for over a year. Someone transporting certain animals to parts of the world separated by thousands of miles of water.
I have to ask... why do all those miracles then ask Noah to spend over a hundred years making an ark that would not be capable of surviving on its own? It would be like God saying "I want you to build me a space ship out of oak and pine...". In fact a space ship would be nearly as likely.

150 days actually

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Prax,

A global flood would have waves...

See my first post. I don't think it was global. Floods have currents, not waves. Oceans have waves and even then they are not always big

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Bryan

And by the way... we are discussing an account in Genesis. I didn't add anything to Revelation.

Originally Posted by pelathais

You're degenerating too quickly.

Are you saying then that it's okay to "add" to the words of Genesis?

Originally Posted by Bryan

On it's own terms? Degenerating? I wasn't attempting to argue with you.

Sure, its own terms. If you were to pick up a Mad Magazine (I haven't in years but I assume that it's still the same) you will approach that "literature" on its own terms. You expect something silly and nonsensical. You might groan at some of the "jokes" rather than laugh, but you are engaging the writers on their own terms.

I chose a rather extreme example to prove my point here.

However, the same approach should be used for the Bible. Is the Bible a book intending to tell the Natural History of the earth and cosmos? No.

The Bible is a collection of books written over a large period of time and so it's safe to say that there were many different local and immediate motivations behind its words. But throughout, we find the overall message is one of God's supernatural dealings with mankind.

Thus, it would be as wrong to look for a full and "accurate" Natural History of our planet from within the pages of the Bible as it would be to seek serious information regarding the U.S. Constitution on the pages of Mad Magazine.

There is no evidence whatsoever in the geologic record that the entire continental surface of the planet was covered by water withing any period in the past 6,000 years - or even a million years - or a billion!

The dimensions of an entirely wooden vessel such as the Ark of Genesis 6 could not have stayed afloat for the 4 months to a years as required by the various interpretations of Genesis.

The animals described could not have been kept alive for that time period given the dimensions and conditions of such a wooden vessel.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that this literally happened anyway, so why should we insist that it did? Our insistence serves no purpose and actually harms the faith of those who may be turning to Bible for helpful answers in this modern age.

[berkeley]

thanks for answering in a conversational tone. I'll take you seriously now...

[Praxeas]

I betcha V could build one