Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8960 total)
27 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), RAZD, ringo (5 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,270 Year: 1,018/23,288 Month: 1,018/1,851 Week: 141/321 Day: 56/47 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 249 of 453 (522842)
09-05-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by greentwiga
09-04-2009 10:53 PM


All the High Hills
Hi greentwiga,

I have a problem with this. In Genesis 7:19, we see this claim;

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

All the high hills. So, even if this was a local event and the account is only talking about the known world, that leaves us with some pretty big hills. Mount Ararat, for instance, stands at nearly 17 000 feet above sea level. If that was covered in water, you got yourself a worldwide flood right there, big enough to cover most of the earth, leaving only the very highest areas above water. Take a look at this list of the highest points above sea level in 245 countries. Turkey comes in at #25 with Mt. Ararat. So if Ararat is covered, that leaves us with 100% flooding of Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Venezuela, Indonesia, France, Italy, Uzbekistan, Switzerland, Ethiopia... You get the idea.

If your local flood was big enough to cover the known world of the time, it would most certainly have had to cover Ararat, just as the text implies.

On the other hand, if you are claiming that the Bible supports a flood of lesser proportions, how do you explain reference to "the whole heaven"? The authors must have known that "the whole heaven" included the sky over Ararat. It features prominently in the story after all. How do you explain Gen 8:4, which has the ark resting upon Ararat before the waters have even subsided?

Ararat must have been covered during the flood and if Ararat was covered, the event would most certainly have been worldwide.

If you want to believe that the flood story was based upon a small flood and that the tale grew in the retelling, fine, but this must have occurred before the Bible was written, as the event described therein could only have been worldwide in scale.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by greentwiga, posted 09-04-2009 10:53 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by bluescat48, posted 09-05-2009 2:49 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 252 of 453 (522859)
09-05-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by greentwiga
09-05-2009 5:19 PM


Re: All the High Hills
Hi Blues,

At this remove there is no way to do any more than speculate wildly about where the flood myth may have originated. My hunch is that there was no original event; the story simply uses flooding as a mechanism for the wrath of the god(s) because it was known to the ancient world as an implacable disaster capable of wreaking great havoc.

I am actually less interested in the origins of the myth and more interested in why so many Christians seem keen to violate their own scriptures by twisting their meaning to suit modern science.


Hi greentwiga,

quote:
There are no high hills in the region of Sumer.

So what exactly? We're not talking about Sumer, we're talking about Ararat. The Bible very clearly includes Mount Ararat in the area flooded. That precludes a local flood for the reasons presented earlier.

quote:
The only hills/mountains were the proto-ziggurats.

Total crap. Do I have to quote the Bible for you again?

8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Ararat yes? Not Sumer, not some ziggurat, but Mount Ararat. That is what it says in the Bible. You are welcome to hold whatever opinion you like about the Flud, but if you want to pretend that your version is Bible-based, you need to include Ararat.

quote:
It would make sense that the Jewish/Christian God would cover them and then have the ark land on them as an emphasis that that religion was false.

It would make more sense if you just read the text and gave its authors credit enough to know what they were writing. It doesn't say ziggurats, it says hills. It specifically mentions Ararat. For the ark to rest upon Ararat, it means that Ararat had to be flooded. Pretending otherwise is contrary to the text.

In message 241, you say;

greentwiga writes:

I have studied the passage, including the Hebrew and see that another valid interpretation is that it was a local flood and only the animals of that local region that were on the ark.

It seems you didn't study very hard. Any interpretation of the Biblical flood myth that claims to be in line with the Bible, must include Ararat. Your version of the story might just be correct, but please don't pretend that it is supported by scripture, because it just isn't.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by greentwiga, posted 09-05-2009 5:19 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 264 of 453 (562395)
05-28-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dr Jack
05-28-2010 11:07 AM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Personally, I would emphasise this bit;

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

Rooms? In a reed boat? Really? And doors and a window? Over three levels? Really? Really really? And big enough to hold animals of every kind? Wow.

I continue to be astonished at what some Christian apologists will come out with.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dr Jack, posted 05-28-2010 11:07 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 1:13 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2010 1:31 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 274 of 453 (562443)
05-28-2010 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by New Cat's Eye
05-28-2010 1:31 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Hi CS,

Those are indeed pretty damn impressive. The Aztecs used to use a similar set-up as a kind of hydroponic garden. Nonetheless, what I see is a floating platform with some small shacks on it, not a floating zoo with three levels full of rooms. I wouldn't like to keep an elephant on one.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2010 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 05-28-2010 9:47 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 276 of 453 (562447)
05-28-2010 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by greentwiga
05-28-2010 1:13 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Hi Greentwiga,

Well, that word 'rooms' is actually a word that means erect and is a form of the word that means reeds.

Where are you getting that from? Strong's has it as being from the word qen, meaning nest, or figuratively, room.

The word for wood is also translated stalks, and reeds fit the word stalks.

I think you are rather over-egging that;

quote:
Definition
tree, trees, wood

NASB Word Usage
carpenters* (4), framework (1), gallows (9), handle (1), logs (1), shaft (3), stalks (1), stick (8), sticks (3), timber (19), timbers (5), tree (74), trees (71), wild* (1), wood (111), wooden (6).


Source; http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/6086.htm

Also, the only other floating craft called an ark was made of reeds.

Was it? Do tell.

Furthermore, wood boats were only caulked at the seams with tar. The ancient reed boats and even modern reed objects of the area are coated inside and out with a mixture of tar and pitch.

Either that or the author of Gen 6:14 wasn't particularly concerned with the details of ship construction.

Large craft could have several stories.

Can you provide an example?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 1:13 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 10:52 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 281 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 11:24 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 292 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2010 8:37 AM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 293 of 453 (562494)
05-29-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by greentwiga
05-28-2010 11:24 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Hi greentwiga,

Re: anchor stones away ...
You mention 7064 as being nest or compartments. Compare that to 7070 (strongs) where the similar word is reeds.

They are not similar. 7064 is 'ets. 7070 is qaneh. What similarity am I supposed to see here? Even in Hebrew, they do not resemble each other. Besides, Gen 6:14 uses 'ets, not anything else, so the point is moot.

Strongs claims the word is from a different word, also meaning erect, but the Schocken Bible translates it as reeds, not rooms.

Your English is awful. Which word? Are you talking about 'ets or qaneh? Or something else? Please try to be clear in your writing.

The relationship is close enough and the language is often from such ancient sources, that reed is also a reasonable interpretation.

Or in other words "Ah screw it, close enough!"

There is no relationship. You have demonstrated no similarity, nor any reason to think that 'ets means anything other than wood.

Google search for Iraqi marsh arab reed mosques. that is the closest I can come to modern examples of tall reed structures on reed rafts.

I did, but all I found were pictures of buildings - buildings- not building/boats.

I do not deny that one can make a boat of reeds. I do not deny that one can make a small building of reeds. What I deny is that one can combine the two. You have provided no evidence that this this is possible. on anything like the necessary scale.

Otherwise we would have to look at the giant greek and roman barges that had several stories above the boat part.

Again, you are being very unclear. What Greek and Roman barges? Are you telling me that the Romans made multi-storey barges from reeds? Forgive me if I remain a little sceptical.

All told, you have no evidence from the text, you have no archaeological evidence, you cannot point to any structure similar to what you are proposing and you are flat-out denying the actual text of the Bible. All for a theory that offers no more likelihood of accounting for all-the-worlds-animals-on-a-single-boat than a wooden ark. All a bit pointless really.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by greentwiga, posted 05-28-2010 11:24 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 4:36 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 294 of 453 (562495)
05-29-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Modulous
05-29-2010 8:37 AM


Re: the other ark
Ahh. Thanks Mod.

Of course, I really don't think that this has anything to do with Noah's Ark. The word essentially means "box". The Moses story seems to fit this definition very well. I don't think that comparing a single floating crib and a gigantic floating zoo is particularly useful.

Also, it's probably worth noting that Exodus does not use the word 'ets to describe reeds, it uses suph. Nor does it use the same word for pitch as Gen 6:14, so the comparison really is pretty thin.

Thanks.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2010 8:37 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 300 of 453 (563750)
06-06-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by dennis780
06-06-2010 4:36 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Hi Dennis,

Although I am not much of a boat expert, I am a logical man.

Uh-huh.

And since you seem to proclaim to internet readers alike that believing in a boat made of wood carried every living thing on earth in it is more plausible than every thing on earth coming from a singularity that has never been found or discovered... ...and could reproduce without any protiens (that are required for all of life today to orientate, reproduce and distribute oxygen).

If you were as logical as you think you are, you might have noticed that you never finished this sentence. Since I supposedly think that, then... what exactly?

On second thoughts, never mind. Your attempt to drag us off onto some digression about cosmology is irrelevant to the topic.

For the record though, I don't find the idea of a wooden ark much more convincing than a reed one. A vessel that size simply could not support some preposterous floating zoo. It would be way beyond the capacities of the vessel and beyond the capabilities of such a small crew.

Oh, and there never was any global flood, which kinda makes this whole discussion superfluous.

Now, like I said, I'm no boat expert. But a simple Google of the largest wooden ships in history tell me that the arguement for the boat that don't float is irrelevant without some design flaw in the ark itself.

Tessarakonteres - 420×58 ft
Thalamegos - 377.3×46 ft (2 storeys)
Caligula's Giant Ship - 341 ft

Yes, those are some very lovely unconfirmed or mythological ships. I notice that you left the ark off your list. Could that be because the ark is bigger than any of these?

To assume that a boat that God asked Noah to build would not float makes no sense, unless the real discussion is if God exists at all.

Could you be any more ridiculous? It must be possible, because God said to do it? Is that honestly the best you can do?

There never was any global flood. There was never a deluge and therefore no need for an ark. Whether God is real or not isn't relevant. Your God might well be real, but the story is still false. You are making the unwarranted assumption that the Bible account is the word of an infallible God and that is not an assumption that I am obliged to share. You can't confirm the veracity of a story by declaring one of its characters infallible. The only way to tell if the account is true or not, is to compare it to observable real-world evidence. And the flood myth fails this test.

Since boats of this size have existed, there is no question that the boat COULD have floated.

But you haven't demonstrated that. You've shown that a few slightly smaller ships might have been built, thousands of years after the ark was meant to have been built. Nor would it be enough to prove that such a boat could merely float; it would have to be seaworthy, in rough weather, with an entire zoo aboard.

Even if you could establish all this, which you can't, you would only have proved that the ark is plausible; You would still have to show evidence that it actually existed if you wanted to make the story believable.

And if it is plausible, then the question is, is God real?

No, if the ark were plausible - which it's not - then the question would be "Is the ark real?". And since it's not plausible, and since there exists no evidence for it, nor any evidence of a global flood, I think we can conclude that it was almost certainly not real.

Most people figure this out about the same time they realise that Santa doesn't really bring those presents.

Because if he is, then God would have known what the boat needed to be (strength, shape, and size) for it to survive.

I agree. You'd think that God would know that. Odd then, that the authors of Genesis don't appear to have had a clue.

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by dennis780, posted 06-06-2010 4:36 PM dennis780 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by dennis780, posted 06-07-2010 7:14 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 304 of 453 (564025)
06-07-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by dennis780
06-07-2010 7:14 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
Hi Dennis,

if you think you are the first one to blurt this out without looking at the layers of the earth, you aren't.

No, I don't think that. Mostly because I have looked at the "layers of the earth". You know what I find when I go looking for fossils in that earth? I find fossils that support the scientific consensus on evolution and the age of the Earth. What I never find is any fossil that falsifies them. In fact, no-one has. I wonder why?

However I have always found it amusing that evolutionists refuse to believe that the earth was never flooded, even though over 90% of it's surface is water

And I find it amusing that you think that. The Earth's surface is not 90% water. It's about 71-80%.

If you want to discuss if the layers of the earth are signs of a flood, or millions of year time periods, I'm game. One look at the polonium halos in the granite in the precambrian layer will tell you it is not 250+ years old, and could not have taken millions of years to form.

Polonium halos aren't really my subject, but you might like to take such arguments to polonium halos, where they would be on-topic (although the thread has been inactive a little while).

The short answer is that the polonium causing the halos is the decay product of radon gas contaminating the rocks.

I didn't mention the ark, because it is the subject, not evidence for.

Well okay, you're right there. This thread is all about the plausibility of the ark, so I suppose that I shouldn't badger you over the small matter of there being no evidence for its ever having existed. I mean, why let a little thing like that get in the way.

why would the bible go into detail about the dementions, and materials of a boat that did not exist?

Perhaps because the authors thought that it did exist. Perhaps they considered the story's moral and theological lessons more important. The flood story serves many purposes as a sacred narrative. It teaches us that sin is bad and that piety is good. It reminds us to obey God. It reminds us of how terrible God's anger can be, but then establishes his new covenant with man. It emphasises the line Jewish patriarchs, thus bolstering their claim as the chosen people. It clarifies man's relationship with the animal kingdom.

With so much going on, it seems likely that the authors had a number of motivations for writing as they did. Given that there were at least three authors (including the redactor, who cut-and-pasted the two versions together), there would have been a number of theological ideas in play. It seems to me though, that the theological and metaphorical aspects of the story are the important bits - not the details.

Why detail the dimensions of the boat if the story was metaphorical? I suppose it was to underline that this was aa massive boat, bigger than any boat known at the time. The idea of the ark being the superlative boat is all part of the symbolism of the story.

But you are right we are here for facts. The bible claims that the boat came to rest in the mountains of Ararat. And it just so happens there is a boat covered in snow, in the middle of land, at the base of Mount Ararat. The ark? Possibly.

Possibly not. I think you'll find that it's just a big, vaguely boat-shaped rock.

Possibly. Let's see what else the bible says. Noah sent out a dove every morning, until it returned with an olive branch. Olive trees grow by mount Agri in the same area. The bible also makes the claim that after the flood Noah planted a vineyard, and locals to this day have vineyards there.

You are stretching. There are olives and vines all over the fertile crescent, there have been for millennia. You could make this observation about any number of places.

As well, the surrounding cities and landmarks are named after Noah, Sehr-I Nuh (city of Noah), Sefinet Nebi Nuh( the ship of Noah) the name of the summit of Mount Judi.

In Northern Ireland, they have the Giant's Causeway. I guess there really must have been a giant, right? The existence of names that reference the myth only prove the popularity of the myth. They don't support the idea that any of it really happened.

Just out of interest, do you have any evidence that these names are really used? I find a lot of comments along the lines of "It is believed that the settlement {of Sirnak} was originally called "Sehr-i Nuh" (the city of Noah) since it was near Cudi Mountain where Noah's Ark finally landed ..." (wiki). It is believed. By who exactly?

It all sounds very funny to compare Noah with Santa, but it is not reasonable. And like I said, I am a reasonable man.

You are very reasonable I agree. But I am not going to humour you by pretending to respect a story so ludicrous. The idea of cramming all the world's animals into a single boat is absurd and childish. It is absolutely comparable to the idea that a fat man crams all those Christmas presents into his flying sleigh. The main difference as far as I can see is that Santa gives all the kiddies nice presents, whilst God just drown them all.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo.


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by dennis780, posted 06-07-2010 7:14 PM dennis780 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020