Noah's Ark help

clever_name

Hi,

Could someone with knowledge of the bible help answer a few questions for me:

1. Does the bible state the size of the ark? I seem to remember it mentioned somewhere.

2. How many people were on the ark? I know it had Noah and something like 4 or 5 wifes maybe.

3. Where was Noah from? or where was the ark loaded?

4. Is there a list of the unclean animals & clean animals?

Thanks

zuroph

also, I've been wondering, what did he do with the fish? did they just stay in the water?

Fanny Cradock

OP, you might just want to read Genesis 6 - 9.

There are a number of obvious problems with the story of the Ark. If one accepts these then I think that there are only 2 options available.

1) The story is myth or a legend (a literary device if you will) that may or may not point to a larger truth. There are theological issues with such a view.
2) The story is true but our understanding of what it is saying is faulty. For example, could it be that the flood mentioned was more localised? Biologos has a number of articles on the flood account. (Haven't personally read them yet.)

clever_name

Thanks for the reply, got exactly what I wanted there.

Still have the unaswered question of why God did not ask Noah to bring some dinosaurs aswell...

Seaneh

The obvious answer would be that they had been extinct for a few million years by that stage...
:rolleyes:

Troll harder.

MrPudding

Seaneh wrote: »

The obvious answer would be that they had been extinct for a few million years by that stage...
:rolleyes:

Troll harder.

There are quite a few of your brothers on Christ that would disagree. I think our friend JC believes there were dinosaurs on the ark. There would have to be if the world was only 6 to 10 thousand years old.

MrP

santing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OP, you might just want to read Genesis 6 - 9.

There are a number of obvious problems with the story of the Ark. If one accepts these then I think that there are only 2 options available

What are the obvious problems?
I think your option 2 is just a variant of option 1. I adhere to another option, namely a literal, world-wide flood, and I may say, the Lord Jesus and St. Peter believed the same.

homer911

santing wrote: »

What are the obvious problems?
I think your option 2 is just a variant of option 1. I adhere to another option, namely a literal, world-wide flood, and I may say, the Lord Jesus and St. Peter believed the same.

+1

Fanny Cradock

I believe that there is a distinct difference between the two potions I've listed. The first option doesn't require one drop of water to fall. The second option requires there to be some manner of deluge but also allows for the possibility that the story isn't talking about a world wide flood. This isn't at odds with what the NT has to say on the flood. It is, however, at odds with what we think Genesis is saying. For example, how do we translate the word 'erets? Did the author intend it to refer to the earth (the whole of it) or land?

As for the problems.

The monumental logistical and physical task the ship materials and then constructing a vessel large enough to house all the animals which themselves have to be gathered. The care for such a large amount of animals (providing food and water and cleaning up their waste etc). The heat produced by so many bodies in such a tight space would be sweltering. Noah would have had to come up with some pretty impressive passive way dissipating this heat. All the hydrological problems involved. The total lack of evidence for a world wide flood etc.

You don't even have to go outside of Christianity to find people who don't accept a world wide flood. For example.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that there is a distinct difference between the two potions I've listed. The first option doesn't require one drop of water to fall. The second option requires there to be some manner of deluge but also allows for the possibility that the story isn't talking about a world wide flood. This isn't at odds with what the NT has to say on the flood. It is, however, at odds with what we think Genesis is saying. For example, how do we translate the word 'erets? Did the author intend it to refer to the earth (the whole of it) or land?

As for the problems.

The monumental logistical and physical task the ship materials and then constructing a vessel large enough to house all the animals which themselves have to be gathered. The care for such a large amount of animals (providing food and water and cleaning up their waste etc). The heat produced by so many bodies in such a tight space would be sweltering. Noah would have had to come up with some pretty impressive passive way dissipating this heat. All the hydrological problems involved. The total lack of evidence for a world wide flood etc.

You don't even have to go outside of Christianity to find people who don't accept a world wide flood. For example.

-1

Why did rainbows not exist until after the flood ?

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

-1

Why did rainbows not exist until after the flood ?

Huh?

Festus

santing wrote: »

What are the obvious problems?
I think your option 2 is just a variant of option 1. I adhere to another option, namely a literal, world-wide flood, and I may say, the Lord Jesus and St. Peter believed the same.

+1

Some people just refuse to believe the Bible. If they refuse to believe what Jesus said regarding the OT, and He knows it to be true how can you believe them on anything else.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Huh?

Try reading Genesis. What was Gods symbolic gift or sign of his covenant after the flood?

MrPudding

Festus wrote: »

-1

Why did rainbows not exist until after the flood ?

Seriously? The way light is refracted by water changed after the flood?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrP beat me to it.

Festus wrote: »

Try reading Genesis. What was Gods symbolic gift or sign of his covenant after the flood?

I have read it.

Both light and moisture in the atmosphere obviously existed before the flood. So unless you are suggesting that there was some fundamental change in the nature of how light refracts when it hits moisture in the atmosphere, you are left with a problem of your own creation.

Where does it say that rainbows didn't exist before the flood? Certainly not in Genesis 9.

santing

MrPudding wrote: »

Seriously? The way light is refracted by water changed after the flood?

MrP

No, the Bible states explicitly that the first time it ever rained caused the flood.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

MrP beat me to it.



I have read it.

Both light and moisture in the atmosphere obviously existed before the flood. So unless you are suggesting that there was some fundamental change in the nature of how light refracts when it hits moisture in the atmosphere, you are left with a problem of your own creation.

Where does it say that rainbows didn't exist before the flood? Certainly not in Genesis 9.

No change in the nature of light or its interaction with water. There is moisture in the atmosphere all the time yet rainbows are not always visible.

You need rain and sun to get a full rainbow. Before the flood there was no rain. After the flood the sluices where sealed so the hydrological cycle evolved to provide us with a fresh water supply.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

You need rain and sun to get a full rainbow.

No, you don't. Rainbows can and do occur in mist.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

+1

Some people just refuse to believe the Bible. If they refuse to believe what Jesus said regarding the OT, and He knows it to be true how can you believe them on anything else.

So if somebody doesn't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or that the flood was a global event (in other words, what Festus believes) it precludes them from being a Christian. Funny that.

It must be interesting to believe that the Bible isn't comprised of multiple literary genres. I suppose you are waiting for the Whore of Babylon and the seven headed Beast to pop up at some stage?

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It must be interesting to believe that the Bible isn't comprised of multiple literary genres. I suppose you are waiting for the Whore of Babylon and the seven headed Beast to pop up at some stage?

Don't they inhabit the boards?

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

No change in the nature of light or its interaction with water. There is moisture in the atmosphere all the time yet rainbows are not always visible.

You need rain and sun to get a full rainbow. Before the flood there was no rain. After the flood the sluices where sealed so the hydrological cycle evolved to provide us with a fresh water supply.

It doesn't actually say anywhere that the first occurrence of rain was to cause the flood. Even Answers in Genesis (God love 'em) don't argue that there was "no rain before the flood".

Festus

PDN wrote: »

No, you don't. Rainbows can and do occur in mist.

if you want to be pedantically precious, sorry preciously pedandic you can have that one.

still does not negate the Biblical fact that there was no rain before the flood and hence a limited number of people who may have been exposed to sufficient mist from the correct position relative to the sun to see a refracted spectrum

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It doesn't actually say anywhere that the first occurrence of rain was to cause the flood. Even Answers in Genesis (God love 'em) don't argue that there was "no rain before the flood".

They don't argue that there was rain either.

There was mist, there were springs but no mention of rain or rainbows until Noah.

Fanny Cradock

They challenge the notion that there was no rain before the flood. Therefore, they are arguing that there was rain. See how that works?

While you might be happy appealing to silence, I would like a couple of answers.

Where does it say that the flood was the first occurance of rain?
The same question with respect to rainbows in Genesis 9.

newmug

I remember seeing a documentary on RTE about the visionaries at Cappoquin, which happened in Waterford in the 80's. Its relevant to this thread.

The Virgin Mary showed the two boys a vision of the ark being built. They said Noah was a small, broad man who was bald with a grey beard. He was directing operations as carpenters actually worked on the construction of it. Along came a donkey and cart full of materials. One of the wooden spoked wheels of the cart broke under the weight of the supplies. The boys laughed:eek::eek::eek: Mary said "SSSHHHHHHHHH" and kinda zapped them with a little bit of pain! That put manners on them!

Imagine laughing while being shown a supernatural vision by the Virgin Mary!!!!!!

prinz

Festus wrote: »

Try reading Genesis. What was Gods symbolic gift or sign of his covenant after the flood?

If the creation and existence of the rainbow was that importantly linked to the covenant (i.e. there had never been one before the covenant) then why didn't rainbows stop appearing when a new covenant was agreed with Abraham later in Genesis? Wouldn't rainbows have outlived their usefulness?

PDN

Festus wrote: »

if you want to be pedantically precious, sorry preciously pedandic you can have that one.

still does not negate the Biblical fact that there was no rain before the flood and hence a limited number of people who may have been exposed to sufficient mist from the correct position relative to the sun to see a refracted spectrum

You know it is possible to disagree with other people without being gratuitously insulting?

I was being neither pedantic nor precious. The Bible says that God caused a mist to rise and to water the earth. If there was no rain, then the quantity of mist required to water and sustain agricultural land etc would be such as to make rainbows a fairly frequent occurence.

santing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They challenge the notion that there was no rain before the flood. Therefore, they are arguing that there was rain. See how that works?

While you might be happy appealing to silence, I would like a couple of answers.

Where does it say that the flood was the first occurance of rain?
The same question with respect to rainbows in Genesis 9.

You already read the article in AiG so you knwo where it comes from...
Gen 2 mentions there was no rain (before creation day 6). Gen 7 is the first time recorded that rain fell. Connect the two and you get there was no rain before the flood. As the AIG article says, it is a weak argument.

If there was no rain, there also was no rainbow "in the clouds" (Gen 9)

santing

prinz wrote: »

If the creation and existence of the rainbow was that importantly linked to the covenant (i.e. there had never been one before the covenant) then why didn't rainbows stop appearing when a new covenant was agreed with Abraham later in Genesis? Wouldn't rainbows have outlived their usefulness?

The covenant with Noah has a wider target than God's covenant with Abraham. So the covenant still stands, and the rainbow still speaks God's message.

Monty Burnz

MrPudding wrote: »

There are quite a few of your brothers on Christ that would disagree. I think our friend JC believes there were dinosaurs on the ark.

Noah sees some Argentinasauruses lumbering over the hill towards him.
"We're gonna need a bigger ark."

santing

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Noah sees some Argentinasauruses lumbering over the hill towards him.
"We're gonna need a bigger ark."

Just a simple question - how big was this lizard when it crawled out of its egg?

smokingman

santing wrote: »

Just a simple question - how big was this lizard when it crawled out of its egg?

I'd imagine it was much smaller than an adult one. Not that it matters since homo erectus never saw one.

prinz

santing wrote: »

The covenant with Noah has a wider target than God's covenant with Abraham. So the covenant still stands, and the rainbow still speaks God's message.

The rainbow can speak the message but have existed prior to the covenant.

Fanny Cradock

santing wrote: »

You already read the article in AiG so you knwo where it comes from...
Gen 2 mentions there was no rain (before creation day 6). Gen 7 is the first time recorded that rain fell. Connect the two and you get there was no rain before the flood. As the AIG article says, it is a weak argument.

I'm afraid that this is not an answer to my question. Genesis 2:5-7 simply says that there was a time up until the formation of man when no rain fell. Even if one accepts that this is intended as a historical and scientific account of creation (I certainly don't), not even AIG feel the need to make an argument from a non-existent meteorological account that ranges from the time man was created and up to the flood.

Again, where does it say that it the flood was the caused by the first rains ever to fall on the earth? In similar manner, the first mention of thunder, hail and lightning I can find appears in the early chapters of Exodus. Do you also argue that these did not exist until that point?

santing wrote: »

If there was no rain, there also was no rainbow "in the clouds" (Gen 9)

It has been pointed out by a number of people that rainbows appear even in the absence of rain drops. Again, where does it say that rainbows first appeared only after the flood??

Galvasean

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Noah sees some Argentinasauruses lumbering over the hill towards him.
"We're gonna need a bigger ark."

Argentinosaurus

santing wrote: »

Just a simple question - how big was this lizard when it crawled out of its egg?

Firstly, a dinosaur is definitely not a lizard. Not wanting to go into too much detail (we could be here all day and all night), but the quickest way to spot the difference is that lizards' limb stance is sprawled out sideways, while a dinosaur's legs sit under the body, giving it an upright and erect posture.

The egg of Argentinosaurus would have been about the size of a soccer ball, maybe a bit bigger. Although I doubt Noah's crew would have been capable of incubating dinosaur eggs properly or keeping up with the dietary requirements of a host of rapidly growing juvenile dinosaurs (along with all of the other animals).

edit: why yes, I do appear like a demon if dinosaurs are mentioned enough :pac:

carwash_2006

santing wrote: »

Just a simple question - how big was this lizard when it crawled out of its egg?

If you're trying to suggest that Noah brought dinosaur eggs onto the ark with him...
How would he be keep them properly incubated?
How would he ensure that he had a male and female of each species?
Some lizards come out all one species if they are incubated at certain temperatures, what if dinosaurs turned out to be like this?
Lastly, fair deuce to him for facing off the female tyranosaurus to steal her eggs, some speculate that they were extremely maternal and would be extremely dangerous if you were trying to steal their eggs.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They challenge the notion that there was no rain before the flood. Therefore, they are arguing that there was rain. See how that works?

While you might be happy appealing to silence, I would like a couple of answers.

Where does it say that the flood was the first occurance of rain?
The same question with respect to rainbows in Genesis 9.

Hebrews 11:7 Rain was not yet seen. QED

Festus

prinz wrote: »

The rainbow can speak the message but have existed prior to the covenant.

Quite possible but no one saw one until the convenant. :-)

Festus

PDN wrote: »

You know it is possible to disagree with other people without being gratuitously insulting?

I do. But I have a hard time dealing with gratuitous ignorance.

PDN wrote: »

I was being neither pedantic nor precious. The Bible says that God caused a mist to rise and to water the earth. If there was no rain, then the quantity of mist required to water and sustain agricultural land etc would be such as to make rainbows a fairly frequent occurence.

Not if the mist only arrived during the night for one.

mist over land tends to have a hard time in strong sunlight for two.
Acutally they tend to have a hard time operating at anything above dew point.

You also have to be outside of the mist to see any refractive effects beyond blue hazing. Given the amount of fog and mist this country experiences the phenomenon of a mist rainbow would appear to be decidedly rare. Have you seen a rainbow in the fog?
Could be worth taking a picture and sending to Metro if you have.

Granted one can see mist rainbows in the vicinity waterfalls but waterfalls are not mentioned so the concept that anyone saw a mist rainbow prior to Noah is entirely speculative.

I don't know if the rainbow took Noah by surprise but he did appear to have been impressed in as much as he did not say "Wha? a rainbow? can ye not do better than tha! Sure that's only refracted light that always happens when there is rain and sun".

Zombrex

Festus wrote: »

Quite possible but no one saw one until the convenant. :-)

I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this nonsense but

1) God doesn't say he created rainbows. He said he put his rainbow in the sky. It is easy to interpret his rainbow as something special among other rainbows, different to other rainbows. By the very nature of saying my rainbow the implication is that rainbows already existed.

2) God says he does this to "remind" him of his covenant with humans, that every time he looks at the rainbow he will be reminded. Now, if you take this literally that leaves you with a god that a) looks at things and b) needs reminding of the things he has done in the past. Which is a bit stupid if you believe God is omnipotent and omniscient, which I imagine you do.

I doubt even the Israelites who first recorded this story were that incoherent, thus even a believer can happily assume this story in its original telling was meant to be taken literally.

Or you know, you could always just conclude the Bible is stupid and become an atheist, just saying :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

Hebrews 11:7 Rain was not yet seen. QED

For the third time. Where does it say that the flood was the first occurrence of rain or rainbows?

However much you want to infer that Hebrews it talking about specific things, the reality is that it says diddly-squat about either rain or rainbows.

santing

carwash_2006 wrote: »

If you're trying to suggest that Noah brought dinosaur eggs onto the ark with him...
How would he be keep them properly incubated?
How would he ensure that he had a male and female of each species?
Some lizards come out all one species if they are incubated at certain temperatures, what if dinosaurs turned out to be like this?
Lastly, fair deuce to him for facing off the female tyranosaurus to steal her eggs, some speculate that they were extremely maternal and would be extremely dangerous if you were trying to steal their eggs.

I never said that eggs were brought into the ark, although that may have been possible. But young animals would just as well do the job as mature animals. And a young lizard is much smaller than an adult one.

Zombrex

santing wrote: »

I never said that eggs were brought into the ark, although that may have been possible. But young animals would just as well do the job as mature animals. And a young lizard is much smaller than an adult one.

A young dinosaur during the period the boat was a float would consume far more than his own weight and size in food as he grew in order to grow into a large dinosaur.

So it doesn't solve the problem, any weight or space you save by supposing that they were young when they entered the Ark would be offset (by a huge amount) by the requirement for food for that growing dinosaur.

The food issue alone makes a literal interpretation of the Ark story impossible without supposing God was supernaturally intervening at regular points.

Some animals eat half their weight in food a day, so for every animal like that on board you would require 20 times the weight in food. Just for that animal.

Monty Burnz

santing wrote: »

I never said that eggs were brought into the ark, although that may have been possible. But young animals would just as well do the job as mature animals. And a young lizard is much smaller than an adult one.

They aren't lizards, as pointed out above.

If we are assuming that only baby dinosaurs were brought aboard, then how were these eggs/babies raised even when the flood was over? Did they just push these eggs/tiny baby dinosaurs out into the wilderness and expect them to survive? Or did they rear them by hand somehow?

What did the baby carnivorous dinosaurs eat when they were released after the flood?

santing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, where does it say that it the flood was the caused by the first rains ever to fall on the earth? In similar manner, the first mention of thunder, hail and lightning I can find appears in the early chapters of Exodus. Do you also argue that these did not exist until that point?

It has been pointed out by a number of people that rainbows appear even in the absence of rain drops. Again, where does it say that rainbows first appeared only after the flood??

The Bible doesn't say that the rain during the flood was the first. But a construction could be made to imply that it was the first rain. We basically don't know anything about pre-flood conditions, only that it was different from our times - we don't live 1000 years anymore!
The first rainbow is again connected with the preceding theory. If there was no rain, there were no clouds and therefore also no rainbow in the clouds. There may be "rainbows" in waterfalls, but not in clouds.

Monty Burnz

santing wrote: »

There may be "rainbows" in waterfalls, but not in clouds.

Whatever about the semantics of clouds, the whole dinosaur thing does seem to create impossible problems for Noah. If they were anything near mature, he would have needed an Ark the size of an aircraft carrier, and if they were immature, how did they survive upon release?

Hmm...I'm struck by another problem....how did flightless animals populate the world's islands?

clever_name

Let me say that I posted the dinosaur remark as a joke, sorry, my fault for not considering where I was posting.

My main reason for asking the original questions was that I was curious about people who have a literal belief in the bible and their take on the tale of the ark.

At the risk of causing more confusion can I ask another question, if the great flood covered the earth and killed everything not onboard - I think biblically that means everyone is a descendant of Noah. agree/disagree?

PDN

clever_name wrote: »

I think biblically that means everyone is a descendant of Noah. agree/disagree?

That would be correct. It would make Noah our Y Chromosomal Adam.

clever_name

So according to the bible the six billion plus people on the planet now are descended from less than ten people around five thousand years ago?

PDN

clever_name wrote: »

So according to the bible the six billion plus people on the planet now are descended from less than ten people around five thousand years ago?

No, according to one interpretation of some verses in the Bible, the time period would be that recently. Many biblical scholars contend that we have no way of knowing how long ago Noah lived since Hebrew genealogies often recorded the names of well-known ancestors, not a complete list.

(btw - if it was 5000 years then that would require a population growth rate of 0.5% per year, or about one quarter of current growth rates)

clever_name

PDN wrote: »

No, according to one interpretation of some verses in the Bible, the time period would be that recently. Many biblical scholars contend that we have no way of knowing how long ago Noah lived since Hebrew genealogies often recorded the names of well-known ancestors, not a complete list.

(btw - if it was 5000 years then that would require a population growth rate of 0.5% per year, or about one quarter of current growth rates)

Was not questioning the mathematical possibility of ten growing to six billion, I was more thinking that this indicates that the variety of human life now has grown from a handfull of people a few thousand years ago. I thought this might lead to a problem for some people with a literal belief in the bible as it could suggest that eveloution had happened.