Noahs Ark (How can anyone possibly believe the story)

[lunamoth]

I wish people would

problem lies with people afraid of getting to far away from the original messages

The original messages are the big picture messages. They are the sweeping statements about God (Creator, Source of Being), human nature (love, sin), and relationship (failure and redemption, grace and forgiveness). The details about these basic messages change to meet the needs of each generation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But, in a sense there is no problem with saying "Goddidit," if God is the creator and ground of all being. No, it is not a scientific explanation, and it never was meant to be. The flood story is a story, and the whole approach of shooting it down because it is clearly impossible, or trying to find archeological or scientific evidence that it happened, is silly.

It's not like atheists came up with the idea of interpreting Genesis literally. Christians came up with that all on their own, and it was the predominant interpretation for more than a thousand years. It's only when scientific fact showed it to be false that it was re-interpreted.

The flood story is about humanity being reborn through water, set free through and in spite of trial and suffering. It is about how all of creation is in this together. It is about how in spite of the evil that lurks in our hearts and on our doorstep, we are loved.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I think the most reasonable interpretation of the story is as a way of saying "God loves us - look what he did for us!"... but this doesn't work if God didn't actually do it.

We sing about how God created us. Does that mean we don't understand where babies come from, so we need God as an explanation? No, of course not.

You might not, but you aren't the author of the Bible.

We understand evolution of species, we have explored space, and we learn more all the times about the workings of our own minds. None of these things displaces God from being God or makes God unnecessary. It simply means we understand more and more about this amazing universe. Science does not explain creation, heaven, or our souls. It explains evolution, astronomy, and psychology.

And religion once tried to expalin evolution, astronomy and psychology as well... or at least tried to give concrete explanations for things that we now know are in conflict with these areas of scientific knowledge. It still does, in fact.

I've stated before that I don't agree with NOMA. I think that religion has historically had many things to say on topics that we now consider matters of science. IMO, it's only historical revisionism to say that the ancient scriptures of the religions we have today were never intended to speak to what we now consider scientific.

 

[lunamoth]

It's not like atheists came up with the idea of interpreting Genesis literally. Christians came up with that all on their own, and it was the predominant interpretation for more than a thousand years. It's only when scientific fact showed it to be false that it was re-interpreted.

Oh, I know it was started by Christians. I was referring to the current discussions, not the historical development of this attitude. However, it is not that it was first 'reinterpreted' with the advance of the scientific worldview that gained dominance after the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment did mark the beginning of critical Biblical scholarship, treating it in a systematic manner as an historical document. Biblical literalism is a reaction to this way of treating the Bible. If all truth must be scientific truth, then the Bible must also be literal, scientific truth. This was a huge wrong turn in Christian approach to scripture, and it was not one taken up by all branches of Christianity.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. I think the most reasonable interpretation of the story is as a way of saying "God loves us - look what he did for us!"... but this doesn't work if God didn't actually do it.

Pre-Enlightenment the Bible was taken literally the way children take stories literally, not the way a modern adult tries to take the Bible as historically and scientifically true. Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon. The authors of the Bible knew that they were writing stories, not history or science. They were not trying to lie or be dishonest, but these stories of God and His people were the point, not factual historical record or science. Even though the earliest seeds of science were growing, especially in Greece and parts of Asia, most people did not have a scientific worldview. Saying that the Bible needed to be read literally for it to be true just does not make sense in the context it was written.

 

[lunamoth]

You might not, but you aren't the author of the Bible.

But the authors of the Bible did not, either. They were just as apt to write in metaphors when speaking about God as we would be today. The writers of the flood story, at least two and writing in different eras from different perspectives, realized that they were working their own theology into the story, introducing different metaphors and pieces of story to do so. The different parts of the story were written to address the theological needs of their time.

And religion once tried to expalin evolution, astronomy and psychology as well... or at least tried to give concrete explanations for things that we now know are in conflict with these areas of scientific knowledge. It still does, in fact.

Well, it is understandable that many of the pioneers of science in biology, astronomy, physics and psychology would include God in their equations, as Newton did. They were often Christians or theists of other religions (I am sure this would be true of Judaism and Islam, at least, although I am not as familiar with scientists from these traditions). God just was part of their worldview and thinking. As we gained better knowledge of the world and a clear grasp of the scientific method, we realized that is unnecessary and inappropriate to insert God as an explanation. We are still suffering (theologically speaking) from this misturn, but both science and theology progress in fits and starts and sometimes backtracks.

If anything, the fact that we are not the center of the universe, either as a planet or a species, is productive for Christian theology. Theology really can, and should be, informed by science in some respects.

I've stated before that I don't agree with NOMA. I think that religion has historically had many things to say on topics that we now consider matters of science. IMO, it's only historical revisionism to say that the ancient scriptures of the religions we have today were never intended to speak to what we now consider scientific.

I'm not a fan of NOMA either, although I appreciate where Gould was trying to go with that. Good fences make good neighbors. It was appropriate that throughout history religion, which mainly concerns itself with human well-being, would address things that we now say are in the domain of science or psychology. Science, in luna's theology, is part of revelation about God. It's the part by which we learn about our natural world, how to live well in it. Personally speaking, I have had as many religious moments in the lab and in the museum of natural history as I have had in church. Many of the pioneers of science were motivated by their love of God's creation and wanting to truly understand it, the wonder and awe of it.

As for psychology, I think there is still some role for religion in addressing our mental needs as humans. Religion has done this for as long as there have been humans, and our priests, ministers, and shamans can help some forms of mental need as well as secular counselors. Well-trained spiritual leaders know when to direct people to psychologists and psychiatrists, or other mental health workers. Religion often serves as a kind of psychological self-help, as well. While perhaps not the cutting edge of modern psychology, William James famously noted that there there were few patients of psychology he had met that could not be cured by finding religion (or something to that effect; I am fairly sure he said this, but since I don't know the exact quote and can't find my copy of Varieties of Religious Experience, I can't do the fact check - just spent ten minutes on it!).

Anyway, my bottom line to this is that since the scientific worldview is so new on the scene, just a couple of hundred years, and probably for far fewer years has it been the main worldview of regular people, not just the most educated elite, it is not correct to say that the Bible used to try to explain things scientifically, and now we know it is wrong. As I said in my first post, humanity was like a child, but now we can't go back and look at things the same way any more. Some people are trying to cling to childhood, but it is a false childhood, like a teen looking for babies under the cabbage leaf while 8 months pregnant. It is absurd. So, we are in the process, again, of remaking our stories. No doubt about it, Christianity, and I think most other world religions, are once again travailing to be born again. It can be painful, or it can be exhilarating.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, I know it was started by Christians. I was referring to the current discussions, not the historical development of this attitude. However, it is not that it was first 'reinterpreted' with the advance of the scientific worldview that gained dominance after the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment did mark the beginning of critical Biblical scholarship, treating it in a systematic manner as an historical document. Biblical literalism is a reaction to this way of treating the Bible. If all truth must be scientific truth, then the Bible must also be literal, scientific truth. This was a huge wrong turn in Christian approach to scripture, and it was not one taken up by all branches of Christianity.

I wasn't actually talking about the Enlightenment. I was thinking of the scientific developments that occurred later. Until probably the mid 19th Century, science didn't have a very good handle on the age of the Earth. It was during this period that as developments came about through disciplines like geology, biology and archaeology that the belief in things like a literal flood became untenable.

Pre-Enlightenment the Bible was taken literally the way children take stories literally, not the way a modern adult tries to take the Bible as historically and scientifically true. Biblical literalism is a modern phenomenon. The authors of the Bible knew that they were writing stories, not history or science.

Tell that to Galileo and Giordano Bruno.

They were not trying to lie or be dishonest, but these stories of God and His people were the point, not factual historical record or science. Even though the earliest seeds of science were growing, especially in Greece and parts of Asia, most people did not have a scientific worldview. Saying that the Bible needed to be read literally for it to be true just does not make sense in the context it was written.

Out of curiosity, what reason do you have for concluding that the original authors meant the story to be interpreted non-literally? I know that a literal interpretation is problematic for modern religions who use the story, but I haven't ever seen any evidence that ancient peoples did interpret the story the way you say they did.

I mean, as you point out, they didn't have a scientific worldview. Why is it so unreasonable to think that they did believe that the story was literally true, but didn't see a problem with this?

 

[darkendless]

I mean, as you point out, they didn't have a scientific worldview. Why is it so unreasonable to think that they did believe that the story was literally true, but didn't see a problem with this?

Because we know better now. Its often a trait of biblical supporters to alter interpretation to suit themselves. Heck 150 years ago i'm sure most creationists thought the global flood was 100% full-proof. These days its impossible due to the way in which we can analyse geological formations to theorise their deposition.

 

[lunamoth]

Tell that to Galileo and Giordano Bruno.

The Popes and Cardinals of their time did not write the Bible.

Out of curiosity, what reason do you have for concluding that the original authors meant the story to be interpreted non-literally? I know that a literal interpretation is problematic for modern religions who use the story, but I haven't ever seen any evidence that ancient peoples did interpret the story the way you say they did.

I base this on what I have learned about how the Bible was written. There were at least two authors, one (J) writing much earlier than the other (P). When P intertwined his story he was writing from a time when Priestly and certain sacramental practices were important for keeping Judaism alive. I think it was after the Babylonian exile, but it would take me some time to go back and look. The two stories are interwoven and the obvious conflicting pieces were kept, rather than being discarded and smoothed out or resolved (as we would be tempted to do today if we wanted to try to make our story look factual). This shows that the intention was to tell the theology, not to be factually correct - it was more important to keep all of the parts, old and new, in spite of the inconsistencies. So, obviously those redactors knew they were not witnessing previously unheard of but factual events of the flood and writing them in.

I mean, as you point out, they didn't have a scientific worldview. Why is it so unreasonable to think that they did believe that the story was literally true, but didn't see a problem with this?

Because "literally true" for most people BCE would have nothing to do with science or concern about the factual workings of the physical world. "Literally true" would mean that God acts in the world. You may take issue with this, but it is quite a different statement than a Christian today insisting that evolution could not have happened because the Bible says so.

 

[jostlin79]

Hi, this is my first post here. I really enjoyed reading through some of these posts because I had alot of the same "questions". I am not a science, religion or history scholar, just a huge fan of all the above. So go easy on me...

My first thought, you can't call one origin story a myth and not the rest of them. Do they sound out of context, changed over time and or made up my man, sure... But they must have come from somewhere...

Second, to a blank slate, like me, these stories do not sound like stories of magic or miracles. They sound like people trying to explain technologies and mysteries "they" do not understand. Instead of reading scripture as nonsense or myth, it is quite a different story to those who can except the possibility of planet hopping, terraforming, artifical insimination, etc. I see no reason why science and religion don't just shake hands and be friends, again. They both explain each other, or try to, in my opinion.

Why do we as humans reject the idea that we might not be the smartest so far? Maybe our ancestors weren't that enlightened, but somewhere,someone might have been.

How do we even know that these stories have anything to do with us? How do you know that Noah wasn't moved here from another planet? How do we know the animals were not stored like those seeds. In DNA form or something like that.

My issue is not whether or not this story is possible. I want to know who is GOD, Lord God, the lord and the gods They are all mentioned in the bible and I am positive they are different people.

I believe my God is where I came from and where I am going back to. This God isn't good or evil. I can't follow anyone or anything that has to lead by fear or brute force. A real God wouldn't need those things.

 

[darkendless]

Hi, this is my first post here. I really enjoyed reading through some of these posts because I had alot of the same "questions". I am not a science, religion or history scholar, just a huge fan of all the above. So go easy on me...

We'll see, us atheist/scientists are an awful bunch :yes:

My first thought, you can't call one origin story a myth and not the rest of them. Do they sound out of context, changed over time and or made up my man, sure... But they must have come from somewhere...

Yes, there are known regional floods over time. However, Noah's Ark itself based on an assumed size could not have survived flood waters. Think about the kinds of debris floating around as flood waters rose. Where I live in Australia just experienced the largest flood in 100 years and these waters literally ripped apart everything in their way. They uprooted 20m trees and smashed bridges. How would an exceptionally large boat withstand such a thing based on the animals and people assumed to be on the boat?

Second, to a blank slate, like me, these stories do not sound like stories of magic or miracles. They sound like people trying to explain technologies and mysteries "they" do not understand. Instead of reading scripture as nonsense or myth, it is quite a different story to those who can except the possibility of planet hopping, terraforming, artifical insimination, etc. I see no reason why science and religion don't just shake hands and be friends, again. They both explain each other, or try to, in my opinion.

They sound like exaggerated stories which have been exaggerated to show what God is capable of so the masses should stand in line and behave or they're going to hell. Its a very simple concept.

Just something though, religion and science are not related. Science does not bother with religion. Science smashed religion when religion tries to verify itself scientifically (such as Noah's Ark) which is not possible. You cannot reconcile religion using science.

Why do we as humans reject the idea that we might not be the smartest so far? Maybe our ancestors weren't that enlightened, but somewhere,someone might have been.

We don't exactly have anything but speculation on this point.

How do we even know that these stories have anything to do with us? How do you know that Noah wasn't moved here from another planet? How do we know the animals were not stored like those seeds. In DNA form or something like that.

Interesting perspective. Lack of evience is a mitigating factor I guess.

My issue is not whether or not this story is possible. I want to know who is GOD, Lord God, the lord and the gods They are all mentioned in the bible and I am positive they are different people.

Never considered this statement.

I believe my God is where I came from and where I am going back to. This God isn't good or evil. I can't follow anyone or anything that has to lead by fear or brute force. A real God wouldn't need those things.

You're probably right. But Emperor Constantine needed to instill fear into the masses to control them. Using the bible to do so would have been much easier than appealing to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Popes and Cardinals of their time did not write the Bible.

But they did interpret the Bible literally in pre-Enlightenment times, showing that Biblical literalism didn't arise as a response to the Enlightenment.

I base this on what I have learned about how the Bible was written. There were at least two authors, one (J) writing much earlier than the other (P). When P intertwined his story he was writing from a time when Priestly and certain sacramental practices were important for keeping Judaism alive. I think it was after the Babylonian exile, but it would take me some time to go back and look. The two stories are interwoven and the obvious conflicting pieces were kept, rather than being discarded and smoothed out or resolved (as we would be tempted to do today if we wanted to try to make our story look factual). This shows that the intention was to tell the theology, not to be factually correct - it was more important to keep all of the parts, old and new, in spite of the inconsistencies. So, obviously those redactors knew they were not witnessing previously unheard of but factual events of the flood and writing them in.

If they didn't care about factual correctness, then why so many factual-seeming details, such as the exact dimensions of the Ark and the arcane details of what Noah did? If the point of the story is only to express the idea that God loves us despite our flaws, why would it matter to specify that God commanded Noah to bring one pair of some animals and seven pairs of others, for instance?

Because "literally true" for most people BCE would have nothing to do with science or concern about the factual workings of the physical world. "Literally true" would mean that God acts in the world.

... in a literal, factual, real way. This is what I'm saying.

You may take issue with this, but it is quite a different statement than a Christian today insisting that evolution could not have happened because the Bible says so.

How is it different? The only difference I see is that the older factual claims wouldn't have been challenged by other knowledge of the day like creationism is challenged by evolution now.

 

[lunamoth]

But they did interpret the Bible literally in pre-Enlightenment times, showing that Biblical literalism didn't arise as a response to the Enlightenment.

Yes, as I said a number of times above - in a way that we now consider naive, or as children believe before they mature.

If they didn't care about factual correctness, then why so many factual-seeming details, such as the exact dimensions of the Ark and the arcane details of what Noah did? If the point of the story is only to express the idea that God loves us despite our flaws, why would it matter to specify that God commanded Noah to bring one pair of some animals and seven pairs of others, for instance?

Some reasons would be

1) good storytelling,

2) the details likely represent things that were important to religious practice at the time they were written, perhaps reflecting details about the temple or numbers and symbols that had meaning for the people at that time, or explaining different facets of mundane life as experienced by those people. I would not be surprised if the ark (boat) dimensions are somehow related to the details about the building of the Ark of the Covenant, details about which were written in turn to reflect the Temple as it actually existed when built as a building. Numbers and kinds of animals are related to sacrificial practices (clean and unclean, even though this would have been meaningless in the purported time of Noah). There is a ton of esoteric theology woven into the flood narrative, and

3) many of the details are taken from earlier flood stories and probably represent the ancient roots of the original story. Even though it's been mostly ruled out that it was based upon the Babylonian flood story, there was an older, Sumerian story and both the Biblical and Babylonian stories picked up elements from this.

... in a literal, factual, real way. This is what I'm saying.

What? You are moving the cheese here. I am sure you have some understanding of myth. Think of it as similar to Aesop's tales. Did they factually happen? No. Are the morals (point) of the stories true? Yes, at least culturally true for most of them. Did Noah build an ark or even exist? No, or at least not "literally, factually" as described in Genesis. Did the Hebrews believe that they were the people of God, and that God was acting in their history, on their behalf? Yes, they did.

How is it different? The only difference I see is that the older factual claims wouldn't have been challenged by other knowledge of the day like creationism is challenged by evolution now.

Oy vey, 9/10ths. That is the point. The claims of the Bible stories are not that the stories are factually true, but claims about God interacting with His people. None of these stories were written by witnesses who saw floods or wandered in the desert for 40 years. They were written much later than the time periods they address, and they were written to explain what the people thought about God - He created them, He loved them (in spite of), He freed them, He fed them. Did they eat manna from heaven? No. Did all of their food come from God? Yes.

 

[tarekabdo12]

Where are the volume calculations? Remember that if you have a box high enough to store an elephant, the rest of the floor will be that high, leaving a lot of open space for all the other animals, wasting volume. Realize that there are a lot of insects and a lot of something very small builds up after a while. Amphibians and birds do take up some space. You will also need some way of disposing with waste products, and carnivores will need meat to survive. Some animals eat a lot of food, e.g. the elephant will eat about 150 kg of food every day.

You are also ignoring the multitude of extinct birds, mammals, and dinosaurs.
These are only a few representative of the few dinosaur and extinct mamal kinds.
And... wait. Don't forget the prehistoric giant insects.

I don't know why u insist that Noah lived at the time of Dinosaurs,probably he come after this time by a long period. In addition, the flood might be localized not global so that he didn't need to take all the animals on earth. He only needed those that can keep the human life after the flood.

 

[tarekabdo12]

"Food for the people"... so all these animals that are stacked like cordwood for a year don't need to eat?

I believe that the flood took only a short period of time and by the power of God the earth was ordered to take the water inside it.

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't know why u insist that Noah lived at the time of Dinosaurs,probably he come after this time by a long period. In addition, the flood might be localized not global so that he didn't need to take all the animals on earth. He only needed those that can keep the human life after the flood.

The Bible quite clearly states that it was a global flood. There should be no doubt about that.

 

[waitasec]

I'll answer from a Creationist viewpoint, because I feel like it.

Today's species originate from different "kinds". A vague classification indeed, but it could mean that only a few hundred to a few thousand had to fit on the Ark.
MAGIC
MAGIC
MAGIC
MAGIC

Seriously, though, I'm not trying to be facetious (well maybe a little), but if Christians believe in an omnipotent God, then why can't these things be possible? Who says that God did not provide for the animals? God could have made sure that mutations did not happen, or as fallingblood said the mutations could have pushed evolution further and the increased amount of mutations could then be used to support a young-earth argument. All of the things which seem impossible could have been taken care of by God, and thus scientific arguments aren't going to work when you're up against a God that can do anything.

but why magic, why not have empirical evidence of penguins migrating to the poles, or kangaroos migrating to australia...?
why the secrecy?

 

[tarekabdo12]

my only problem is they denounce science in favor of a ancient myth that almost every ancient culture held at one time or the other.

without any study or education in the field of geology or science, you take tarekabdo12 who post an article he believes in. No problem there at all. But I do have a problem when they spread false information and lies based on ignorance due to their religious beliefs.

Searches for Noah's Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1980s and 1990s the Durupınar site was heavily promoted by adventurer and former anesthesiologist Ron Wyatt. It consists of a large boat-shaped formation jutting out of the earth and rock. It has the advantage over the Great Ararat site of being approachable. It receives a steady stream of visitors and according to the local authorities a nearby mountain is called "Mount Cudi" (or Judi), making it one of about five Mount Judis in the land of Kurdistan. Geologists have identified the Durupınar site as a natural formation\

Durup

geologist Lorence Collins entitled "Bogus 'Noah's Ark' from Turkey Exposed as a Common Geologic Structure"


In April 1997, during sworn testimony during an Australian court case, Fasold repeated his doubts and noted that he regarded the claim that Noah's ark had been found as "absolute BS"

Thak u 4 telling me about the Durupinar site, I actually didn't know about it. I'd like to ask if u know about other searches for Noah's arc because i searched the net and found that some people claim that they have a suspected one. I saw a Chinese and Turkish team finding a ship-like structure in Turkey but i don't know if it's valid or not. If u know something about this issue please tell me. thanks

 

[outhouse]

Thak u 4 telling me about the Durupinar site, I actually didn't know about it. I'd like to ask if u know about other searches for Noah's arc because i searched the net and found that some people claim that they have a suspected one. I saw a Chinese and Turkish team finding a ship-like structure in Turkey but i don't know if it's valid or not. If u know something about this issue please tell me. thanks

So far every attempt at dicovery has eluded everyone who has looked.

To date there is 0 evidence supporting the ark existed outside of mythology.

The roots to the flood story have been found and as ive stated many times, there is a reality that their was a flood. It was not a flood hebrews knew anything about but in the original story when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900BC a sumerian did load his animals on a large barge and floated out to sea, landed on a hill and made a animal sacrifice.

the hebrew version has borrowed [in my opinion] and in some places its almost word for word with the sumerian flood.

It makes perfect sense because semetic speaking people belonged to the sumerian culture and it was no problem for then to migrate to the promised land with their own fables and religions based on their previous cultures beliefs. In thi scase sumerians.


you have to take into account the hebrew culture only goes back to 1250BC and the first parts of the OT were written around 1000BC. Hebrews created their religion in a fairly short time.

semetic speaking people all migrated to the holy land and this included egyptian and sumerian influences as well as nomad hebrews.


go figure out how theres 6000 years of hebrew history when they started their culture at 1250BC. 1250 BC is really undisputed. Before that they were semetic speaking people who belonged to other cultures amd worshipped other manmade deitys

 

[outhouse]

read this if you want the real story and want to learn about real history

Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic - home page noahs-ark-flood.com

 

[tarekabdo12]

The Bible quite clearly states that it was a global flood. There should be no doubt about that.

I'm a Muslim not a christian.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

I'm a Muslim not a christian.

It's no different in Islam. The Koran implies a global flood as well.

Construct the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance: then when comes Our command, and the oven gushes forth, take thou on board pairs of every species, male and female, and thy family- except those of whom the Word has already gone forth: and address Me not in favour of the wrong-doers: for they shall be drowned (in the Flood)." S. 23:27

Why would Noah be instructed to bring two of every species if it was only localized?