Was Noah's Ark actually a DNA bank?

[Dezzie]

I like the way Aliens making DNA samples of every animal on the planet is cast aside as nigh on impossible
But God moves in mysterious ways is laid out as a far more realistic notion?

Well... for most people, both of the theories are unrealistic. It doesn't change the fact I think they are still a possibility though (whether it be small or not).

 

[Dezzie]

DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick.

Who Discovered DNA? Learn About Frederick Miescher

 

[RevKen]

In scripture, the phrases "the earth" and "the world" pertaine to a locality, and not to the whole earth. Even when America was first discovered by Europeans, it was called "the new world." This phrase did not refer to a new planet, but just a locality on the same planet.

1. Most would say that the flood covered all the earth, but in Hebrew, the word for "earth" can mean locality as well:

a. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) We know that not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

b. Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

c. In Jeremiah 34:1, "all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the peoples, fought against Jerusalem." There the phrase "of the earth" is limited to "his dominion," i.e., the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar.

d. In II Chronicles 36:23, Cyrus' empire is said to have encompassed "all the kingdoms of the earth." But there were kingdoms in the Far East which were surely not included.

e. Acts 11:28 speaks of a similar famine "throughout all the world," yet it is not likely it really meant over the whole globe including the New World.

f. Luke 2:1 refers to a decree which went out to tax "the whole world." But this only refers to the territories that the Romans controlled.

I could go on with the list but this would be suffice.

The flood was local, and reading the bible will explain the reason.

Ken

 

[outhouse]

In scripture, the phrases "the earth" and "the world" pertaine to a locality, and not to the whole earth. Even when America was first discovered by Europeans, it was called "the new world." This phrase did not refer to a new planet, but just a locality on the same planet.

1. Most would say that the flood covered all the earth, but in Hebrew, the word for "earth" can mean locality as well:

a. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) We know that not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

b. Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

c. In Jeremiah 34:1, "all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the peoples, fought against Jerusalem." There the phrase "of the earth" is limited to "his dominion," i.e., the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar.

d. In II Chronicles 36:23, Cyrus' empire is said to have encompassed "all the kingdoms of the earth." But there were kingdoms in the Far East which were surely not included.

e. Acts 11:28 speaks of a similar famine "throughout all the world," yet it is not likely it really meant over the whole globe including the New World.

f. Luke 2:1 refers to a decree which went out to tax "the whole world." But this only refers to the territories that the Romans controlled.

I could go on with the list but this would be suffice.

The flood was local, and reading the bible will explain the reason.

Ken

good history work. best I have heard [global] vs regional flood explained. I would buy that sight unseen, except. Only problem is how they embellished the story to make sure everyone knew it was a global flood. From x amount over the highest mountains to god murdering all of humanity and all the animals, birds ect.

I do like were you were going with it.

 

[outhouse]

From what I understand the flood originated on the euphrates in 2900BC coming from the sumerian culture.

you probably already know the story.

 

[xkatz]

I saw this theory explored in an episode of "Ancient Aliens" on the "History" Channel. Their theory was ancient aliens have always intervened and were the "gods" and "angels" that ancient people were trying to describe. And that Noah's Ark was some sort of DNA bank designed by and built at the behest of extraterrestrial visitors.

Although most of the theories and ideas in "Ancient Aliens" are complete nonsensical BS, I love watching it for sh*ts and giggles

 

[outhouse]

Although most of the theories and ideas in "Ancient Aliens" are complete nonsensical BS, I love watching it for sh*ts and giggles

I like the historical stuff, but i still cringe with every word they speak lol

having been to many of the places and knowing the storys in depth I want to choke every one of those crooks.

 

[Dezzie]

I like the historical stuff, but i still cringe with every word they speak lol

having been to many of the places and knowing the storys in depth I want to choke every one of those crooks.

I actually would like to learn a little bit from you then... Even though I like the Ancient Alien idea, I still want to know the truth.

Since you have been to these places, what have you seen in the show that has been 100% wrong off the bat? (I really am curious by the way... I don't know too much about the areas they speak of. )

 

[rusra02]

I was reading an article on www.abovetopsecret.com and they were talking about Noah's Ark. They were questioning how it was even possible to store two of every animal, blah blah blah. They mentioned this theory: what if the DNA was actually stored on Noah's Ark, not the actual animal?

I thought this was an interesting thought, and it would make more sense but... did they have that technology back then? Supposedly not.

Anyway, what do you guys think about this theory?

Noah's Ark Was......A DNA Bank?, page 1

Now... don't get me wrong okay? I know that Noah's Ark may have never been real to begin with but... what if it WAS? Would the DNA theory make more sense? I mean... if God is real, he has the power to do such a thing.

-Dezzie

The answer is no. Genesis 7:2-5 shows God instructing Noah to take actual animals and birds into the ark. Genesis 6:21 mentions food for these animals was also aboard the ark. There is more evidence regarding this but this should suffice. As to Noah and the Global flood being historically correct, Jesus said at Luke 17:26;
"Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all."
If the flood were a mere myth or allegory, Jesus words would be meaningless.

 

[doppelganger]

Although most of the theories and ideas in "Ancient Aliens" are complete nonsensical BS, I love watching it for sh*ts and giggles

Me too. It's very entertaining.

 

[Dezzie]

The answer is no. Genesis 7:2-5 shows God instructing Noah to take actual animals and birds into the ark. Genesis 6:21 mentions food for these animals was also aboard the ark. There is more evidence regarding this but this should suffice. As to Noah and the Global flood being historically correct, Jesus said at Luke 17:26;
"Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all."
If the flood were a mere myth or allegory, Jesus words would be meaningless.

Does it say how big the ark was in the Bible?

 

[thedope]

Describes the planetary system and it's primary function.

We enter the ark of earthly human condition, two by two, male and female each according to their kind.

In pursuit, (condition), is found the pursuer, male active principle, and the pursued, female active principal.

 

[Noaidi]

Does it say how big the ark was in the Bible?

Genesis 6:15. 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. According to the footnote in the bible, this translates as 135m long, 22.5m wide and 13.5m high. And 2 of every land animal were packed into this....

 

[outhouse]

I actually would like to learn a little bit from you then... Even though I like the Ancient Alien idea, I still want to know the truth.

Since you have been to these places, what have you seen in the show that has been 100% wrong off the bat? (I really am curious by the way... I don't know too much about the areas they speak of. )

yes you can tell they lie, if their lips are moving.

when ever they do the close shots of those jokers telling you about history, there messing it all up.

I need to get the job of trashing them on the their own show.

everytime there faced with large rocks moved its always the aliens that did it or alien technology, let me tell you something, ancient men all over the world in every country moved large rocks and they were good at it from thousands of years of practice. If it were true then aliens would hav ebeen running around here like ants helping every major culture out there.

theres pistures and paintings of egyptions doing the work themselves.


if and ancient man made a painting and imagined a shooting start as a god or spirit coming to earth, they always claim alien. If it was a meteor shower, you guessed it. A heavenly battle and they painted it that way. Then the nut jobs say it's aliens.

the history of the bible they really screw up badly because they dont know the culture.

 

[Dezzie]

Genesis 6:15. 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. According to the footnote in the bible, this translates as 135m long, 22.5m wide and 13.5m high. And 2 of every land animal were packed into this....

That's pretty small for every animal in the world. lol

 

[thedope]

That's pretty small for every animal in the world. lol

We are still, in this time, discovering species that have never before been described.
I think the story of the ark is allegory.

 

[Dezzie]

yes you can tell they lie, if their lips are moving.

when ever they do the close shots of those jokers telling you about history, there messing it all up.

I need to get the job of trashing them on the their own show.

everytime there faced with large rocks moved its always the aliens that did it or alien technology, let me tell you something, ancient men all over the world in every country moved large rocks and they were good at it from thousands of years of practice. If it were true then aliens would hav ebeen running around here like ants helping every major culture out there.

theres pistures and paintings of egyptions doing the work themselves.


if and ancient man made a painting and imagined a shooting start as a god or spirit coming to earth, they always claim alien. If it was a meteor shower, you guessed it. A heavenly battle and they painted it that way. Then the nut jobs say it's aliens.

the history of the bible they really screw up badly because they dont know the culture.

Trust me... I understand what you mean. Look at how much our society has changed. We have all this technology to do things for us. We are lazy and some of us don't bother to think for ourselves. There isn't a doubt in my mind that the Ancients could move heavy rocks themselves (they had to use logic and SMARTS to do it by hand). Do you know if Archaeologists have ever found any "machines" used by the Ancients to help move these things? I am sure they were a lot smarter than people think. :bow: If I could go back in time, I totally would.

*edit

Thanks to painted wolf I realized this.

 

[Noaidi]

That's pretty small for every animal in the world. lol

Perhaps they were all dwarf varieties!

 

[rusra02]

That's pretty small for every animal in the world. lol

Consider it's size this way. The capacity of the ark roughly is that of 250 railroad boxcars. Also, keep in mind that the animals selected 'according to their kind' were capable of breeding together and producing young. So the large number of species today could come from a relatively small number of 'kind's'. For example, all the different species of horses could come from a single pair, all dogs and many other canine species, from a single pair. The variety found today among humans is indicative of the potential for variety in the human 'kind', of which only 8 were in the ark. Some have estimated that only a few hundred 'kind's' of birds, mammals, and reptiles would be needed for the large number of species existing today. If adolescent rather than full-grown animals entered the ark, this would also have conserved space, although the Bible does not indicate the age of these creatures Noah put into the ark. Thus the carrying capacity of the Ark could easily have supported the animals and humans that entered it, with sufficient food for a year aboard.

 

[averageJOE]

Consider it's size this way. The capacity of the ark roughly is that of 250 railroad boxcars. Also, keep in mind that the animals selected 'according to their kind' were capable of breeding together and producing young. So the large number of species today could come from a relatively small number of 'kind's'. For example, all the different species of horses could come from a single pair, all dogs and many other canine species, from a single pair. The variety found today among humans is indicative of the potential for variety in the human 'kind', of which only 8 were in the ark. Some have estimated that only a few hundred 'kind's' of birds, mammals, and reptiles would be needed for the large number of species existing today. If adolescent rather than full-grown animals entered the ark, this would also have conserved space, although the Bible does not indicate the age of these creatures Noah put into the ark. Thus the carrying capacity of the Ark could easily have supported the animals and humans that entered it, with sufficient food for a year aboard.

In other words: Hyper-evolution.