Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Noah's Ark dimensions ?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Eddy_P

Eddy_P

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 03:10 AM

The English KJV account in Genesis 6:15 is "The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits".

The words "shall be" have been added by English translators of the KJV Bible.
This makes it seem that the length of the ark was three hundred cubits.

But Hebrew word 7969 "three" can mean 'third'.
This verse could have originally read as 'The length of the third ark 100 cubits, width fifty cubits, height thirty cubits'.

The other two arks are the Ark of the Covenant and the Ark of Testimony (Exodus 25:22).
The third is Noah's Ark which is 100 x 50 x 30 cubits.

What do you think ?

#2 geokker

geokker

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 06:42 AM

So Noah's ark was 45 metres long? the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier is 245 metres long. Considering how many creatures were packed in there, that's pretty tight. No room for a military presence then.

#3 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 07:04 AM

Considering how many creatures were packed in there, that's pretty tight.

That's not considering all of the partitions Noah would need to keep all of the predators seperated from each other and all of the prey. But the animals would all need food during their stay so one would have to assume that he started with more than two of each of the prey that he used to feed the predators while they were on the ark. It would also have needed vegetative food for all of the plant eaters like places for all of the grazers to forage. And what about the needed facilities to store two copies of every disease without infecting the animals or plants each disease affects. Yep, that must have been one heck of a boat.

#4 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 07:30 AM

I reckon what would've taken up the most space would've been, without any doubt, the air-conditioning system.

Elephant poop is one thing, but bloody hell...

#5 Hawkens

Hawkens

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 08:07 AM

And what about the needed facilities to store two copies of every disease without infecting the animals or plants each disease affects.

How long it take you to dream that one up?

The following answers some questions about the Ark's size.

It is given in cubits as being 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. A cubit in the OT was generally about 17.5 inches. However, an Egyptian royal cubit measured about 20.5 inches. Since Moses was educated in Egypt we must allow for the possibility that the longer measurement was meant here. The Ark, therefore, could have measured from 437 feet to 512 feet in length! It was not until the late 19th century that a ship anywhere near this size was built.
With the shorter cubit the Ark would have an internal volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet, or the equivalent of 569 standard railroad boxcars. If the average sized animal was the size of a sheep it means the Ark could hold over 125,000 sheep. (Assuming the shape of the Ark to be rectangular there would have been over 100,000 sq. ft of floor space!)
Though the Bible does not say, it seems reasonable that Noah employed a large group of workman to build the Ark. If Noah started building the Ark soon after God spoke to him, then the process of building the Ark may have taken close to 120 years.



The following covers some of the questions about the animals. It's also important to remember that only after the flood did any creature eat meat. So there were no worries about the animals eating eachother.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

The Human Passengers. II Pet. 2:5 says 8 souls were saved. We assume this means Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives.
The Animal Passengers. In Gen. 6:19ff. Noah is instructed to bring mated pairs of every kind of bird, every kind of animal, and every kind of creature that moves along the ground. In Gen. 7:2ff. He is more specifically instructed to bring seven mated pairs (14) of clean animals and seven pairs of all birds.
The Number of animals. Only air-breathing animals needed to be included on the Ark. Authorities on taxonomy estimate that there are less than 18,000 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians living in the world today. We might double this to allow for extinct species. This would gives us 36,000 species times 2, or 72,000 animals. Adding for the clean animals, we might say there were as many as 75,000 animals. Earlier we said there was room enough in the Ark for 125,000 sheep, but most animals are smaller than a common house cat. There appears to be plenty of space for the preservation of the animal life. However, some creationists believe there may have been far fewer animals if Noah only took on board pairs of "kinds" as the word is used in Genesis 1. God created these "kinds" with potential for rich genetic diversity. For instance, at the time of Christ there existed only two types of dogs. All the diversity we see in the modern breeds of dogs came from these two!
The Care of the animals. Noah was instructed to include food for the animals (Gen. 6:21). How Noah and his small family could have cared for this large menagerie is unknown, not to mention the sanitation problem! What we must remember is that this event, i.e., the Flood, had supernatural elements. For instance, the animals came to the Ark against their natural instincts (Gen. 6:20). It is therefore reasonable to assume, as some creationists do, that the animals' metabolism may have been slowed down during their confinement, even to the point where some of the animals may have gone into a state of hibernation.

I hope this helps. I'm not trying to start another debate as much as I am just answering a few questions.

#6 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 01 August 2005 - 08:25 AM

Since you don't want to start another debate I'll comply by making a simple observation. You observe that "If Noah started building the Ark soon after God spoke to him, then the process of building the Ark may have taken close to 120 years."
So, they had labour disputes back then too? :circle:

#7 Eddy_P

Eddy_P

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:01 AM

I have been informed that

Since the word "three" is used in conjunction with the word "hundred" in that passage in Genesis, Hebrew word "meah" (3967), it is very clear that the Ark was 300 cubits in length

The KJV bible shows the word "three" in conjunction with the word "hundred", but it also shows added words of "shall be". The English translation and interpretation has added words and may have changed the original sequence of words.

For example, in Genesis 1:1 the English says "God created" but when an interlinear Hebrew book is consulted it is found that the word "created" comes before the word "God".
So Gen 1:1 originally said "In the beginning created God, the heavens, and the earth" which shows that three things were created (or were first seen by Moses who is making the account) - Moses first saw in this order what he believed to be God, Heaven, and Earth.

"God" didn't create the heaven and earth - Moses saw a deity, heaven, and earth in that order.
But Hebrew word 430 "God" is a plural Hebrew word for ordinary deities (plural).
Moses saw deities (plural), then the sky, then the land.

Back to the Ark. It is not a boat. It is just a box - a sacred box.

Have the words "three" and "hundred" in Genesis 6:15 been swapped around during the English translation process ?
I do not have access to an interlinear Old Testament.

Could someone check this out for me.
Thanks, Eddy

#8 alxian

alxian

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:16 AM

the ark was a space ship

their were a few caretakers aboard (a few hundreds to a few thousand)

the animals we had with us had to be adapted to life on earth, we however were fine all on our own..

after settling on earth and going native interbreeding and disease swept or tracks that we've spent so much time retracing, out of africa? a fine theory.. what about the chinese? they came out of africa too?

#9 geokker

geokker

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 01:01 AM

Perhaps it was a normal (small) sized wooden ship and Noah shuffled on a few farm animals to avert a localized flood. This I can believe. Two of every species? The food, the space, the organisation - clearly nonsense. Discussing the size of Noah's ark is similar to discussing Harry Potter's favourite colour. Perhaps a 'book review' section should be started.

#10 UncleAl

UncleAl

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1212 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 11:09 AM

Accounts of the Flood are survivors' mystical tales of the Mediterranean ("middle Earth") basin suddenly filling and overflowing into the Black Sea after the last Ice Age. As with all things biblical, having an incestuous drunkard as the leading character performing miracles is a test of faith.

Where is the evidence of a genetic bottleneck in all contemporary species for having each originated from a single pair of progenitors in the recent past (absent evolution, too)? Test of faith!

#11 Skippy

Skippy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 01:09 PM

the ark was a space ship

their were a few caretakers aboard (a few hundreds to a few thousand)

the animals we had with us had to be adapted to life on earth, we however were fine all on our own..

after settling on earth and going native interbreeding and disease swept or tracks that we've spent so much time retracing, out of africa? a fine theory.. what about the chinese? they came out of africa too?

First, what do you have in your bong?

Second, yes, the Chineese came out of Africa too. A research group has checked mitochondrial DNA from people of all the races in the world today and they have seen fit to say that all of us can be traced back to a single woman (since that is where the mitochondrial DNA comes from) they referred to as "Eve."

#12 Skippy

Skippy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 01:32 PM

Where is the evidence of a genetic bottleneck in all contemporary species for having each originated from a single pair of progenitors in the recent past (absent evolution, too)? Test of faith!

Good try. Noah and his wife had three sons. They had different genetic makeups from their parents, just as my siblings and I do. I have heard that there very names are evidence of just how different they were (Ham is supposed to be the word for 'dark' for example). The three sons had wives, probably from different families, we don't know, but they would each have a different genetic makeup from that of the other two wives and from their husbands, as did their parents. The children of one pair would marry the children of another and so on, so the gentic makeup of these first people was very mixed. One of Noah's sons had 7 sons of his own, One had 5 sons and the third had 4 sons. As was the custom in Moses' time, daughters weren't listed but they had some (we don't know how many) or else the line would have ended.

#13 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 02 August 2005 - 01:36 PM

Noah and his wife had three sons. They had different genetic makeups from their parents, just as my siblings and I do. I have heard that there very names are evidence of just how different they were (Ham is supposed to be the word for 'dark' for example). The three sons had wives, ...

Sorry, the math won't work. Today's mitochondrial DNA would only show four variations at 4500 years ago, and it doesn't....

Cheers,
Buffy

#14 Skippy

Skippy

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 03 August 2005 - 02:46 PM

Sorry, the math won't work. Today's mitochondrial DNA would only show four variations at 4500 years ago, and it doesn't....
Cheers,
Buffy

Cheers right back at ya'. But you are making an assumption by extrapolation, aren't you?

#15 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 03 August 2005 - 03:20 PM

But you are making an assumption by extrapolation, aren't you?

Uh, are you using the word "extrapolation" pejoritively? In order for the "extrapolation" to not be valid for at least bounding the possible range of numbers, then the measured ratio between generations and mitochondrial DNA changes would have had to have "magically" changed *very* radically prior to the direct evidential data that we have of this ratio, which has been shown for specimens that go back hundreds of years. Even the debate about whether paternal mDNA has diluted the data does not even come close to allowing only 4 "Eves" at 4500 years ago. The only way for your hypothesis to be true then would be for the Intelligent Creator to have altered everyone's mDNA at sometime a couple thousand years ago to trick us into *thinking* that there were *not* 4 Eves on the Ark, and you gotta ask yourself, why would she do that?

Cheers,
Buffy

#16 bumab

bumab

    Local Brewmaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1009 posts

Posted 03 August 2005 - 04:16 PM

Second, yes, the Chineese came out of Africa too. A research group has checked mitochondrial DNA from people of all the races in the world today and they have seen fit to say that all of us can be traced back to a single woman (since that is where the mitochondrial DNA comes from) they referred to as "Eve."


You realize the genetic Eve and the genetic Adam (yes, both exist), did not live cotemporaniously. And it was quite a long time ago.

#17 alxian

alxian

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 03 August 2005 - 05:21 PM

no i'm sticking to the record. [and theory, i loath theology] (that is christian theology)

there was no mother "eve" in the past few thousand years and some humans claim to have had civilizations much earlier in history than we can prove scientifically, the sphinx, hundreds of as of yet unexplained pyramids, (indicative perhaps of nations with similar abilities beliefs and practices pre-flood living in all corners of the world return to them after the flood), the new zealand giants, the chinese giant** a red headed white mummy, jewish mythology (going back well over 6500 years), sumerian/babylonian mythology going back pretty far too... you have to wonder pre-flood (if earths sea level was considerably lower (trapped in ice perhaps)) and humans lived relatively far from dry land post flood, far enough that according to myth it took 40 days and 40 nights*** to sail to dry land (noah having hit land in arguably one of the best places on earth to do so) then perhaps and its very likely that many nations could have been flooded out and earths human population could actually been pretty large and crashed during the "flood", billions perhaps down to a few thousand, meaning that we survived with only a small number of individuals, not succumbing to crippling inbreeding post-flood.

some evidence of those civilizations remains today.. what happens though if they didn't build wonders and wars constantly ravaged their villages and weather buried their city centers? we'd have no evidence of them? what if the flood buried them?? (we have plenty of evidence of civilizations, by way of underwater pyramids and partially or fully buried foundations of cities all over the world. some even remain standing abandoned but we simply haven't found tham yet.

*compared to the average height of the native people in the region.
**over simplifying as i'm known to do.. giantism is indicative of a massive biome, generally, pangea man would have been a giant easily, shrinking as land masses broke apart. very small humans are known to enhabit very small biomes, their interbreeding would have stunted the older pangea man (who'd also be starving from lack of food).
***myth claims rain, (read quote 2 from the net below), if a celestial event caused the sea to warm you'd get tons of clouds and percipitation for as long as their remained an imbalance of atmospheric humidity.

its believed that humans in our modern form built the pyramids and the sphinx and perhaps other structures still buried in the sand.. what if they were the work of ancient giant humans?

obviously humans weren't the only victims of a global flood, we survived, who/what didn't?many animal species died off in recent history without the help of man (though we've done our fair share). unexplainable extinction that could have had something to do with other global cataclysms.


but Skippy, you can believe the bible is meant to be quoted literally if you like

my belief is that the evidence for civilizations existing 5000-15000 years ago is heavy and indisputable. they may have destroyed themselves thus the survivors would have had little reason to exalt them. like some people believe ancient civilizations had harnessed the atom, what if they lost control and ignited they land sea and air in a massive meltdown?

(are the ancient wonders (underbreath, the remaining ones) tags on the earth surface of the ancients superior knowledge of the stars and other lost peoples?)(why would humans worship stars that mean little to us should we have had nothing to do with them?)(peeps left and we remained behind and evolved while they set up in those other star systems?)

humans in very recent history numbered around a thousand. amazing that a species estimated at 100 billion in all of history was nearly killed off but somehow exploded back up to 6 billion so quickly. are there any other animal species that could within 10 thousand years could grow to such a number?

i'm not sure if we lived in one region (pre-flood)(post-flood we scattered to the four winds, or was there more than one pocket of survivors?) such as africa but even if they were all in africa pre-flood they did travel all over the world very quickly. i'm asking how unless we were all very smart (according to myth thats a yes) did they manage to travel accross oceans and other hostile terrains so quickly. (going back to their old lands? or simply leaving the boat nd getting as far away from each other to avoid inbreeding (which they'd have to have known about, implying they were very intelligent pre-flood)

leaving the topic to explore a tangent

science holds that the continents were already broken up by the time we evolved enough to travel across the ocean. but i'm still certain that evolved creatures (humanoid if not humans) existed in many regions of the world while the continents were much closer together.

quote 1 from internet

A real worldwide flood?
Some have alleged that Noah’s Flood was nothing more than a localised event. But if this were true, Noah and his family could have moved to higher ground to escape. Also, animals outside the flooded area would not be in danger. Since there have been many serious floods in earth history, if the Flood was only local, this is akin to accusing God of lying when He promised to never again send such a flood.

Since it was global, it is no surprise that civilizations across the globe have Flood stories with many common features.

Right: Tablet no. 11 of the Babylonian ‘Epic of Gilgamesh’, found in ancient Nineveh. It tells the story of a great flood similar to the one recorded in Genesis, but with obvious corruptions of the original true account.

quote 2

We introduce here a remarkable theory of terrestrial catastrophism that seems to be supported by evidence that is equally remarkable...A research study indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The authors (one from Lawrence Berkeley Nuclear Laboratory) claim that the burst of radiation from a nearby supernova, circa 12,500 years ago, not only reset radiocarbon clocks but also heated the planet's atmosphere, melted ice sheets, and led to biological extinctions...

/end quotes

consider if you will that india was part of africa, india has one of the oldest written histories of the world... could it be that humans had existed on the land we called india while it was separating from africa? i think that would explain why they would have boats and the ability to travel very long distances over water, enough to cross oceans. of course humans exist near water and its no surprise they had boats to travel but crossing oceans on a fishing boats seems silly to me.

the flood thus could have had something to do with an as yet discovered cataclysm which we know very little about. humanity must have existed in very high numbers an antideluvial times to have been genetically distinct renough to survive and proliferate so quickly and succesfully after the calamity.