Noah travels through time, uses crane to build Ark
Posted 10 March 2014 by Matt Young
www.arkencounter.org
111 Comments
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
It's possible.
There was probably a big drum at the base of the housing to wind and unwind the rope but it was probably hand-cranked.
I seem to recall a passage in the Bible that referred to Noah's wife as the "Big Wench."
So, yeah, I could see it working.
eric · 10 March 2014
Doc Bill said:
it was probably hand-cranked.
The romans supposedly had large cranes that used treadwheels (i.e. big hamster wheels that soldiers or slaves could walk inside of) instead of hand cranks. Multi-ton lifting was not beyond them. Wikipedia shows a reconstruction of a 30' high one under "Crane (machine)."
But (a) that's iron age technology, not stone age, and (b) doesn't make the ark story any less ludicrous.
Joe Felsenstein · 10 March 2014
Where's the part of the Bible where Noah sold junk bonds to finance the Ark? We do at least know that he would not have had to pay off the bonds.
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
eric said:
Doc Bill said:
it was probably hand-cranked.
The romans supposedly had large cranes that used treadwheels (i.e. big hamster wheels that soldiers or slaves could walk inside of) instead of hand cranks. Multi-ton lifting was not beyond them. Wikipedia shows a reconstruction of a 30' high one under "Crane (machine)."
But (a) that's iron age technology, not stone age, and (b) doesn't make the ark story any less ludicrous.
Yeah, fine description, eric, but then you can't add the zinger "Big Wench" around which my fabrication was constructed. Look, buddy, when I'm talking about Yogi Bear I don't need any help from National Geographic!
DavidK · 10 March 2014
I am awestruck by this "photo," the detail is fantastic. Did Noah use a Canon, Nikon, or was this simply a Polaroid shot? Does Ham actually think he's going to build exactly what is depicted here, or is it just a fairy-tale, dreamy come-on to lure more investors? Furthermore, all the items in his future park will require tens of millions more from investors. And all for naught.
Mike Elzinga · 10 March 2014
Maybe somebody at AiG read Genesis incorrectly and it was actually the two cranes that were then brought as a pair onto the ark.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 March 2014
There is speculation that ancient Egyptians had cranes, and apparently they were building pyramids before the Flood, so why not?
Of course the Egyptians were evil-doers who just went on keeping their civilization going when they were supposed to be drowning.
Man, they missed a chance on that one! I mean anyone who can display a dinosaur wearing a saddle should have taken the opportunity to show Noah's actual cranes: sauropod dinosaurs!
They must not have remembered their history lessons from The Flintstones.
Just Bob · 10 March 2014
And anyone with any sense of the limits of wooden construction just has to look at AIG's fantasy of the thing. As Mike reminds us, you can't build a wooden ship that size. Just look at the apparent length of the keel, the backbone of any wooden ship. How many separate pieces of wood must there be there? Pinned together how? A wooden keel of that length is NOT going to be stiff enough to keep the whole monstrosity from flexing, springing its planks, and breaking up catastrophically. Last I knew, the Floodists need a lot of violent weather and turbulence to produce all the effects they claim for the Flood. Does Ham really want to claim that that thing would remain in one piece and watertight in anything but a dead calm?
KlausH · 10 March 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
There is speculation that ancient Egyptians had cranes, and apparently they were building pyramids before the Flood, so why not?
Of course the Egyptians were evil-doers who just went on keeping their civilization going when they were supposed to be drowning.
Glen Davidson
The Egyptians used ramps, not cranes, to lift heavy objects, though they may have had pulleys, as well.
harold · 10 March 2014
eric said:
Doc Bill said:
it was probably hand-cranked.
The romans supposedly had large cranes that used treadwheels (i.e. big hamster wheels that soldiers or slaves could walk inside of) instead of hand cranks. Multi-ton lifting was not beyond them. Wikipedia shows a reconstruction of a 30' high one under "Crane (machine)."
But (a) that's iron age technology, not stone age, and (b) doesn't make the ark story any less ludicrous.
Neolithic people did some extremely impressive building, but you can't get around the facts that the ark is impossible and there was no global flood.
According to Wikipedia the first recorded use of cranes was by the ancient Greeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_(machine)#Ancient_Greece
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
This video may not be as completely crazy as it sounds at first, although I would have thought that leaks would have been a major problem.
Anyway, for your enjoyment:
http://youtu.be/TJcp13hAO3U
Mike Elzinga · 10 March 2014
A thought occurred to me; but I don’t know if it would pan out.
One of my ancestors was a sailor on the wooden ships before, during, and after the Civil War. He sailed all over the world, and was a captain of his own vessels on the Great Lakes for over 40 years. He and his sons built and repaired ships and described the issues of keeping them seaworthy.
Ham has indicated that he will hire Amish workmen to build the ark. I wonder if any of these Amish workmen will get a feel for the overall weakness of the structure as it becomes bigger and starts sagging under its own weight. Building barns and furniture is one thing; those are relatively small.
But the minute they start trying to fit the planking to those ribs, some skilled craftsmen will start getting the idea. And how will they “heel over” this thing to secure and seal the bottom?
And how does one build that keel? And what of ballast?
This should be “interesting.” There will be lots of gloss-over if it even gets started.
Mike Waldteufel · 10 March 2014
Doc Bill, interesting idea, but I'm unaware of any archeological evidence of the Egyptians using the technique as shown.
Owosso Harpist · 10 March 2014
And Ham claims the upcoming movie has "historical inaccuracies" in it.... *shakes head* sheesh!
IanR · 10 March 2014
I think we are missing an opportunity here: Challenge AIG to float its Ark. If it's authentic, it shouldn't be a problem.
prongs · 10 March 2014
Doc Bill said:
This video may not be as completely crazy as it sounds at first, although I would have thought that leaks would have been a major problem.
Anyway, for your enjoyment:
http://youtu.be/TJcp13hAO3U
What utter silliness.
Two impossibilities immediately come to mind. (1) How was the water at the top of the pyramid raised up as the rising pyramid became higher and higher? Water doesn't flow uphill. Did Israelite slaves carry the water to the ever higher top of the pyramid? Then why not just have them pull the blocks?
(2) The upward sloping channels that raised the blocks from the base to the top would have produced so much water pressure at the base, that the stone channels couldn't contain it, and the air-filled bags would have compressed to the point that differential stresses would cause bursting.
(3) The Egyptians never learned to dam streams, much less rivers. How they could have engineered such hydrological marvels in beyond belief.
(4) There is no evidence for such hydrological engineering.
(5) There exist more conventional explanations, compatible with the archaeological evidence.
I repeat, what utter silliness.
Thanks, Bill, it was very entertaining. You think this guy is a creationist? He reasons like one.
Mike Elzinga · 10 March 2014
Doc Bill said:
This video may not be as completely crazy as it sounds at first, although I would have thought that leaks would have been a major problem.
Anyway, for your enjoyment:
http://youtu.be/TJcp13hAO3U
The Great Pyramid of Giza was originally 480.6 feet high. A column of water that high would have a pressure at the base of over 200 psi.
Try filling a concrete block chimney that high with water and see what happens.
TomS · 10 March 2014
prongs said:
Israelite slaves
I've heard this thing about Israelite slaves building the Pyramids. Where does this come from? It certainly isn't in the Bible. And isn't an anachronism?
Matt Young · 10 March 2014
This video may not be as completely crazy as it sounds at first,
although I would have thought that leaks would have been a major
problem.
It is completely crazy. The density of limestone is around 2.5 g/cm3; that of water, 1 g/cm3. How much air would you need to make the overall density of the limestone and the air bags less than 1? Hint: Neglect the mass of the waterlogged animal bladders. Answer: Several times more than was implied in the video.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 March 2014
(3) The Egyptians never learned to dam streams, much less rivers. How they could have engineered such hydrological marvels in beyond belief.
Sure they did.
It's completely silly, but they did make high dams nonetheless.
Anyway, there's a pretty good idea of how internal ramps were used to make the pyramids, which explains some things about the Grand Gallery and which has some evidence for it from gravimetric observations, or some other observational method that can detect cavities in the pyramids. While not yet definitively demonstrated to be the case, it's probably one of the best candidates thus far.
Glen Davidson
Scott F · 10 March 2014
harold said:
eric said:
Doc Bill said:
it was probably hand-cranked.
The romans supposedly had large cranes that used treadwheels (i.e. big hamster wheels that soldiers or slaves could walk inside of) instead of hand cranks. Multi-ton lifting was not beyond them. Wikipedia shows a reconstruction of a 30' high one under "Crane (machine)."
But (a) that's iron age technology, not stone age, and (b) doesn't make the ark story any less ludicrous.
Neolithic people did some extremely impressive building, but you can't get around the facts that the ark is impossible and there was no global flood.
According to Wikipedia the first recorded use of cranes was by the ancient Greeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_(machine)#Ancient_Greece
Yeah, in ~600BC. Noah built his Ark ~2,000BC.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 March 2014
The picture is all wrong. It was more like the Flintstones and the brachiosaurs did all the heavy lifting so that Noah could take their babies onto the ark and leave the parents to drown.
prongs · 10 March 2014
TomS said:
prongs said:
Israelite slaves
I've heard this thing about Israelite slaves building the Pyramids. Where does this come from? It certainly isn't in the Bible. And isn't an anachronism?
Jewish tradition. Period.
And Charlton Heston as Moses in the movie The Ten Commandments (soon to be rebroadcast on a television station near you this Easter - don't miss it; it's a classic - well worth watching; it is the culmination of Western imagination about Egypt and the Israelites, I love it)
There is no evidence for a million Israelite slaves in Egypt, building pyramids. It's a nice tribal myth, that binds the tribe together, nothing more. Now it's part of our Western culture, codified in our sacred books and our sacred cinema, cemented in future history as fact - something for future literalists to argue as fact.
Mike Waldteufel · 10 March 2014
IanR, Ham is indeed floating his Ark! He's floating it with junk bonds and other ways that he's fleeced his gullible, drooling acolytes.
One dam! Only one. When Sadd el Kafara failed, perhaps due to an earthquake, the Egyptians built no more dams. Apparently the Gods frowned upon such human pride.
The brilliant Egyptian engineers who built it evidently built no more. Their unique knowledge was forgotten, not passed on, and never used again.
And that's why I say the Egyptians were not schooled in hydrological engineering that would have been required for that silly YouTube video of water channels floating the giant stone blocks upward (uphill) to build the Great Pyramids - preposterous!
Jim · 10 March 2014
Unfortunately, what this thread and many others on Panda's Thumb demonstrates is the triumph of the Creationists who have somehow managed to get otherwise reasonable people to devise arguments against the beast fables and children's stories found in Genesis. What's next? New arguments against the thesis that anvils float?
J P Houdin has a rational hypothesis, with actual evidence to back it up. And his ideas about the construction of the Grand Gallery are the best ever put forward (again, supported by evidence). Until something better comes along, I'm rootin' for him.
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
prongs said:
Doc Bill said:
This video may not be as completely crazy as it sounds at first, although I would have thought that leaks would have been a major problem.
Anyway, for your enjoyment:
http://youtu.be/TJcp13hAO3U
What utter silliness.
Two impossibilities immediately come to mind. (1) How was the water at the top of the pyramid raised up as the rising pyramid became higher and higher? Water doesn't flow uphill. Did Israelite slaves carry the water to the ever higher top of the pyramid? Then why not just have them pull the blocks?
(2) The upward sloping channels that raised the blocks from the base to the top would have produced so much water pressure at the base, that the stone channels couldn't contain it, and the air-filled bags would have compressed to the point that differential stresses would cause bursting.
(3) The Egyptians never learned to dam streams, much less rivers. How they could have engineered such hydrological marvels in beyond belief.
(4) There is no evidence for such hydrological engineering.
(5) There exist more conventional explanations, compatible with the archaeological evidence.
I repeat, what utter silliness.
Thanks, Bill, it was very entertaining. You think this guy is a creationist? He reasons like one.
I think he's a house builder in Derbyshire. I'm not sure I'd hire him to install guttering! I recall an article years ago describing how Egyptians could have used "water levels" to set the foundation.
Like I said, for your entertainment!
DavidK · 10 March 2014
And the problem of ballast? Well, I can imagine Noah just shunted all the crap his 2x2's generate to the lower hold of the boat. All he needed to do was to cut little poop holes in each animal stall and they'd all oblige him. That might solve the problem we've wasted our time talking about. Perhaps that's also the origin of the old saying, "to raise a stink" as it must have been an unbearable cruise. Phew!
TomS · 10 March 2014
prongs said:
TomS said:
prongs said:
Israelite slaves
I've heard this thing about Israelite slaves building the Pyramids. Where does this come from? It certainly isn't in the Bible. And isn't an anachronism?
Jewish tradition. Period.
And Charlton Heston as Moses in the movie The Ten Commandments (soon to be rebroadcast on a television station near you this Easter - don't miss it; it's a classic - well worth watching; it is the culmination of Western imagination about Egypt and the Israelites, I love it)
There is no evidence for a million Israelite slaves in Egypt, building pyramids. It's a nice tribal myth, that binds the tribe together, nothing more. Now it's part of our Western culture, codified in our sacred books and our sacred cinema, cemented in future history as fact - something for future literalists to argue as fact.
According to one internet source, this is in Herodotus, History.
The three major pyramids were built before 2500 bce, and almost all the rest were built by 1700 bce. On one Bible chronology, Joseph entered Egypt in 1700 bce.
Henry J · 10 March 2014
I seem to recall a passage in the Bible that referred to Noah’s wife as the “Big Wench.”
I don't recall that nickname for Joan of Ark.
Noah travels through time,
No doubt he did that by using a TARDis?
(Well, somebody had to say that! If not me, then Who? )
Dave Luckett · 10 March 2014
Well, in a sort of a sense, "water levels" were probably used to level the foundation of the pyramids, since they had to be built on a completely level bedrock site of about 50,000 sq meters.
Method: roughly level off the site to its bedrock, using hand tools. Cut a grid of channels in the rock, all interconnecting, covering the whole site. Fill these with water, carried up from the Nile. Now cut the rock back to the level of the water. Now backfill the channels to the cut level. Voila: a level rock-based building site.
Dave Lovell · 11 March 2014
Matt Young said:
This video may not be as completely crazy as it sounds at first,
although I would have thought that leaks would have been a major
problem.
It is completely crazy. The density of limestone is around 2.5 g/cm3; that of water, 1 g/cm3. How much air would you need to make the overall density of the limestone and the air bags less than 1? Hint: Neglect the mass of the waterlogged animal bladders. Answer: Several times more than was implied in the video.
It's even crazier than that Matt. Deep sea salvage is achieved using diesel oil for flotation collars, i.e. an incompressible fluid lighter than water. A bag with enough air at 200 psi to begin lifting the block will have 13 times this lifting power at the top. The device will have more in common with the Iraqi supergun than a crane.
Incidently Doc Bill, maybe the "house builder in Derbyshire" was inspired by Chatsworth House down the road. It boasts a gravity-fed fountain working off a 350 foot head of water, albeit using mid-nineteeth century technology.
Paul Burnett · 11 March 2014
In the picture, what is the thing at the top? A vertical stabilizer, so the pictured ark will weathervane in the wind?
MJHowe · 11 March 2014
As they try to counter all the criticisms their ark gets more sophisticated by the day. Now we see cranes built along modern lines, an apparent 'vertical stabilizer' and goodness knows what else inside. What's next? Perhaps a 'motor' based on the bacterial flagellum? After all, we know that was already designed.
harold · 11 March 2014
Scott F said:
harold said:
eric said:
Doc Bill said:
it was probably hand-cranked.
The romans supposedly had large cranes that used treadwheels (i.e. big hamster wheels that soldiers or slaves could walk inside of) instead of hand cranks. Multi-ton lifting was not beyond them. Wikipedia shows a reconstruction of a 30' high one under "Crane (machine)."
But (a) that's iron age technology, not stone age, and (b) doesn't make the ark story any less ludicrous.
Neolithic people did some extremely impressive building, but you can't get around the facts that the ark is impossible and there was no global flood.
According to Wikipedia the first recorded use of cranes was by the ancient Greeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crane_(machine)#Ancient_Greece
Yeah, in ~600BC. Noah built his Ark ~2,000BC.
Your reply is correct but slightly redundant.
For clarification, my comment was not intended to imply that there were cranes in neolithic times, but rather to note that, although they have been used for a long time, the first record of cranes is much later than neolithic times.
I did assume a certain level of knowledge on the part of the reader, but the assumption was only partial, as they could always check the link.
Kevin B · 11 March 2014
MJHowe said:
As they try to counter all the criticisms their ark gets more sophisticated by the day. Now we see cranes built along modern lines, an apparent 'vertical stabilizer' and goodness knows what else inside. What's next? Perhaps a 'motor' based on the bacterial flagellum? After all, we know that was already designed.
I suspect that the "vertical stabilizer" is a billboard, or possibly the "Noah's Ark" sign in flashing lights, like any respectable fun-fair attraction.
When does the first arc welder appear on site? :)
If anyone wants the full-size above-pictured rendition of the ark, you can find it here.
Carl Drews · 11 March 2014
TomS said:
prongs said:
TomS said:
prongs said:
Israelite slaves
I've heard this thing about Israelite slaves building the Pyramids. Where does this come from? It certainly isn't in the Bible. And isn't an anachronism?
Jewish tradition. Period.
And Charlton Heston as Moses in the movie The Ten Commandments (soon to be rebroadcast on a television station near you this Easter - don't miss it; it's a classic - well worth watching; it is the culmination of Western imagination about Egypt and the Israelites, I love it)
There is no evidence for a million Israelite slaves in Egypt, building pyramids. It's a nice tribal myth, that binds the tribe together, nothing more. Now it's part of our Western culture, codified in our sacred books and our sacred cinema, cemented in future history as fact - something for future literalists to argue as fact.
According to one internet source, this is in Herodotus, History.
The three major pyramids were built before 2500 bce, and almost all the rest were built by 1700 bce. On one Bible chronology, Joseph entered Egypt in 1700 bce.
Exodus 1:11 records the Israelites building not pyramids, but store-cities:
11 Therefore they [the Egyptians] set taskmasters over them [the Israelites] to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses. [ESV]
If Rameses II is associated with the city of Raamses mentioned in Exodus 1, then the date would be about 1280 BC. The pyramids were ancient by then. Kenneth Kitchen's chronology puts Abraham at 1900 BC (Reliability page 359). Joseph arrived in Egypt about 1700, according to the same chronology, as TomS noted.
Directors who set out to make a dramatic movie realize very quickly that pyramids are more exciting (and familiar) than store-cities. I agree with prongs' recommendation to watch The Ten Commandments. But please remember that it's a movie.
John Harshman · 11 March 2014
The plot of the Noah movie is weird action-adventure involving, apparently, Tubal-Cain, and perhaps others not mentioned in the bible story. I was wondering if anyone knows whether there is some basis in tradition for that version, maybe from Midrash.
david.starling.macmillan · 11 March 2014
Paul Burnett said:
In the picture, what is the thing at the top? A vertical stabilizer, so the pictured ark will weathervane in the wind?
It actually is supposed to be a vertical stabilizer to put the ark nose-first into the wind so it would supposedly run perpendicular to the waves. Which is not a bad idea for a giant ocean barge. If, you know, your giant ocean barge isn't so large that it will sink instantly.
Henry J · 11 March 2014
Cranes are after all the state bird of a lot of states, so of course they'd have a pair of them! :D
TomS · 11 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
Paul Burnett said:
In the picture, what is the thing at the top? A vertical stabilizer, so the pictured ark will weathervane in the wind?
It actually is supposed to be a vertical stabilizer to put the ark nose-first into the wind so it would supposedly run perpendicular to the waves. Which is not a bad idea for a giant ocean barge. If, you know, your giant ocean barge isn't so large that it will sink instantly.
And the Bible does not mention a vertical stabilizer - nor prow, rudder, oars, keel, sails nor any thing which might help in stabilizing.
david.starling.macmillan · 11 March 2014
TomS said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Paul Burnett said:
In the picture, what is the thing at the top? A vertical stabilizer, so the pictured ark will weathervane in the wind?
It actually is supposed to be a vertical stabilizer to put the ark nose-first into the wind so it would supposedly run perpendicular to the waves. Which is not a bad idea for a giant ocean barge. If, you know, your giant ocean barge isn't so large that it will sink instantly.
And the Bible does not mention a vertical stabilizer - nor prow, rudder, oars, keel, sails nor any thing which might help in stabilizing.
Noah would have been struck dead with a bolt from the blue for even dreaming of such a thing!
Just Bob · 11 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
TomS said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Paul Burnett said:
In the picture, what is the thing at the top? A vertical stabilizer, so the pictured ark will weathervane in the wind?
It actually is supposed to be a vertical stabilizer to put the ark nose-first into the wind so it would supposedly run perpendicular to the waves. Which is not a bad idea for a giant ocean barge. If, you know, your giant ocean barge isn't so large that it will sink instantly.
And the Bible does not mention a vertical stabilizer - nor prow, rudder, oars, keel, sails nor any thing which might help in stabilizing.
Noah would have been struck dead with a bolt from the blue for even dreaming of such a thing!
You don't suppose the description of the Ark in Genesis could have been written by someone(s) who had no experience at all with the construction of large seagoing vessels? Maybe someone who had never seen anything bigger than a 5-man fishing craft? And never looked at its underlying framework? Or talked to anyone who actually built boats? Sure sounds that way.
Now if the story had Noah building a FLEET of plausible-sized craft, then that part of the story might actually be, well, plausible.
I watched a precises of the Ham/Nye deabte the other day. It juxtaposed two statements that Ham made: that the Ark was sea-worthy (evidently taken on faith, since he didn't give the engineering equations): but later he said that the flood waters were so violent that they pushed the continents from the pangea configuration to their current relationships in 40 days. I guess his followers don't want to know about the contradiction there. It's impossible to believe that anyone who would say things like that isn't just plain lying for gain.
MJHowe · 11 March 2014
Kevin B said:
MJHowe said:
As they try to counter all the criticisms their ark gets more sophisticated by the day. Now we see cranes built along modern lines, an apparent 'vertical stabilizer' and goodness knows what else inside. What's next? Perhaps a 'motor' based on the bacterial flagellum? After all, we know that was already designed.
I suspect that the "vertical stabilizer" is a billboard, or possibly the "Noah's Ark" sign in flashing lights, like any respectable fun-fair attraction.
When does the first arc welder appear on site? :)
Actually, if you follow the links, that is not the bow! It's clearly described as the stern, and the end with the vertical 'sail' as the stem (bow). The AIG image isn't so specific but has the same profile. As I said, the ark is evolving as they try to defend it.
Karen S. · 11 March 2014
Did the ark have a name, e.g. the Maersk Babylon?
Henry J · 11 March 2014
Karen S. said:
Did the ark have a name, e.g. the Maersk Babylon?
I've heard wackier creationists talk about how much technology was lost after the flood. It just gets stranger and stranger.
cmb · 12 March 2014
Helena Constantine said:
I watched a precises of the Ham/Nye deabte the other day. It juxtaposed two statements that Ham made: that the Ark was sea-worthy (evidently taken on faith, since he didn't give the engineering equations): but later he said that the flood waters were so violent that they pushed the continents from the pangea configuration to their current relationships in 40 days. I guess his followers don't want to know about the contradiction there. It's impossible to believe that anyone who would say things like that isn't just plain lying for gain.
It sounds like Ham may be confused about whether the Ark was truly sea-worthy or was "designed" for "Freshwater" sailing only.
DS · 12 March 2014
Helena Constantine said:
I watched a precises of the Ham/Nye deabte the other day. It juxtaposed two statements that Ham made: that the Ark was sea-worthy (evidently taken on faith, since he didn't give the engineering equations): but later he said that the flood waters were so violent that they pushed the continents from the pangea configuration to their current relationships in 40 days. I guess his followers don't want to know about the contradiction there. It's impossible to believe that anyone who would say things like that isn't just plain lying for gain.
Of course he is lying. Hr is the one who said we could never know anything about the past. Then he claims we know the pangea configuration? Isn't anybody going to call him on this nonsense? How many times does he have to contradict himself before people realize that he is just a con man?
Just Bob · 12 March 2014
DS said:
Of course he is lying. Hr is the one who said we could never know anything about the past. Then he claims we know the pangea configuration? Isn't anybody going to call him on this nonsense? How many times does he have to contradict himself before people realize that he is just a con man?
No, no, you don't get it. He can know about the past, i.e. whatever he wants to be in the past WAS in the past...and he knows it.
It's only we who can't know anything about the past.
TomS · 12 March 2014
Just Bob said:
DS said:
Of course he is lying. Hr is the one who said we could never know anything about the past. Then he claims we know the pangea configuration? Isn't anybody going to call him on this nonsense? How many times does he have to contradict himself before people realize that he is just a con man?
No, no, you don't get it. He can know about the past, i.e. whatever he wants to be in the past WAS in the past...and he knows it.
It's only we who can't know anything about the past.
And, course, all is consequences of believing in the Bible!? That the Flood carved the Grand Canyon - or any other feature of the land - is nowhere to be seen in the Bible. That there was super-evolution of all modern species from "kinds" after the Flood - not in the Bible.
eric · 12 March 2014
Karen S. said:
I've heard wackier creationists talk about how much technology was lost after the flood. It just gets stranger and stranger.
Yeah, I can see it. "Edition 1 of Genesis gave the quantum mechanical description of how God created the universe, as well as how to engineer skyscrapers so tall they upset God. Unfortunately, Noah was an ignorant shepherd and so we got the ignorant shepherd orally transmitted version of it."
Kevin B · 12 March 2014
Just Bob said:
DS said:
Of course he is lying. Hr is the one who said we could never know anything about the past. Then he claims we know the pangea configuration? Isn't anybody going to call him on this nonsense? How many times does he have to contradict himself before people realize that he is just a con man?
No, no, you don't get it. He can know about the past, i.e. whatever he wants to be in the past WAS in the past...and he knows it.
It's only we who can't know anything about the past.
All together now!
"WERE YOU THERE?"
Karen S. · 12 March 2014
All together now!
“WERE YOU THERE?”
"No I wasn't. were you?
Just Bob · 12 March 2014
Karen S. said:
All together now!
“WERE YOU THERE?”
"No I wasn't. were you?
I like this answer: "Yes, I was... because 'there' is HERE, and I can tell what has happened HERE by the evidence that is HERE."
TomS · 12 March 2014
Kevin B said:
All together now!
"WERE YOU THERE?"
What evidence (here and now, "operational" science, not "historical") is there about I was there or not?
Henry J · 12 March 2014
There, there!
DS · 12 March 2014
Just Bob said:
DS said:
Of course he is lying. Hr is the one who said we could never know anything about the past. Then he claims we know the pangea configuration? Isn't anybody going to call him on this nonsense? How many times does he have to contradict himself before people realize that he is just a con man?
No, no, you don't get it. He can know about the past, i.e. whatever he wants to be in the past WAS in the past...and he knows it.
It's only we who can't know anything about the past.
Right. Because it's in the book. I see. Now all you have to do is show me where in the bible it describes the "pangea configuration". That's it, just show it to me. Of course all of these professional geographers are gong to look really stupid since it took so long to figure it out when the answer was right there in the book for thousands of years. And of course everyone who read the bible is going to look really stupid for not having figured it out thousands of years ago.
What a load of BS. Ham contradicted himself, again. He was being dishonest, again. He should be forced to admit it, again. And anyone who defends him should have his dishonesty thrown in their face, again.
david.starling.macmillan · 12 March 2014
Just Bob said:
You don't suppose the description of the Ark in Genesis could have been written by someone(s) who had no experience at all with the construction of large seagoing vessels? Maybe someone who had never seen anything bigger than a 5-man fishing craft? And never looked at its underlying framework? Or talked to anyone who actually built boats? Sure sounds that way.
Now if the story had Noah building a FLEET of plausible-sized craft, then that part of the story might actually be, well, plausible.
The story of Noah was almost definitely lifted from the earlier Babylonian version, in which the Ark was a giant round coracle. Apparently the "editor" of Genesis thought a round coracle seemed too small and too flimsy and wanted to give the Ark an upgrade. Of course, the stated dimensions -- 300 x 50 x 30 -- almost certainly have a numerological significance. The Hebrew narrative itself follows a poetic "mirrored" framework.
Helena Constantine said:
I watched a precises of the Ham/Nye deabte the other day. It juxtaposed two statements that Ham made: that the Ark was sea-worthy (evidently taken on faith, since he didn't give the engineering equations): but later he said that the flood waters were so violent that they pushed the continents from the pangea configuration to their current relationships in 40 days. I guess his followers don't want to know about the contradiction there.
Well, strictly speaking it wasn't the floodwaters that supposedly pushed the continents, but catastrophically-fast mantle upheaval and tectonic shift that both moved the continents and pushed the oceans up onto the land. Of course this would still be incredibly, incredibly violent.
I've heard wackier creationists talk about how much technology was lost after the flood. It just gets stranger and stranger.
Speculation about pre-flood technology was huge growing up. We had big debates over whether they had managed to build aircraft yet. The consensus, IIRC, was that lighter-than-air craft were possible, but without the fossil fuels from the flood it would have been difficult to make sustained heavier-than-air flight economically feasible. It was all very steampunk.
After all, what could you accomplish if you lived in your prime for 500+ years?
Karen S. said:
All together now!
“WERE YOU THERE?”
"No I wasn't. were you?
"No, but I know Someone who was there and He told me what happened." -Ham
Chris Lawson · 12 March 2014
Since the original deus ex machina was a crane used in ancient Greek theatre, I guess this is unintentionally appropriate.
Scott F · 12 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
All together now!
“WERE YOU THERE?”
Karen S. said:
"No I wasn't. were you?
"No, but I know Someone who was there and He told me what happened." -Ham
Even if one grants that "He told me" (presumably in the Bible), the Bible just doesn't have all that much to say about such things. The rest is all just supposition and conjecture based on nothing. If it doesn't say it in the Bible, you don't even have God's word for it. And with no evidence to base an further conjecture on, then it's all just hand-waving nonsense. Further, if they believe that their hand-waving nonsense is true, then they've just contradicted their "Were you there?" non-argument.
They can argue all they want about the flood laying down all of the layers of geologic column. But the Bible simply does not say anything about that. The Bible says nothing about a sorting of fossils. One could just as easily argue that it was simply miracles all the way down. By there own logic, there can be nothing to distinguish between miracles and "hydraulic sorting", because no one alive today was there, and God didn't leave us any message about the subject.
If their argument for "hydraulic sorting" was, "Just look at the results. It had to be hydraulic sorting", they are then reverting to making assumptions about the past, with not even the authority of the Bible to back them up.
Many folks here have commented that it would be much easier for the YEC to simply admit that it's all just miracles. Then there wouldn't be anything for the Atheist to argue about. Science on one side, miracles on the other. Done.
But for some weird reason, the YEC simply cannot accept "miracles". They seem to feel that there simply must be some physical "natural" justification for miraculous events; that the results of "Science" not only has to agree with the miraculous, but that "Science" has to be able to explain the miracles.
Mike Elzinga · 12 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
Karen S. said:
All together now!
“WERE YOU THERE?”
"No I wasn't. were you?
"No, but I know Someone who was there and He told me what happened." -Ham
I don’t believe Ham was a part of the Nicean Councils. And even those who were fought and killed over which writings were to be included.
How does Ham know that this deity oversaw all that haggling; was he there?
TomS · 12 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
"No, but I know Someone who was there and He told me what happened." -Ham
Which is another thing which which is not the Bible. The Bible does not who is the source for Genesis 1. Let's just say that Moses wrote Genesis 1 - Moses wasn't there.
gnome de net · 12 March 2014
Scott F said:
But for some weird reason, the YEC simply cannot accept "miracles". They seem to feel that there simply must be some physical "natural" justification for miraculous events; that the results of "Science" not only has to agree with the miraculous, but that "Science" has to be able to explain the miracles.
There's nothing weird about the reason at all: miracles cannot be taught in a public school science class.
prongs · 12 March 2014
Ham's sheep are sending him money. That's all he cares about. Nothing here matters one whit, so long as the sheep keep sending money.
No contradiction (giant cranes building the Ark) - no impossibility (gathering and feeding and cleaning stalls, for all those animals) - no stinkin' Science (DNA evidence does not indicate one family of DNA 4,000 years ago) - can dissuade the sheep from believing, and sending more money.
Face it. Until the sheep stop believing, there will be charlatans to accept their money.
It's not the charlatans fault, it's the sheep's.
Sad but true.
Dave Luckett · 12 March 2014
If you started out with a population only of sheep, in time there'd be wolves. Evolution in action.
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 12 March 2014
Joe Felsenstein said:
Where's the part of the Bible where Noah sold junk bonds to finance the Ark? We do at least know that he would not have had to pay off the bonds.
I wasn't there but as I understand it bonds only covered part of the expenses so Shem, Ham, and Japheth sold Noah's Talking Snake Oil.™
I imagine the franchises were quite lucrative.
Marilyn · 13 March 2014
The Ark might have solved the problem of the day fictional or even true, in also warning people of ignorance. But in this day with the materials and engineering that we have and the same problem of preserving people and life through natural disaster a different sort of Ark might be required but while there is sea and water it still would be a reasonable option to take.
TomS · 13 March 2014
I wonder whether when the Ark narrative was deliberately constructed with impossible details to enhance its mythic character. The story is introduced as happening in an "once upon time" era, with fairy-tale characters (which are never mentioned again - their only function is to set the mood).
Dave Lovell · 13 March 2014
Mike Elzinga said:
I don’t believe Ham was a part of the Nicean Councils. And even those who were fought and killed over which writings were to be included.
How does Ham know that this deity oversaw all that haggling; was he there?
While on the subject of the Nicean Council, a programme called The Trinity, discussing early Christian history, was transmitted by the BBC today. Available on Listen Again at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03xgl3m It mostly addresses issues that Dave Luckett has taught us about already, but worth a listen nontheless.
david.starling.macmillan · 13 March 2014
TomS said:
I wonder whether when the Ark narrative was deliberately constructed with impossible details to enhance its mythic character. The story is introduced as happening in an "once upon time" era, with fairy-tale characters (which are never mentioned again - their only function is to set the mood).
Probably, yes. The constant repetition about "all creatures in whose nostrils was the breath of life" is very mythic, and the dimensions of the Ark are almost certainly numerological. The notion of Noah and his family being the "only righteous one" on all the Earth is incredibly mythic; it almost certainly represents a generalized "righteous few" surrounded by wickedness, as in the story of Lot in Sodom. Just like "Adam" actually means "Mankind", "Noah" actually means "resting place"...the Ark symbolizing a place of rest and safety for the righteous when they are surrounded by the destruction of the wicked.
Noah was 600 years old when he entered the Ark...a nice round number, don't you think? Geez, it's almost as if it mirrors the 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 followed by one day of...rest. The amount of time on the Ark is all numerological as well; it's exactly one year (to the day) from when the flood began until when they open the window and look out and see that the ground is try. Practically all the numbers in the whole narrative are multiples of 40, 3, or 7 -- the three principal values in Hebrew numerology. Then Noah lives exactly 350 years after the flood...half of a "perfect" 700 years because he got drunk and so his new lease on life was cut in half.
However, I would be careful about saying that these are "fairy-tale characters" which are "never mentioned again". The purported lineage of Noah is given, and he and his sons are mentioned hither and thither throughout the rest of the Bible. That's one of the principal arguments YECs use to support the idea that Noah was a real person. It's a poor argument -- there's no reason why they wouldn't reference the fable elsewhere -- but it's one they use a lot.
david.starling.macmillan · 13 March 2014
As an example of themes exactly parallel to the Noah fable, note Psalm 91:
Whoever dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence.
He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.
A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.
You will only observe with your eyes and see the destruction of the wicked.
He will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.
You will tread on the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.
"Because he loves me," says the Lord, "I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name. He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.
"With long life I will satisfy him and show him my salvation."
The wicked are being destroyed all around you, but you are righteous and so God is your place of rest and safety. Thousands and ten thousands (the usual term for "everyone") will fall around you, but you will be "lifted up" (like the Ark was "borne up" by the floodwaters) in safety. You will look and see the destruction of the wicked. You will be blessed with a long life.
Incidentally, this bit here about "treading on the lion and serpent" is almost certainly where the extrabiblical addition in Mark 16 comes from..."treading on the lion and serpent" is a Hebrew blessing on the righteous. Note that the Hebrew word for "lion" shares a root with the Hebrew word for "scorpion".
TomS · 13 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
However, I would be careful about saying that these are "fairy-tale characters" which are "never mentioned again". The purported lineage of Noah is given, and he and his sons are mentioned hither and thither throughout the rest of the Bible. That's one of the principal arguments YECs use to support the idea that Noah was a real person. It's a poor argument -- there's no reason why they wouldn't reference the fable elsewhere -- but it's one they use a lot.
I did not make myself clear. I was speaking of the verses leading into the Noah story, and these characters: "sons of God", "giants in the earth in those days", and especially "mighty men which were of old, men of renown"
Henry J · 13 March 2014
I did not make myself clear. I was speaking of the verses leading into the Noah story, and these characters: “sons of God”, “giants in the earth in those days”, and especially “mighty men which were of old, men of renown”
But didn't they all drown? Along with Methuselah? (Say, does that mean that Methuselah was wicked?)
Henry
david.starling.macmillan · 14 March 2014
Henry J said:
I did not make myself clear. I was speaking of the verses leading into the Noah story, and these characters: “sons of God”, “giants in the earth in those days”, and especially “mighty men which were of old, men of renown”
But didn't they all drown? Along with Methuselah? (Say, does that mean that Methuselah was wicked?)
Henry
The ages in the Septuagint humorously have Methusaleh living past the flood. The other texts have Methusaleh dying a few months before the flood.
david.starling.macmillan · 14 March 2014
And IIRC, "Methusaleh" means something, "when he dies, judgment will come". Again, fable markers.
david.starling.macmillan · 14 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
And IIRC, "Methusaleh" means something, "when he dies, judgment will come". Again, fable markers.
*something like
AltairIV · 15 March 2014
30 secs on Wikipedia can clear it all up. :)
According to the Hebrew Bible, Methuselah (Hebrew: מְתֿוּשֶלַח / מְתֿוּשָלַח, Modern Mətušélaḥ / Mətušálaḥ Tiberian Məṯûšélaḥ / Məṯûšālaḥ ; "Man of the dart/spear", or alternatively "his death shall bring judgment"[1]) is purported to be the oldest person to ever live.[2] Extra-biblical tradition maintains that he died on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 1656 (Anno Mundi, after Creation), at the age of 969, seven days before the beginning of the Great Flood.[3] Methuselah was the son of Enoch and the grandfather of Noah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methusaleh
davemullenix · 15 March 2014
Does anybody else look at that crane and immediately think of the Trojan Rabbit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?
Matt Young · 15 March 2014
30 secs on Wikipedia can clear it all up. :)
According to the Hebrew Bible, Methuselah (Hebrew: מְתֿוּשֶלַח / מְתֿוּשָלַח, Modern Mətušélaḥ / Mətušálaḥ Tiberian Məṯûšélaḥ / Məṯûšālaḥ ; “Man of the dart/spear”, or alternatively “his death shall bring judgment”[1]) is purported to be the oldest person to ever live.[2] Extra-biblical tradition maintains that he died on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 1656 (Anno Mundi, after Creation), at the age of 969, seven days before the beginning of the Great Flood.[3] Methuselah was the son of Enoch and the grandfather of Noah.
I am somewhat suspicious of that answer. My knowledge of Biblical Hebrew is several decibels down, at least, but Metushalach looks like metu -- death; mavet in modern Hebrew -- plus shalach -- send. So Metu-shalach would mean something like "he sends death (away)," which makes good sense if he is going to be the oldest-living man.
If you Google around, indeed some sources, not least Strong's Concordance, say that met means "man," so metu-shElach would mean "man of a spear." One website implied that metu meant "killer," and hence "man." None of my dictionaries translates "man" as met, so I assume it is an obsolete word.
I have no idea where "judgement" comes from; the root for judgement is shafat, not shalach.
Until I get reliable, up-to-date information to the contrary, I will assume that Methuselah means "he sends death away," since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
Scott F · 15 March 2014
davemullenix said:
Does anybody else look at that crane and immediately think of the Trojan Rabbit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?
Holy 16 tons, yes! All praise be unto Brian!
Henry J · 16 March 2014
Matt Young said:
Until I get reliable, up-to-date information to the contrary, I will assume that Methuselah means "he sends death away," since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
But what if the first and third digit of that number are upside down?
Bill DeMott · 16 March 2014
How many sons and son-laws did Noah have working with him? And how did they go to the various islands and continents to find the world's animal life?
TomS · 16 March 2014
Bill DeMott said:
How many sons and son-laws did Noah have working with him? And how did they go to the various islands and continents to find the world's animal life?
I have been told that, per Genesis 6:20, the animals came unto Noah.
david.starling.macmillan · 16 March 2014
Bill DeMott said:
How many sons and son-laws did Noah have working with him? And how did they go to the various islands and continents to find the world's animal life?
This all took place on the Rodinia supercontinent, so conveniently they didn't have to cross any large bodies of water.
In defense of this speculation, creationists cite Genesis 1's "let the waters be gathered together into one place, and let dry land appear."
Matt Young · 16 March 2014
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
david.starling.macmillan · 17 March 2014
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
KlausH · 19 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
KlausH · 19 March 2014
KlausH said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
david.starling.macmillan · 20 March 2014
KlausH said:
KlausH said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
And you also have Araphaxad fathering Shelah at the ripe old age of two and a half.
Kevin B · 20 March 2014
KlausH said:
KlausH said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
Of course, it could just be that the keepers of the oral tradition liked to bump up the ages to see how far they could go before people started quibbling.
KlausH · 20 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan said:
KlausH said:
KlausH said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
And you also have Araphaxad fathering Shelah at the ripe old age of two and a half.
Wrong. I never said ALL the ages were in months. I only said many.
Just Bob · 21 March 2014
Kevin B said:
KlausH said:
KlausH said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
Of course, it could just be that the keepers of the oral tradition liked to bump up the ages to see how far they could go before people started quibbling.
That kind of exaggeration just goes with the territory of ancient, oral-tradition ancestor tales. I just finished listening to a recording of the Iliad (yet again). One of Homer's formulas is to tell of some hero picking up a huge rock or something "that not two men could pick up as men are today".
KlausH · 21 March 2014
Just Bob said:
Kevin B said:
KlausH said:
KlausH said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
Matt Young said:
… I will assume that Methuselah means “he sends death away,” since about all we know about him is that he lived for 969 years. Supposedly.
OK, I checked with a minor expert, who says that metu clearly means man and has cognates in Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Ethiopian (as Strong's Concordance noted). Shelach could be a spear, a deity, or even a place; he is betting on a deity, so Methuselah would mean a man of that deity. Evidently, the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Genesis cites evidence that shelach was the name of the god of a river that you had to cross to get to the netherworld.
My minor expert agrees that the name almost certainly does not mean "his death shall bring judgment." He thinks, however, that the name probably does not involve the verb shalach, because that would be very unusual.
So I retract the claim that Methuselah means something to do with sending away death, though I still think it is kind of cute.
I have only a very minor familiarity with Hebrew. But I suspect that an extremely good argument can be made for the view that all the names early in Genesis are thematically tied to the fables, and all the ages listed have numerological significance.
The problem is that a hardline fundy will just say "Of course the names and ages have significance; God did that!" But at least it helps defend against the accusation that removing the historicity of Genesis does away with its importance.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
Of course, it could just be that the keepers of the oral tradition liked to bump up the ages to see how far they could go before people started quibbling.
That kind of exaggeration just goes with the territory of ancient, oral-tradition ancestor tales. I just finished listening to a recording of the Iliad (yet again). One of Homer's formulas is to tell of some hero picking up a huge rock or something "that not two men could pick up as men are today".
I loved reading between the lines in Homer. It seems, from the lack of equipment, strategy, and planning, most of the epic battles were just turf wars between roving gangs of teenaged punks.
Matt Young · 23 March 2014
Interesting little blurb in Parade Magazine today: No Real Animals Used to Film Russell Crowe's New Noah Movie. Maybe because they could not fit them onto the Ark? Maybe because they did not know how to handle all those wild animals? Maybe because computer animation is cheaper? Ark Park please take note.
david.starling.macmillan · 24 March 2014
KlausH said:
david.starling.macmillan said:
KlausH said:
If you consider the fact that many primitive societies measured lives in MONTHS, not YEARS, due to short lifespans, you get very reasonable ages for the patriarchs. Noah would have been 58.
And you also have Araphaxad fathering Shelah at the ripe old age of two and a half.
Wrong. I never said ALL the ages were in months. I only said many.
Sure, sure. Just pointing out that it wouldn't be a 1-to-1 correspondence.
eric · 24 March 2014
Just Bob said:
That kind of exaggeration just goes with the territory of ancient, oral-tradition ancestor tales. I just finished listening to a recording of the Iliad (yet again). One of Homer's formulas is to tell of some hero picking up a huge rock or something "that not two men could pick up as men are today".
Primitive oral storytelling also tends to have the some repetitive listings of people (such as geneaologies) that the bible has. Which makes perfect sense - when you've only got one or a few stories to tell, you make them long and detailed. Its more interesting to hear a version of your one story "with filler" five times over the course of a year, than to hear a "tight" version of the story 50 times that year.
Its also worth remembering that preliterate people weren't stupid. They had the exact same brainpower as us, they just used it for different things...things like remembering all the stuff that we would typically write down instead. So while we might find a long list boring, they might have found it a valuable and useful exercise of their memory.
Carl Drews · 24 March 2014
Just Bob said:
I just finished listening to a recording of the Iliad (yet again). One of Homer's formulas is to tell of some hero picking up a huge rock or something "that not two men could pick up as men are today".
There is a very long tradition of looking at the past through rose-colored glasses, declaring that "things were much better in the olden days." Apparently three millennia long.
TomS · 24 March 2014
Carl Drews said:
Just Bob said:
I just finished listening to a recording of the Iliad (yet again). One of Homer's formulas is to tell of some hero picking up a huge rock or something "that not two men could pick up as men are today".
There is a very long tradition of looking at the past through rose-colored glasses, declaring that "things were much better in the olden days." Apparently three millennia long.
Ecclesiastes 7:10 Do not ask why the old days were better than the present; for that is a foolish question
Just Bob · 24 March 2014
eric said:
Primitive oral storytelling also tends to have the some repetitive listings of people (such as geneaologies) that the bible has. Which makes perfect sense - when you've only got one or a few stories to tell, you make them long and detailed.
If you want to show off your storytelling skills, you memorize such long lists and can rattle them off. And if you're PAID to be a bard (maybe you're blind and can do nothing else, or you're a travelling storyteller, hired by local chiefs in towns you pass through) then you can make your story more interesting and relevant to your audience by cleverly working in references to THEIR OWN heroic ancestors, real or claimed.
stevaroni · 28 March 2014
TomS said:
Ecclesiastes 7:10 Do not ask why the old days were better than the present; for that is a foolish question
I always liked Ecclesiastes.
When I was young, I did time in a Catholic grade school, apparently as penance for from forbidden fruit one of my ancestors ate or something.
We were always subjected to graciously allowed to participate in Bible studies, and the priest would always ask us about our favorite meaningful verses.
They were, of course, supposed to be one of the famous new testament tropes, but I would always have some obscure, philosophical quote from Ecclesiastes at hand.
Always seemed to weird out the old priest when I went deep with something outside his normal range.
Sometimes the nuns would give me crap, but I'd point out that if "The sun also rises" was good enough to inspire Hemingway, it was probably good enough for me.
111 Comments
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
It's possible.
There was probably a big drum at the base of the housing to wind and unwind the rope but it was probably hand-cranked.
I seem to recall a passage in the Bible that referred to Noah's wife as the "Big Wench."
So, yeah, I could see it working.
eric · 10 March 2014
Joe Felsenstein · 10 March 2014
Where's the part of the Bible where Noah sold junk bonds to finance the Ark? We do at least know that he would not have had to pay off the bonds.
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
DavidK · 10 March 2014
I am awestruck by this "photo," the detail is fantastic. Did Noah use a Canon, Nikon, or was this simply a Polaroid shot? Does Ham actually think he's going to build exactly what is depicted here, or is it just a fairy-tale, dreamy come-on to lure more investors? Furthermore, all the items in his future park will require tens of millions more from investors. And all for naught.
Mike Elzinga · 10 March 2014
Maybe somebody at AiG read Genesis incorrectly and it was actually the two cranes that were then brought as a pair onto the ark.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 March 2014
There is speculation that ancient Egyptians had cranes, and apparently they were building pyramids before the Flood, so why not?
Of course the Egyptians were evil-doers who just went on keeping their civilization going when they were supposed to be drowning.
Glen Davidson
Just Bob · 10 March 2014
Man, they missed a chance on that one! I mean anyone who can display a dinosaur wearing a saddle should have taken the opportunity to show Noah's actual cranes: sauropod dinosaurs!
They must not have remembered their history lessons from The Flintstones.
Just Bob · 10 March 2014
And anyone with any sense of the limits of wooden construction just has to look at AIG's fantasy of the thing. As Mike reminds us, you can't build a wooden ship that size. Just look at the apparent length of the keel, the backbone of any wooden ship. How many separate pieces of wood must there be there? Pinned together how? A wooden keel of that length is NOT going to be stiff enough to keep the whole monstrosity from flexing, springing its planks, and breaking up catastrophically. Last I knew, the Floodists need a lot of violent weather and turbulence to produce all the effects they claim for the Flood. Does Ham really want to claim that that thing would remain in one piece and watertight in anything but a dead calm?
KlausH · 10 March 2014
harold · 10 March 2014
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
This video may not be as completely crazy as it sounds at first, although I would have thought that leaks would have been a major problem.
Anyway, for your enjoyment:
http://youtu.be/TJcp13hAO3U
Mike Elzinga · 10 March 2014
A thought occurred to me; but I don’t know if it would pan out.
One of my ancestors was a sailor on the wooden ships before, during, and after the Civil War. He sailed all over the world, and was a captain of his own vessels on the Great Lakes for over 40 years. He and his sons built and repaired ships and described the issues of keeping them seaworthy.
Ham has indicated that he will hire Amish workmen to build the ark. I wonder if any of these Amish workmen will get a feel for the overall weakness of the structure as it becomes bigger and starts sagging under its own weight. Building barns and furniture is one thing; those are relatively small.
As far as I can discover, this is what the Amish know of shipbuilding.
But the minute they start trying to fit the planking to those ribs, some skilled craftsmen will start getting the idea.
And how will they “heel over” this thing to secure and seal the bottom?
And how does one build that keel? And what of ballast?
This should be “interesting.” There will be lots of gloss-over if it even gets started.
Mike Waldteufel · 10 March 2014
Doc Bill, interesting idea, but I'm unaware of any archeological evidence of the Egyptians using the technique as shown.
Owosso Harpist · 10 March 2014
And Ham claims the upcoming movie has "historical inaccuracies" in it.... *shakes head* sheesh!
IanR · 10 March 2014
I think we are missing an opportunity here: Challenge AIG to float its Ark. If it's authentic, it shouldn't be a problem.
prongs · 10 March 2014
Mike Elzinga · 10 March 2014
TomS · 10 March 2014
Matt Young · 10 March 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 March 2014
Scott F · 10 March 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 10 March 2014
Making pyramids with internal ramps
Glen Davidson
Ron Okimoto · 10 March 2014
The picture is all wrong. It was more like the Flintstones and the brachiosaurs did all the heavy lifting so that Noah could take their babies onto the ark and leave the parents to drown.
prongs · 10 March 2014
Mike Waldteufel · 10 March 2014
IanR, Ham is indeed floating his Ark! He's floating it with junk bonds and other ways that he's fleeced his gullible, drooling acolytes.
prongs · 10 March 2014
Jim · 10 March 2014
Unfortunately, what this thread and many others on Panda's Thumb demonstrates is the triumph of the Creationists who have somehow managed to get otherwise reasonable people to devise arguments against the beast fables and children's stories found in Genesis. What's next? New arguments against the thesis that anvils float?
prongs · 10 March 2014
Doc Bill · 10 March 2014
DavidK · 10 March 2014
And the problem of ballast? Well, I can imagine Noah just shunted all the crap his 2x2's generate to the lower hold of the boat. All he needed to do was to cut little poop holes in each animal stall and they'd all oblige him. That might solve the problem we've wasted our time talking about. Perhaps that's also the origin of the old saying, "to raise a stink" as it must have been an unbearable cruise. Phew!
TomS · 10 March 2014
Henry J · 10 March 2014
Dave Luckett · 10 March 2014
Well, in a sort of a sense, "water levels" were probably used to level the foundation of the pyramids, since they had to be built on a completely level bedrock site of about 50,000 sq meters.
Method: roughly level off the site to its bedrock, using hand tools. Cut a grid of channels in the rock, all interconnecting, covering the whole site. Fill these with water, carried up from the Nile. Now cut the rock back to the level of the water. Now backfill the channels to the cut level. Voila: a level rock-based building site.
Dave Lovell · 11 March 2014
Paul Burnett · 11 March 2014
In the picture, what is the thing at the top? A vertical stabilizer, so the pictured ark will weathervane in the wind?
MJHowe · 11 March 2014
As they try to counter all the criticisms their ark gets more sophisticated by the day. Now we see cranes built along modern lines, an apparent 'vertical stabilizer' and goodness knows what else inside. What's next? Perhaps a 'motor' based on the bacterial flagellum? After all, we know that was already designed.
harold · 11 March 2014
Kevin B · 11 March 2014
Karen S. · 11 March 2014
The Noah movie has already been banned in several Middle Eastern countries. Noah is considered to be a prophet by Muslims and you can't depict him in film. LOL!
Karen S. · 11 March 2014
Noah movie featurette: How to build an ark. So now we know!
JimboK · 11 March 2014
If anyone wants the full-size above-pictured rendition of the ark, you can find it here.
Carl Drews · 11 March 2014
John Harshman · 11 March 2014
The plot of the Noah movie is weird action-adventure involving, apparently, Tubal-Cain, and perhaps others not mentioned in the bible story. I was wondering if anyone knows whether there is some basis in tradition for that version, maybe from Midrash.
david.starling.macmillan · 11 March 2014
Henry J · 11 March 2014
Cranes are after all the state bird of a lot of states, so of course they'd have a pair of them! :D
TomS · 11 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 11 March 2014
Just Bob · 11 March 2014
JimboK · 11 March 2014
Other depictions of the ArkEncounter®©™[pat. pend.] non-boat show a bulbous bow. See here, here, and here. Bulbous bows weren't around until the late 1800's at the earliest. Another time-travel by Noah!
Helena Constantine · 11 March 2014
I watched a precises of the Ham/Nye deabte the other day. It juxtaposed two statements that Ham made: that the Ark was sea-worthy (evidently taken on faith, since he didn't give the engineering equations): but later he said that the flood waters were so violent that they pushed the continents from the pangea configuration to their current relationships in 40 days. I guess his followers don't want to know about the contradiction there. It's impossible to believe that anyone who would say things like that isn't just plain lying for gain.
MJHowe · 11 March 2014
MJHowe · 11 March 2014
Karen S. · 11 March 2014
Did the ark have a name, e.g. the Maersk Babylon?
Henry J · 11 March 2014
MJHowe · 12 March 2014
Wooden Float?
Karen S. · 12 March 2014
cmb · 12 March 2014
DS · 12 March 2014
Just Bob · 12 March 2014
TomS · 12 March 2014
eric · 12 March 2014
Kevin B · 12 March 2014
Karen S. · 12 March 2014
Just Bob · 12 March 2014
TomS · 12 March 2014
Henry J · 12 March 2014
There, there!
DS · 12 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 12 March 2014
Chris Lawson · 12 March 2014
Since the original deus ex machina was a crane used in ancient Greek theatre, I guess this is unintentionally appropriate.
Scott F · 12 March 2014
Mike Elzinga · 12 March 2014
TomS · 12 March 2014
gnome de net · 12 March 2014
prongs · 12 March 2014
Ham's sheep are sending him money. That's all he cares about. Nothing here matters one whit, so long as the sheep keep sending money.
No contradiction (giant cranes building the Ark) - no impossibility (gathering and feeding and cleaning stalls, for all those animals) - no stinkin' Science (DNA evidence does not indicate one family of DNA 4,000 years ago) - can dissuade the sheep from believing, and sending more money.
Face it. Until the sheep stop believing, there will be charlatans to accept their money.
It's not the charlatans fault, it's the sheep's.
Sad but true.
Dave Luckett · 12 March 2014
If you started out with a population only of sheep, in time there'd be wolves. Evolution in action.
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 12 March 2014
Marilyn · 13 March 2014
The Ark might have solved the problem of the day fictional or even true, in also warning people of ignorance. But in this day with the materials and engineering that we have and the same problem of preserving people and life through natural disaster a different sort of Ark might be required but while there is sea and water it still would be a reasonable option to take.
TomS · 13 March 2014
I wonder whether when the Ark narrative was deliberately constructed with impossible details to enhance its mythic character. The story is introduced as happening in an "once upon time" era, with fairy-tale characters (which are never mentioned again - their only function is to set the mood).
Dave Lovell · 13 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 13 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 13 March 2014
TomS · 13 March 2014
Henry J · 13 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 14 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 14 March 2014
And IIRC, "Methusaleh" means something, "when he dies, judgment will come". Again, fable markers.
david.starling.macmillan · 14 March 2014
AltairIV · 15 March 2014
davemullenix · 15 March 2014
Does anybody else look at that crane and immediately think of the Trojan Rabbit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?
Matt Young · 15 March 2014
Scott F · 15 March 2014
Henry J · 16 March 2014
Bill DeMott · 16 March 2014
How many sons and son-laws did Noah have working with him? And how did they go to the various islands and continents to find the world's animal life?
TomS · 16 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 16 March 2014
Matt Young · 16 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 17 March 2014
KlausH · 19 March 2014
KlausH · 19 March 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 20 March 2014
Kevin B · 20 March 2014
KlausH · 20 March 2014
Just Bob · 21 March 2014
KlausH · 21 March 2014
Matt Young · 23 March 2014
Interesting little blurb in Parade Magazine today: No Real Animals Used to Film Russell Crowe's New Noah Movie. Maybe because they could not fit them onto the Ark? Maybe because they did not know how to handle all those wild animals? Maybe because computer animation is cheaper? Ark Park please take note.
david.starling.macmillan · 24 March 2014
eric · 24 March 2014
Carl Drews · 24 March 2014
TomS · 24 March 2014
Just Bob · 24 March 2014
stevaroni · 28 March 2014
subjected tograciously allowed to participate in Bible studies, and the priest would always ask us about our favorite meaningful verses. They were, of course, supposed to be one of the famous new testament tropes, but I would always have some obscure, philosophical quote from Ecclesiastes at hand. Always seemed to weird out the old priest when I went deep with something outside his normal range. Sometimes the nuns would give me crap, but I'd point out that if "The sun also rises" was good enough to inspire Hemingway, it was probably good enough for me.