Talk:Noah's Ark

Size of the ark VS the tabernacle

"The ark is said to be 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high, and has three decks; it is therefore three times the height of the Tabernacle and three times the area of the Tabernacle forecourt, as described in the Book of Exodus."

Who wrote this ? Three times the height ok, but not three times the area. Therefore the whole sentence is irrelevant.

Structure	L	W	H	Perim
Courtyard	30	10	10	300c² (75m²)
Tent	120	60	10	7200c² (1800m²)
Noah's ark	300	50	30	15000c² (3750m²)

--Squallgreg (talk) 23:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees I will delete the original sentence soon. --Squallgreg (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions

In the section "Biblical Scholarship" it is implied that there are contradicting accounts within the texts of the Bible, such as "the rains are described as lasting forty days, but the waters are also said to have risen for 150 days", this is simply a lack of understanding of the difference between the terms "rains" and "waters". I will explain by a simple question then; if it rained for forty days and nights, on the day it stopped raining, the 41st day, would there be no waters left on the surface of the ground, or would it take some time for the waters to recede after the rain had stopped? Some things to consider are the fact that it takes time for rain waters to run down a slope, particularly forested terrain, rain can continue to flow through a forest for many days after the rain stops, also melting of snow continues for some time after rains stop, as glaciers and other deposits of ice do not melt instantly during rains. Another factor could be compression of the earth, lowering the level of ground and creating an upwelling from artesian springs and geysers, an influx of sea-waters etc... there could very well be two different sources of waters contributing to rising flood waters, and it is not necessarily a contradiction to say rain fell, and fountains flooded, but a conjoining of two elements in a single event. A similar thing is found with the other statements; "it is said that there was a single pair of each animal aboard, but also that there were seven pairs of the clean animals"; the author implies there are two accountings of the number of animals in this group, but it is clear that there are in fact two distinct groups of animals and each are to be numbered differently, a group of clean animals, and a group of unclean animals, a pair of one, 7 of the other, it is not a contradiction, saying take 2 of these and also... take 7 of the same. The same thing is found in the remaining statement about the source of the flood waters, heavens refer not only a spiritual realm or kingdom, but also a physical atmosphere upon the earth, so opening the flood gates of the heavens refers to... rain! Also the source of the rain, the fountains of the deep probably refers to the hydraulic cycle, which was known by the author of the Bible and described in common language in Isaiah 55:10 . . ."For just as the pouring rain descends, and the snow, from the heavens and does not return to that place, unless it actually saturates the earth". Here it shows not only that the atmosphere is referred to as "the heavens", but also that it was known that the water falls to the ground and also returns to the skies in a continuous cycle, not, for example, flowing off the edge of a flat earth? see also (Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth. . . (Job 26:7) . . .Hanging the earth upon nothing. . . (Ecclesiastes 1:7) . . .All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth. . . There is no trace of contradiction found by this author that cannot be discredited by a complete examination of the source materials, in my opinion the entire paragraph should be removed as it is prejudicial, implying the Bible texts contains cintradictions yet not supporting this theory with the evidence it has cited. It is little more than uninformed opinion and not fit for publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The section is referenced though and your content is original research which is not permitted, if you can find reliable third party references that back up your claims it could be added.Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

My sources, Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Isaiah 55:10, this ia an independant third party which confirms the theory that I proposed; that the author of these texts had multiple meanings for the word "heavens" and an understanding of the hydraulic cycle. A source for the theory that there could be multiple sources of flood waters contributing to a flood of large proportion: http://www.kjvbible.org/geysers.html Source for the theory that there are two groups of animals, clean and unclean, in the ancient Hebrew culture, contemporaries of Noah, and indeed Noahs own religious system: (Leviticus 20:25) . . .And YOU must make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean and between the unclean fowl and the clean"

The bible is a primary source and the other would not be a reliable reference for Wikipedia.Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Biblical Scholarship; Sources and verification

"In the 19th century, Biblical scholars were beginning to examine the origins of the Bible itself... scholars discovered in the Ark narrative two complete, coherent, parallel stories... scholars came to agree that the entire Pentateuch"

Which scholars? What published works are cited? Is there a unanimity of opinion amongst all scholars, or are these weasel words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There are many more references and sources for this in the article Documentary hypothesis which maybe of use?Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I checked that out and I see the theory behind it, in my example where the writer says "And YOU must make a distinction between the clean beast and the unclean and between the unclean fowl and the clean" the hypothesis is that four or more different writers wrote that sentence over a period of hundreds or thousands of years with multiple revisions and editing, along with some spurious remarks... so it really says whatever you want it to, depending on how you figure someone altered it! That there was no distinction between clean and unclean animals, so there is a contradiction between the two orders given to Noah, one saying to collect 2 animals and the other saying to collect 7 clean animals.

This is exactly where the problem comes in, when you disallow examination of the source materials when evaluating the source materials. If all we are allowed to do is examine other peoples theories and explanations it just turns into a huge argument from authority, this guy is more expert, there are more of my experts, this expert cheated on his taxes, etc. I came on here thinking I could have open debate and discussion to try and insure that the articla had truthful and complete information, but I see now it is more of a political realm than scientific. No thanks, goodbye Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to a huge argument as to whose armchair exegesis is better? I'd rather argue over experts -- there're fewer of them, and what they claim is at least published-and-therefore-reasonably-immutable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting primary sources in any field is difficult. Many generations of scholars have worked on understanding the Bible from a variety of points of view -- are you (66.183.75.82) proposing that random Wikipedians are better at it than they? Most Wikipedians don't even read Hebrew or Greek, let alone have any knowledge of textual criticism. --Macrakis (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you should use common sense and reasonableness, as well as fairness in evaluating articles. For example, some are opposed to me using excerpts form the Bible to explain what the writers of the Bible thought on certain matters, specifically whether they distinguished between two types of animals, clean and unclean. I have quoted the Bible showing clearly that there is such a distinction, it is inappropriate for me to do so by your standards. The author in the main article I am questioning has also quoted formt he Bible to say the Bible says this and that therefore is contradictory. So how is it he can quote from two spots, theorize they contradict each other,it is acceptable but when I use the third quote which explains how both conditions can be satisfied without contradiction, it is unacceptable? His sources do not list any such conclusion as to the contradictions, only theorize that there were four or more authors with different writing styles, they can make no conclusion based on the sources which are "implied", since none are expressly cited save a reference to another wikipedia article, which does not directly address the subject of the accuracy of the statements, only questioning the sources. In as much as it does not go into the question of accuracy or discrepanices or contradiction, it only summarizes that there may be different authors, it could only lead to an ad hominem, saying that the source is not reputable/known/verified or consistent, since there is no other allegation other than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.75.82 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)