31% of American adults believe the Bible is Literal Word of God - Belief strongest among those without college degrees

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes I believe the way it is laid out in the Bible. I am not fluent in Hebrew, so there may be discrepancies in how it has been translated into English.

My problem with that is that the size of the Ark quoted in the Bible (300 cubits / 450 feet) is larger than the biggest wooden ship ever built. Using ancient world materials and the building techniques available at the beginning of the iron age it seems unlikely in the extreme that a ship could have been made that would be structurally seaworthy, that wouldn't fall apart under the stress of the water.

Also how the earth could have been repopulated without resorting to incest.

I personally chalk it up to "things I will be asking God once I get to heaven". Don't get me wrong, it's not a matter of just blissfully ignoring things that may not add up or can't be proven satisfactorily with scientific equations. I question lots of things and do investigating -- I'm not a history major for nothing! I have just come to accept that I may never get all the answers that I or others need to know in my lifetime, and that I believe that God is a mighty God where anything is possible.

Well its a given that we'll never have all the answers to definitively be able to make a judgment one way or the other. Still short of some sort of fantastic archaeological discovery there's really no possible way that one man and his family could, using techniques and materials available at the time, design and build a ship that is significantly larger than the largest wooden ship ever built. The closer you look at the biblical text with a view to understanding the logistics involved, the more ludicrous the story becomes.

In that respect I think its important to separate religion from mysticism. Stories like Noah's Ark are fundamentally Myth - there's no way to prove or disprove them, but its asking a lot IMO to expect a modern audience to throw out all the knowledge that humanity has learned over thousands of years - about shipbuilding and physics to accept that this really could have happened exactly the way it is described.

If you remove science from the equation here all that you are left with is sorcery (basically). That's much the same problem I have with biblical creationism - science is in many respects inconvenient to some fundamentalist believers who seem to see scientific explanations as an affront to the tenets of their faith. I guess I just don't understand why believing that God could pull life spontaneously out of a hat is a better explanation than that it was done according to a set of observable biological rules.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Still short of some sort of fantastic archaeological discovery there's really no possible way that one man and his family could, using techniques and materials available at the time, design and build a ship that is significantly larger than the largest wooden ship ever built. The closer you look at the biblical text with a view to understanding the logistics involved, the more ludicrous the story becomes.

http://creationwiki.org/Chinese_treasure_s...rk_was_feasible

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Still short of some sort of fantastic archaeological discovery there's really no possible way that one man and his family could, using techniques and materials available at the time, design and build a ship that is significantly larger than the largest wooden ship ever built. The closer you look at the biblical text with a view to understanding the logistics involved, the more ludicrous the story becomes.

http://creationwiki.org/Chinese_treasure_s...rk_was_feasible

Yeah - there's no archaeological evidence for anything that large. See here.

Treasure ships a myth?

Nothing in the archeological record so far provides direct evidence for anything like the Ming Dynasty's treasure ships, and one must apply the same empirical skepticism normally used in evaluating archeological claims to accounts of these ships. Did nine-masted ships over 400 feet long really accomplish these fabled voyages? The possibility has fascinated Chinese scholars and has resulted in the construction of a hypothetical model of such a ship in 1985 at the Zheng He Research Institute in Nanjing. Literary sources suggest that the treasure ships combined the characteristics of the fuchuan, a multimasted seagoing type of vessel with a keel, V-shaped hull, multiple decks, and elevated bow and stern (for greater height in fighting, similar to the northern European cogs adapted for fighting); and a type of shallow-water boat with a flat bottom and squared-off prow called the shachuan. The Quanzhou ship could be the remains of a fuchuan-type vessel, comparable in size and general character to the largest contemporary medieval European cogs and carracks but nowhere near as large as the treasure ships described.

Estimates of the treasure ships' size are based in literary references in texts pertaining to the first of the Ming emperors, Zhu Di (1402-1424). Zhu Di was known for grandiose projects such as the monumental tomb he built for his father; a stone tablet intended for this tomb was so large that workers could not move it from its quarry at Nanjing to the tomb site. Ship construction and overseas trading expeditions on a grand scale would have been consistent with Zhu Di's known behavior. The calculations were based on units of measurement used in shipbuilding during the Ming period, which, if correctly understood, described ships of about 400 feet long by 150 feet wide.

If correct, these dimensions record by far the largest wooden ships ever built. Even the biggest of the 5,000-6,000-ton wooden battleships of the mid- to late 19th century and the 5,000-ton wooden motorships constructed in the United States during World War I did not exceed 340 feet in length or 60 feet in width. The longest of these ships, the Mersey-class frigates, were unsuccessful, and one, HMS Orlando, showed signs of structural failure after an 1863 voyage to the United States. The Orlando was scrapped in 1871 and the Mersey soon after. Both the Mersey-class frigates and the largest of the wooden battleships, the 121-gun Victoria class, required internal iron strapping to support the hull, as did many other ships of this kind. In short, the construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships.

More specifically:

Although shipwreck archeology is relatively new in Asia, important finds are pointing the way toward the broader use of archeological evidence relative to the documentary history of this era of Chinese maritime expansion. One cannot always assume the documents to be detailed or accurate. As the English maritime historian G.R.G. Worcester pointed out,

No writer of nautical experience has described these vessels [large ships of the Mongol Dynasty] or provided us with information on which reliance can be placed. Writers on shipping were, or seemed to be, practically unknown in those days; the few that refer to [shipping] are so inaccurate and laconic, or both, that their works have little real value, and so everything relating to the ships of the period is in a great degree a matter for conjecture.

Lack of proof = proof is pretty typical where biblical literalism is concerned.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Yes I believe the way it is laid out in the Bible. I am not fluent in Hebrew, so there may be discrepancies in how it has been translated into English.

My problem with that is that the size of the Ark quoted in the Bible (300 cubits / 450 feet) is larger than the biggest wooden ship ever built. Using ancient world materials and the building techniques available at the beginning of the iron age it seems unlikely in the extreme that a ship could have been made that would be structurally seaworthy, that wouldn't fall apart under the stress of the water.

Also how the earth could have been repopulated without resorting to incest.

Who said it was repopulated without siblings marrying each other? That was the same way the earth was populated in the beginning. It wasn't considered "incest" at the time. The laws in the Bible against siblings marrying weren't given till long after the Flood.

As for the available building techniques in the Iron Age; first, the Flood would have predated the Iron Age, as it predated all civilizations we know of, so Iron Age technology really wouldn't be relevant. It would make just as much sense to determine what the Romans at the height of their civilization could have done based on the abilities of people in the Dark Ages following the fall of Rome. Second, if the Biblical story is to be taken seriously (if not, and it's just rejected out of hand, or assumed to be just another myth, there's not much point to the discussion), God gave Noah instructions on the building of the Ark, which would have included whatever would be needed to give it sufficient strength.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

God gave Noah instructions on the building of the Ark, which would have included whatever would be needed to give it sufficient strength.

[Scott & Lai 12]

How is that magic?? If there is a God who is powerful enough and smart enough to create the Universe, and who has created us with reason and linguistic ability, why couldn't he then communicate the needed instructions to Noah? If I teach a child how to use tools and make, say, a bird house, was that magic?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The explanation is a magical one. Any explanation that depends on God is no more meaningful than saying "it's magic".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As for the available building techniques in the Iron Age; first, the Flood would have predated the Iron Age, as it predated all civilizations we know of, so Iron Age technology really wouldn't be relevant. It would make just as much sense to determine what the Romans at the height of their civilization could have done based on the abilities of people in the Dark Ages following the fall of Rome. Second, if the Biblical story is to be taken seriously (if not, and it's just rejected out of hand, or assumed to be just another myth, there's not much point to the discussion), God gave Noah instructions on the building of the Ark, which would have included whatever would be needed to give it sufficient strength.

It would certainly be relevant - unless we're talking about pre-classical civilizations being greatly more advanced than the ones that followed (i.e. Atlantis). It simply isn't possible to build a viable wooden ship that large with Bronze/iron age technology. Simply... won't happen. Period.

[Scott & Lai 12]

The explanation is a magical one. Any explanation that depends on God is no more meaningful than saying "it's magic".

Uh, the whole flood story has God all through it. The point is that God sent the flood, and gave Noah instructions for building the ark so that the animal species and Man would continue. Take God out of the story and there isn't much point to it anyway.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Right. It's all magic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

double-post

Edited May 30, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The explanation is a magical one. Any explanation that depends on God is no more meaningful than saying "it's magic".

Also wouldn't that be cheating? Unless we're talking about:

There's a reason I suspect, why all these miracles and stories are rooted firmly in the ancient world - and why nothing spectacular (and inexplicable) like that happens today. People were much more superstitious than they are today - and all of these stories are derived from that superstition.

Imagine the Asian Tsunami taking place in Biblical times. Something that far removed from ordinary experience would certainly leave an impact on superstitious cultures who interpret things like that as God's displeasure. I don't doubt there was a flood - seeing as similar stories are common to a lot of ancient cultures about a catastrophic flood. The God stuff is just embellishment.

[SteveLaura 0]

The explanation is a magical one. Any explanation that depends on God is no more meaningful than saying "it's magic".

Uh, the whole flood story has God all through it. The point is that God sent the flood, and gave Noah instructions for building the ark so that the animal species and Man would continue. Take God out of the story and there isn't much point to it anyway.

This is the part I struggle with. If God created the earth & everything in it, why did He need Noah at all? He could have saved the bits He wanted without getting Noah to build a boat. Or just destroy the planet and start again.

[homesick_american 1]

The explanation is a magical one. Any explanation that depends on God is no more meaningful than saying "it's magic".

Uh, the whole flood story has God all through it. The point is that God sent the flood, and gave Noah instructions for building the ark so that the animal species and Man would continue. Take God out of the story and there isn't much point to it anyway.

This is the part I struggle with. If God created the earth & everything in it, why did He need Noah at all? He could have saved the bits He wanted without getting Noah to build a boat. Or just destroy the planet and start again.

:thumbs:

[Scott & Lai 12]

The explanation is a magical one. Any explanation that depends on God is no more meaningful than saying "it's magic".

Uh, the whole flood story has God all through it. The point is that God sent the flood, and gave Noah instructions for building the ark so that the animal species and Man would continue. Take God out of the story and there isn't much point to it anyway.

This is the part I struggle with. If God created the earth & everything in it, why did He need Noah at all? He could have saved the bits He wanted without getting Noah to build a boat. Or just destroy the planet and start again.

Whether or not you, were you God, would have done things differently says nothing about the existence of God or the truth of the Biblical account. He is God, we are not. He did it the way he did it.