Humanity's earliest writings are in fact an interface with their predecessor - the oral traditions. Many modern oral traditions have already given rise to a great many urban myths, quickly, due to a huge population doing the re-telling. Many biblical stories are likely the first recordings of formerly oral stories, passed down by tribal specialists (father-to-son). Although the 'Chinese whisper' effect can distort even a simple story with a simple vocabulary, we place considerable faith in the oral tradition being reliable. Sure, there were fewer people and less distractions, but warfare was frequent and breaks in the traditions would have occurred. Some breaks may have been patched by in-filling with parts of another tribe's tradition that sounded similar (or appealing). We will never know the truth, but if you look at tribes who still operate an oral or dance tradition because they never developed writing. Their stories are highly fragmented and parts of the OT seem fragmented in a similar way. Each tribe re-tells the story in a way which fits its culture however, and this pattern seems consistent with the OT stories compared to e.g. Adam and Eve which has variations in several religions and mythologies. One thing about a deluge is the amount of salt it would leave behind in the soil. It kills the soil micro-organisms and most plants cannot tolerate it. Many animal species survive only on plants that are very fussy about where they grow - and this has not changed in millions of years. Some grapes are salt tolerant, but Noah appears to have had only the one variety. If all vines are descended from Noah's, I would expect there to be far more salt-tolerant varieties, but they are uncommon. As to a real deluge, you'd have to go back to the Mediterranean basin filling - an event that would certainly have terrified early humans if they happened to have been around, but it would be a very long and fragmented oral tradition if it survived to biblical times. In contemplating Genesis, it is important to put yourself in the mindset of someone of those times. Your vocabulary and experience are limited. You are not starting from scratch, your tribe already has a legacy of stories from their ancestors to call on, carefully preserved - as sacred (something not to be altered) - by its elders. You do not have words to describe the inexplicable, so you attribute such events to your deity. If your tribe is conquered by another, and they like your story, they change your deity's name to theirs - as the Romans did with Greek gods. (On translation of medical texts from Greek to Arabic, references to Greek gods were renamed as references to Allah; when those texts were in turn translated to Latin, references to Allah were changed to God/John/Mark/Luke/Matthew; and after a few more centuries they were dropped altogether.) Humanity may have changed over the millenia, but its habits have not.
No offence taken, or intended. I have no problem with belief, provided it's a free choice, and I'd prefer it came from an understanding of more than one book, and a good feel for why particular words and ideas mattered to the people of that period. There's some good ideas in many religious texts but people are far too quick to defend 'their' text as the 'one true one'. If they spent some time reading other faiths' texts, we might get on faster with building an 'us' society rather than a 'them and us'. In that sense, the world hasn't changed. There were many different faiths in the Middle East of biblical times, it caused tensions, disorder and suffering - as it does today. It prevented people from mixing and that's why it took a millenium for any European to realise that the Islamic world had superior medical knowledge that was not being shared because of the religious divide. The Islamic world already knew much of what the Europeans knew and had had time to experiment with these ideas plus new medical ideas from India, China and other trading partners. In the meantime, Europeans assumed Arabic-speakers were ignorant heathens and this opinion worsened after the 7th century post-Mohammed surge round the Mediterranean, so their was no incentive to learn each other's technical language. On translation to Latin, the Arabic medical texts had to be Christianised and names changed to hide their Islamic origin. Without that step, it is doubtful that Islamic ideas would have been accepted by the Europeans, who were almost entirely Catholic at that time. If they had embraced 'love thy neighbour' - an idea designed to encourage people of different faiths and ideas to get along - medical advances would likely have occurred a lot earlier and millions of people would have benefited. Blind faith has a price, it seems. To find history interesting, you have to get inside the head of historic people and look out at their world with their eyes.
Interestingly, the USCCB Bible online acknowledges that both sources of this story stem from the 11th tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh (7th century BCE), which has remarkable similarities to the one in Genesis - as do the Sumerian deluge story of 1200 BCE and the Atrahasis Epic of 1800 BCE. Just as we re-invent and refresh older stories today by re-naming the hero, the tradition can be traced back through many pieces of literature. e.g. Shakespeare's R&J has its roots in a number of earlier Italian sources, and back to Greek tragedies, whilst West SIde Story is a more modern version centuries later. The Incredible Hulk is a re-invention of Jekyll and Hyde. These are not new traditions. Curously, the flood was supposed to have followed a period of human wickedness, yet in Genesis 8:19-22, having saved all the animals, Noah then makes a number extinct by sacrificing them. Something we would regard as a wickedness today. Their burned smell appeases however and apparently there won't be another flood (apart from the one we're producing ourselves through global warming...). Then in Genesis 9:21, Noah gets drunk - a wicked example to set to his sons and people by today's standards, and makes Canaan 'the lowest of slaves' (9:25) - odd: if he is the first and only slave, why is he the lowest? It implies there were others (slaving was common across the Middle East and Africa in pre-biblical times). Today, we regard slavery as a wickedness - especially as it is still continues in several countries, another millenia-old human tradition.
I didn't know anyone took that story literally.
"Elephants eats 660lbs of greenery per day, times 150 days on the ark you get, 99,000lbs of greenery for one elephant. That's excluding Hippo's, Giraffes, Bears, Rhino's, etc. With all the Weight of animals (16,000 species) and food storage you get a number around...20 million pounds. If you argue that they were baby animals then babies would need milk supply from their mothers. The stored milk would go bad in hours. Noah's dimensions of the ark would simply not hold up to that. Second, The waters reached to the highest mountains (29,029 ft). The deepest part of the ocean is 35,797 feet. With 40 days of rain (fresh water) that would equal out to about 82% of fresh water mixed with sea water. All fresh water fish, and all marine life would die in hours. Third, the carnivorous animals would need to eat even after the ark had landed on Mt. Ararat. So, what did they eat until the other animals would populate? Again if they were baby animals they would have to wait even longer. No dead carcasses. 150 days in water they would decompose and the meat would be no good. Last but not least, a polar bear can swim up to 50 miles. How do you expect it to swim across the Atlantic? That not including the other animals in South America, Australia, North America, Antartica, and Green Land. I mean, come on, there are 10,000 different species of bee alone, 30,000 different species of birds, there are even 300,000 known species of non-swimming beetles."
lol. You are a very gracious gentleman - please forgive my provacativeness in playing the ancient game of ark-filling - which has amused theological students for many centuries. I think I may shortly have some questions more worthy of your research time and I hope you may indulge me in an exchange of more interesting ideas in due course. The bottom line in Noah's case is that ancient stories were designed to be read/spoken at a time when vocabularies and mind/experience sets were limited. Whilst the simplicities remain meaningful, the verbal mnemonics and metaphors are open to interpretation. We have also become highly selective in which parts of which religious text we articulate most (and quietly gloss over the parts which now resonate less loudly). The more we discover about our universe(s), the harder we question received wisdom. Some people find it all too much to grasp and hold on to comfortable territory; others are explorers able to juggle uncertainties until they find the words to articulate them in a way which everyone else can understand. Perhaps the latter are strong in a 'hunter' gene, whilst the former express the characteristics of a 'gatherer' gene. Time wil tell. :)
Noah apparently lived to 950y. Many of his immediate descendants apparently lived 200-300ish but after that the bible records very few people living exceptional spans. Sadly, the bible doesn't tell us what useful things these people might have done with their long lives to make the world a better place. Noah did not seem to do much in his remaining 350y. Encyclopedia Brittanica suggests ancient Greeks and Romans had an average lifespan of 28. Most children died very young. Water in ancient times was polluted with human and animal dung plus parasites (hence pure water was declared sacred in most countries pre-Christ, to discourage people from contaminating it) - so disease was common up until medicines from Islamic countries became available to Europeans following translation of Arabic to Latin. Things have been improving ever since, though in parts of Africa it is still below 40. When I was a boy, telegrams were sent by the Queen to people passing 100, but not many were sent. Today you have to request a card, and she has sent over 100,000 during her reign.
Bees are tricky things, two would simply have died. One colony could have fed its queen and would have a good number of workers to replace the ones that died during the 40days (bees don't live long) and be working on queens to found new colonies after 40+days. The tricky bit is that queens and drones need to mate with those from other colonies or the lack of genetic mixing is fatal. Noah would have needed rather a lot, and I suspect the time it would take to evolve the later species (this isn't like your dog example below) even if he started with the earlier varieties (there'd need to be lots) the evolutionary timeframe is a bit longer than the biblical. Then there's all the solitary bees, but the whole thing starts to get out of hand the more you try to make the story fit the details we now know. Details which were not available to the scribes of the scrolls.
Many people believe in Santa, but they'd still go to hospital to have their leprosy cured rather than follow The Lord's instructions in Leviticus 14... Leprosy was rather common in biblical times, but the bible doesn't seem to foresee a future cure and an end to leper colonies. Religious texts are often more interesting for what they don't say than what they do. If Noah and his family were the re-start of humanity, and assuming they didn't have any infectious diseases at the time, we would not have colds or flu now - all the people who had them would have died in the flood, so there would have been no infected person to pass them on.
Big topic! Think about your local zoo. How big is it and how many species does it house? How much food do they eat in a day? Most species eat a small range of foods only. Many eat each other. Most grow in specific habitats only and cannot survive elsewhere. Many only feed at night. Many only eat live food. Some live only in torrential river currents, or only in warm or very cold freshwater. Brine shrimps need very salty water. Some live only in desserts or at the poles - did the ark have air-con/heating? Oh, and the majority - and their food sources - do not live in the Bible lands....
I wonder what they fed on when they came out of the ark? 40 days of flood wd kill most plants, and bees need flowering plants for pollen. The plants would have had to start over from seed; not a quick process! The animals would have had a hard time finding grass and they'd have eaten it before it got established. Without pollination, there would be no new seeds so recovery would have not been quick enough to feed all the new babies and young animals. Wind-pollinated plants like corn and wheat would have taken months to produce grain. Tricky.
Being the measures of the ark around 150 m. long, 25 m. widht and 15 m. tall, a having worked in the construction of it some 50 years, they must have filled it with lots of supply (mostly grain since God did not allow to eat meat to Adam and Eve). But what you mention probably explain why God allowed to eat meet AFTER the flood. By the way, the flood itself was 40 days, but they stayed inside the ark a wholle year, which probably allowed enough time for pollinitation. Again, we do not have all the details.
Could it be the other way arround? That the myths stem from a common historical fact, the deluge? And, were not enough animals for sacrifices (according to Genesis 7:1-3, seven of the clean ones which after beign one complete year inside the ark must have definetly reproduced themselves)? And after so grand a cathaclism as it was the deluge, couldn't it be possible that grapes fermented much faster than what Noah knew from before? Could there be other "could-be's"?I'll be glad to know them?
Besides, the Bible mentions God commanded Noah to bring animals ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, which means that, for example, and just as and example, if the species were the ones we have today, two dogs would have been enough no matter the race of them, and not 2 of boxer and 2 of doverman, etc. Like man itself: trom the first couple we got a great variety of men among the specie (tall, short, white, black,etc.)
I has tissues for yar daddy issues that make you believe in a polytheistic, incest baby/lord known as Jesus/God/Holy Spirit. Rawr. Don't tell me's about me's issues, I whole-heartedly understand them, but do you understand your own? Do you understand that sub-conscious need for an after life king, who rules with wild brutish dictatorship? Yes, No, Maybe So? Probably not.
DO YOU EAT PORK? THEN YOU FAILS.
It was Jesus and he took 666 of each animal, and 4 of the species which are of unknown origin were thrown overboard for having homosexual relations, one of which was believed to be a dragon, apparently the dragons were quite flaming hehehehahahahohoho! And then the following incest repopulated the Earth. And that is the story of Moses coughs Noah*.
your right 2 billion creatures could'nt fit on a boat, but the ark wasn't a small little boat it was actually very big. it had to be so every creature inside could fit. it took Noah 120 years to build the ark. the ark was 450 feet long, as long as 1 1/2 football fields put end to end. it was 45 feet high, as high as a five-story building
The Bible does not give every detail of every thing. For a complete description on matters we'll have to wait until Noah's resurrection. Make sure to be there! In any case, if you are still SERIOUSLY interested on an answer, i might try to do some research.
From Genesis Chapters 6 and 7 we understand that Noah was commanded to take 7 of the clean ones and 2 of the unclean ones, in order to have enough of the clean ones to offer sacrifices to God, does it look reasonably to you?
yeah "apparently" 2 of every animal, wther or not that includes every single living thing including insects and different species of animals i dont know, because logically nothing can fit over 2 billion things on a boat
it wasn't Moses who built the ark, but rather Noah. and he(Noah)took 2 of each animal. 1 male and 1 female. it's from those animals that were in the ark that we have the animals in the world today
hope this helped
The other way around 2 pairs of the unclean and 7 of the clean. How many Wise men were there? 3? Nope. How many trees in the centre of the Garden? 1? Nope. 2 :)
^^ The fact that he took 2 of each kind of animal from every species on Earth on to one boat is insanity, please quit being a ruh-tard, and please leave me out of your jeebus babble.
In Genesis 6:19-20 Noah was commanded to take 2 of all living creatures.
In Genesis 7:2-3 Noah was commanded to take 7 of each unclean animal and bird but 2 of each clean animal.
Apparently the oposite: & of the clean ones and 2 of the unclean. It seems God forsaw the need of Noah and his family to take from the clean ones to offer sacrifices
I am not sure i understood your remarks. Did you mean there were 4 men inside the ark, alltogether 8 with their wives? And about the trees, how many at all?
Do you read the bible?! The bible is gods word, and the bible says that NOAH took TWO of each animal - ONE female and ONE male.
The arrows were meant for tig3r not you think. I appreciated your comments though, it's some interesting stuff to think on.
was you not taught this song in junior school... 'the animals went in two by two hurrah hurrah.'
Two of the unclean ones and seven of the clean ones (Genesis 7:1-3)
to Angelee27: back then people lived a lot longer than we do today
he took 2 of each kind, one a female, and one a male.
Noah was 600 yrs old wen the flood overd the earth
YYEESSS!!!! lol and yeah NOAH took 2 of each ;)
Jeebus told me when I done prayed to him(s).
And Moses didn't take them Noah did
I can haz cheezburger? ^^TEXT BLOCK
Lmao^ one of each male and female
wtf where do u get this from????
sumones got issues............
I correct: 7 of the clean ones
two, one male, one female
he took 2 of each kind.
It was NOAH not MOSES:P
Noah lived 120 years?
BLOCK O' TEXT