Sushi X

(note: moderators please feel free to move this as I am new to this branch of the forum)

Noah never existed. Plain and simple. Why? I'll try and break it down for you.

The Jews (who I believe wrote this passage) had little to no knowledge about any of the so called "God's Creatures," not even themselves. Not only that, but there were animals that would remain un-discovered to X-ian Europe for thousands of years. There are creatures we are still discovering today? What about in Asia, or the Americas, which the Jews didn't even know existed? How could Noah possibly get those animals on board, seeing as the flood supposedly covered the Earth.

Okay, let's say that, somehow, Noah managed to round up 2 of every animal in the world and kept them from eating each other. The size of a ship needed to carry all those for any length of time would have to be the size of a small country. An amount of wood that size doesn't exist, and it would have to be a very LARGE miracle, which the Bible doesn't state happened.

X-ians, go ahead and try to prove me wrong. I'll be keeping an eye on this forum, and feel free to e-mail me.

The Sushi has spoken.

phlebas

Welcome, Sushi.

I think this post is better off in Biblical Criticism and Archaeology.

young_bible_boy9

To be blunt about it, you're really kind of wasting your time with by-rote Biblical literalism
concerning the supposed feats of Noah, as read in English translations of scripture.
The mythos surrounding Noah, having "saved the world" or his family having been the Earth's only survivors,I think, are centered around Noah having one of, (if not THE) longest recorded geneologies on record for the Judaic record-keepers of that time, some 950 (approx) years. So Noah is the world's champ, so to speak. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
This gets hugely misinterpreted as having been the lifespan of a single individual, when it was actually a 950 yr span of male offspring of an original patriarchal "Noah".
As for "floods covering the Earth" - sure! there were a number of them thru the ages at that time.
...and yes..it's also highly likely that one or more of Noah's generations were prolific in animal husbandry & ranching, and may have claimed,or alleged to have specimens of "every single animal known to man" (step right up, folks!!)


To sum it up, yes, it's possible an ancient Noah person(s) did exist - just don't believe much of what you read or hear about 'em!!

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: young_bible_boy9 ]</p>

Kosh

Please provide scriptural and interpretive evidence/research to support this assertion.

Marduk

"Noah never existed. Plain and simple. "

WHAT!? A 500 year old drunk really didn't put all the animals in the world in a wooden boat for a year!!??

I find that hard to believe, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence you know.


welcome

Marduk

"Please provide scriptural and interpretive evidence/research to support this assertion."

Pardom as I interupt but the idea that the many year old patriarchs refer to families instead of individuals is from "Isaac Asimov's Gide to the Bible"

CX

Unfortunately your argument does not establish that Noah never existed. It only illustrates the dubiousness of the claims made in regard to him in the Pentateuch. Ultimately the existence of the biblical patriarchs, including Noah, is a matter of faith which cannot, in principle, be confirmed nor denied on any scientific grounds.

Tercel

Er Sushi, do you realise that your point is only relevant to conservative literalist Christians (and many even among them are prepared to accept a more localised flood) since the rest of us see the story in a symbolic light? ie it's a story with a moral.

eg from the Hodder Pocket Bible Commentary by William Neil (1962)
"The Flood:
It should hardly be necessary to repeat that in the prologue [ie first portion of Genesis] we are dealing with stories, parables, symbols and images and not with history....
In 4:15 we saw the first suggestion that despite man's perversity God still cares for him. Cain's murderous act is punished but his life is spared. This merciful attitude is, however, misunderstood and abused. The blood thirsty song of Lamech (4:23-24) and the parable of the Nephilim (6:1-4) show humanity turning its back on God, persuming on his leniency, and marching steady downhill to perdition until even the merciful Creator has had more than he can stomach....
The point of the flood story is not that mankind was once obliterated and then given a fresh start. To say that would be to bring the Bible down to the level of Greek mythology. The Flood is the symbol of God's timeless judgment on us as we are, twentieth-century man no less than man in the anceint world...." etc. (he goes on for a few pages on the subject)


I would point out though that archeological evidence seems to provide some suggestion of the possibility of a localised flood in the region of Ur in about 4000BC. And that there is a similar Babylonian parallel from which the Biblical author has no doubt drawn. Hence I would give reasonable odds (ie 50%) to the idea that there actually did exist some sort of "Noah" person behind it all. -Not that that has any relevance whatsoever to the Biblical passage.

young_bible_boy9

IS THAT RIGHT????!!&&%%?? Hmmm....amazing! - I do think this view was around before Asimov- I have never done any extensive internet research for impressive links to back this up(lack of time,really). My source is OSU Bible/history profs.

"Please provide scriptural and interpretive evidence/research to support this
assertion."
As far as scriptural evidence goes - I find it highly unlikely that ancient Biblical texts would have included instructive, self-contained explanations of how various passages and information were arrived at.

young_bible_boy9

That might be an interesting read, I'll have to snag a copy sometime!!! (Nope I was'nt aware of it)