Scotty

Since I just thought of an Ark question.
If the wood (what, some rodent wood, gopherwood?) was strong enough to hold the ark together, what would that strength be? Iron-like? (since I seem to remember that no wood is now strong enough to stay together in a ship that size).

If it was as strong as iron, doesn't that mean it would take tools stronger than iron to form into the correct pattern? Nails? Screws? 50-ton press?

goddidit.

-Scott

adler5

The old testament t mentions that god told Noah to build the ark out of a resinous tree, now I’ve researched the trees in the middle east and so far I can’t find any trees that could possibly be strong enough for a ship of that size, and by that size I mean the size it would have had to be in real life, not the accounts of the fairy tales size in genesis{3oo cubit’s length 50 cubit’s width 30 cubits high} Aldo there are many kinds of trees mentioned in genesis this particular one stands out {Pistacia are found in Genesis 35:4, Judges 6:11, I Chronicles 10:12, Isaiah 6:13 and 44:14. Because of its large size and great age, pistacia trees were well-known landmarks and were used as memorials for the dead, a practice followed until recently in some Arab villages. But the pistacia trees also became the object of idolatry (Hosea 4:13). Did Jacob bury the idols under the"oak" of Shechem because the tree was an object of veneration in itself?


As often in Scripture, great trees are associated with great men. Gideon was by a large pistacia when he was called by God (Judges 6:11). David faced Goliath in the Valley of the Pistacias (I Samuel 17:2) (elah in Hebrew). Absalom, great in his own eyes, was trapped in a large pistacia.

i still don’t know what kind was used by Noah and i find it strange that its not mentioned
here is a link to the trees in that part of the world in that period of time

LINK:
resinous tree of the middle east
Source;
web.odu.edu/webroot/instr/sci/plant.nsf/pages/pistacia
so in conclusion if any one has an idea of what kind of wood was used please respond.

adler5

lpetrich

Kiwi birds live only in New Zealand. A female kiwi lays eggs that are about 18-25% of her body weight, and her male partner does the sitting on them.

Kiwis are most closely related to the now-extinct moas, and they are more distantly related to other "ratites", a group of birds that includes ostriches (Africa), the now-extinct Aepyornis (Madagascar), cassowaries (Australia, New Guinea), and rheas (South America). This all fits with their common ancestor having lived on Gondwana, with its descendants evolving in different directions on that former continent's fragments.

As to dispersion, here is a reason that some oceanic islands have giant turtles, but none ever have any giant rats -- rats would starve on a long, aimless drift, while turtles could simply slow down. So the ancestors of kiwis could not have drifted to New Zealand.

Instead, their homeland did all the drifting, taking them with it.

adler5

in my haste, trying to correct my grammar and spelling it seems that this time i did not syntax my post, i swear this French guy will get better hehehe
sorry and thank you for your patience

adler5

Dr.GH

By reading some of the earlier texts (those that the Biblical story is based on) I have formed the opinion the the Genesis author/editor didn't know what kind of tree was used.

Take a look at these sources:

Look at tablet 2
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/...atrahasis.html

and tablet 11 from Gilgamesh

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...esh/index.html

Cedar is one possibility. The massive use of tar in the story, and direct textual references locate the region of the flood to the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

adler5

this is what your implying {continental drift}

Author: Robert Mahoney
Home Page: [/url]

how long do you think it took for the drift to take place? Scripture says that history is only 7000 years old so far. If scripture says the earth is only this old, and your theory requires millions of years...what does that do with the historical claim of the bible and God's revealed truth?

Robert +

faded_Glory

Ummm... it disappears in a puff of logic?

fG

Paul2

I didn't feel like starting a new thread so i'll post this here.

Quck question. I'm assuming there were people alive at the time of the flood that were fishermen. that is, they lived by rivers or the ocean and fished for their livelyhood. I'd also assume that said fishermen had boats. Would these boats not float too? That is, wouldn't these fishermen be able to survive the flood?

Dr.GH

People, people ...

The textual place to start understanding the flood narrative in the Torah is in Sumer.

check Tablet 2
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/...atrahasis.html

then read the first 1/2 of Tablet 11
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...esh/index.html

then re-read Genesis 5-9.
http://unbound.biola.edu/

Also remember that Abraham came from Ur, and that the Torah was writen in about 700 BCE, 2 or 3 thousand years after the tale of Atrahasis. Also note that Ugarit was a late Babylonian city which had great influence over the northern kingdom, Israael.

adler5

That’s all fine and dandy, but one thing at a time, you see im trying to destroy the credibility of one book of myths’ fables and simplistic answers to complicated questions, {, i.e., the so-called bible}THE WORD OF GAWWWWWD so im not going to use an even more incredible source like the torah to prove any of my points thank you any way, but I will get around to that particular book of fiction soon so stay tuned

adler5