Noah Film

[mortify ii]

And it looks quite interesting!

 

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTlT3DEydU[/youtube]

[mortify ii]

Mods, I'm sorry, this was meant to be started in the open mic

[linate]

It could turn into a debate as all I kept thinking was there is no archiological evidence it really happened. A classic story at best.

[r2Dtoo]

Noah eats all the animals at the end.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Supposedly Chinese archaeologists have found the remnants of a boat atop of mount Arafat and it measures the exact proportions of the ark from the old testament and it is old, very old, kind of fossilized . How did it get atop of mount Arafat ? I assume the Chinese are still delicately extracting it which will take a long time, i heard about this at the beginning of this year i think it was. And unsure if noah ate any of the animals, they probably fished from the ark i'm guessing, perhaps that's partially why we eat fish on friday fast to commemorate this and the knowledge has been lost so it's like secret sacred tradition. :)

 

Jesus iz LORD.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[r2Dtoo]

Supposedly Chinese archaeologists have found the remnants of a boat atop of mount Arafat and it measures the exact proportions of the ark from the old testament and it is old, very old, kind of fossilized . How did it get atop of mount Arafat ? I assume the Chinese are still delicately extracting it which will take a long time, i heard about this at the beginning of this year i think it was. And noah didn't eat all the animals, just the dodos perhaps. :)

Jesus iz LORD.

The biggest problem of all with the Noah's Ark story is that there's no way a "boat" built at those dimensions would have been buoyant.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The biggest problem of all with the Noah's Ark story is that there's no way a "boat" built at those dimensions would have been buoyant.

 

 

How so ?

[r2Dtoo]

How so ?

Um, it would have sunk.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Um, it would have sunk.

 

It would have been very heavy with all the animals, i wonder how it was kept afloat, i know it wasn't magic, perhaps the type of wood or something? If not the wood than what was the something, it had to be something man made, god given idea but man made. 

Edited November 18, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

If God has to destroy the earth again but this time by fire then perhaps we need to be in the middle of the ocean on an ark again, fire doesn't burn on the ocean, or perhaps one would need to be underground, with many fruit bearing seeds, but then what of the animals?

.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[mortify ii]

It could turn into a debate as all I kept thinking was there is no archiological evidence it really happened. A classic story at best.

 

I think researchers have taken a too literal interpretation of the story and due to this have simply searched in the wrong areas and in the wrong ways. The flood was global anthropologically but not geographically, and so since it did not cover every inch of the world we need not speculate how animals in far off places could have reached the ark, or how it could have stored all the variety of creatures that the world contained. The fact is many animals survived the flood event, and it's possible even some humans. Furthermore it's silly to presume this happened a couple thousand years ago as the young earth creationists suggest, rather it more likely occurred tens of thousands of years ago, somewhere in the range of 50 to 70 thousand years ago where genetic evidence actually reveals humanity reached a bottleneck and nearly went extinct. Interestingly enough all human males can be traced to one male ancestor living some 50 thousand years ago, and have given him the name genetic Adam, when in fact genetic Noah is more appropriate since this is not the first human male ancestor. So if I were to do a serious search, I'd confine myself to the African continent and dig deep. Perhaps a layer of silt might be found, but any serious archeological evidence will be difficult to extract for the simple reason that the flood was so destructive. It was not merely a water event as many presume, but also geological in that the tectonic process was rapidly accelerated and literally the whole face of the world had changed. It is no wonder that virtually all cultures have some story of a flood myth, and the elements are more or less the same. These are just some of my personal thoughts on the story, I tend to think of it as an actual event albeit in remote history, where most presume all one will find are humans banging rocks together.

[mortify ii]

The biggest problem of all with the Noah's Ark story is that there's no way a "boat" built at those dimensions would have been buoyant.

 

Actually models have shown that it's very possible using a simple technology known as a drogue stone. See the following clip, and particular around 4:40 (interestingly this find was cut from the original documentary.)

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O8wGjwyS7o[/youtube]

 

 

[mortify ii]

Several drogue stones as the one shown above were found on Mt Ararat, and all relatively close to this interesting object:

 

[Basilisa Marie]

Mortify, you're right about the non-literal thing. For the Ancient Jews, numbers sometimes just meant numbers but more often than not in the Old Testament they're meant to be HUGELY symbolic of all sorts of things. Like, when you see "144,000" it really is supposed to signify a number nearly too great to count. It's a really big multiple of 12, 12 representing Israel because of the 12 tribes. 12 is actually a good example of a number that's meant to be literal (12 tribes) but also symbolic (representing the whole people of Israel, among many other things), depending on the context.   So it's entirely possible that the "dimensions" given aren't meant to be taken strictly as scientific measurements, but rather something that was "really really big" with symbolic meanings attached.  

 

Or, ya know, it could be literal.  As Catholics we're free to either believe that the whole story of Noah's Ark is literally true (in a sort of scientific/historical way) OR to believe that it's more like a legend that tells us important truths about God and our relationship with Him. Or some kind of combination of the two positions.  So there's wiggle room there for people to make up their own minds.

I've noticed that sites that talk about the Noah trailer tend to gather a lot of viciousness in their comment section.  On one hand, you've got some nasty atheist types who brag about how God isn't real, but on the other you have some really aggressive Christians quoting all kinds of scripture that's meant to "convince" others that they're right and that anything except a movie that very strictly follows the Biblical narrative will be evil.  Both sides look ridiculous.   Christians are smart enough to understand that it's one guy's interpretation of a famous Bible story (with some great actors and special effects, YAY!).  If the non-religious believe it's nothing more than a fairy tale, then they should be respectful enough to treat it like any other fairy tale movie and not badger Christians about it.  

From what I've heard, the director is approaching the story from the angle that Noah was the first environmentalist, in that he cares for God's creation while everyone else treats everything and everyone horribly.  It sounds kinda like a cool idea to me, as long as they keep God in the movie.  I'll definitely be seeing it. :)

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Several drogue stones as the one shown above were found on Mt Ararat, and all relatively close to this interesting object:

 

 

 

That perhaps is what i was talking about, Mt ararat not mt arafat.