New Noah's Ark Finding: Any Thoughts?

[KrazyKaiju]

Hello Catholic Answers Forums,

I found a news snippet about Noah’s ark while I was online today. I don’t know what to make of it. Is it true? If so, does it destroy any of the credibility of Noah’s story/the Bible? Is Noah’s story meant to be taken literally?

I would like to hear people’s thoughts on this topic. The link to the article is provided below

sphere.com/article/noahs-ark-was-a-circular-raft-ancient-tablet-reveals/19309746?bId=6b4accd20ab345219648fe4024ee2c4b&tId=19309746&bpId=%2f&sort=3&pg=2#comments

 

[Dirk_Skene]

I do not take the story literally. I think it to be an epic history. Scintific findings on the subject could not & would not jar my faith. For me the Bible is a book of faith not scientific fact. I have read that the deluge is historical, but I do not think the historical facts are contained in the Biblical account.

 

[grannymh]

Hello Catholic Answers Forums,

I found a news snippet about Noah’s ark while I was online today. I don’t know what to make of it. Is it true? If so, does it destroy any of the credibility of Noah’s story/the Bible? Is Noah’s story meant to be taken literally?

I would like to hear people’s thoughts on this topic. The link to the article is provided below

sphere.com/article/noahs-ark-was-a-circular-raft-ancient-tablet-reveals/19309746?bId=6b4accd20ab345219648fe4024ee2c4b&tId=19309746&bpId=%2f&sort=3&pg=2#comments

This quote is in the middle of the link. “The hero of the newly translated tablet – which is slightly bigger than a cell phone, and is inscribed with 60 lines of cuneiform text – isn’t Noah, but a possible historical predecessor named Atram-Hasi.”

Many floods occurred in ancient times just like they do today. Because the hero of the translation isn’t Noah, there is no connection to Scripture.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, KrazyKaiju,

The line in the article of ‘there is no guidance in the Bible’ [to the construction of the Ark] is flat out wrong. Several verses give specific instructions to Noah about the Ark’s exact size and material. It was like a huge barge and made of gopher wood. In no way a coracle.

Like granny mentioned, the article has no bearing on the Biblical account of the flood at all.

I’m off this thread, now.

Don

 

[grace_singh]

And he believes that ancient Jews living in exile in Babylon at this time would also have been wowed by the tale. So much, in fact, that they may have transformed it into their own epic story: Noah and the ark.

what the article fails to consider is that the “epic story” of Noah’s ark is part of a much larger, cohesive, specifically and merticulously dated, and linear historical text : the Bible.

many ancient (and modern) cultures retained memories of the Flood, the command from God (later transformed into “gods”) to build a craft, the Ark, and the pious man Noah. clearly those memories got distorted over time, but we can see images of the original, historical deluge in stories like the one on that Babylonian tablet; not the other way around.

 

[juliamajor]

The Atraharsis predates the biblical account.
There is nothing earthshaking in this cunieform.The Atraharsis is well known.The shape of the vessel in The Epic of gilgamesh I believe was cubed shape. So what it’s still a vessel:shrug:

 

[StAnastasia]

many ancient (and modern) cultures retained memories of the Flood, the command from God (later transformed into “gods”) to build a craft, the Ark, and the pious man Noah. clearly those memories got distorted over time, but we can see images of the original, historical deluge in stories like the one on that Babylonian tablet; not the other way around.

A global flood – if it happened at all – would have to have taken place well before the date when the Bible says it supposedly happened, as archaeology has shown the continuous inhabitation of Jerusalem since before 8,000 BCE: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_ancient_building. Of course, it is possible that Jerusalem continued to be inhabited even beneath the flood waters, as everything – including the construction of underwater cities – is possible with God!

StAnastasia

 

[crazzeto]

I do not take the story literally. I think it to be an epic history. Scintific findings on the subject could not & would not jar my faith. For me the Bible is a book of faith not scientific fact. I have read that the deluge is historical, but I do not think the historical facts are contained in the Biblical account.

While I do not take the bible literilstically, I tend to disagree with some of the spirit of what you wrote here. I’ll start with this, I don’t dispute that the bible is not “history in the usual sense”, i.e. the bible is not a historic treatus, it’s not an acedemic work.

That said, I think there is far more truth in the bible, than people want to give it credit for. For me, the axiom which broke the camels back so to speak, was the fact that God is the God of all creation. Basically, if there is a God (there is), and we Christians are right about that God (we are), then God is the God of literally all creation. The whole of the known and unknown universe!

So, what it came down to for me is, am I to beleive that the story of Noe and his Ark didn’t happen because some so called “scientist” on history channel (they don’t have an athiestic agenda or anything, ever watch bible battes?) says “errrr, um yeah a flood couldn’t have happend it’s just not scientifically possible!”. Once I really sat down and thought about it, and really tried to logically think this out it became quite clear that either God or History Channel were right. My money is on God

Anyway, that’s my own take on the flood. My money is that it did happen, in much the way we read in the bible. One more thing which helped recenter me, God is the principal author of the bible. God is the author of truth, nothing else

 

[StAnastasia]

Anyway, that’s my own take on the flood. My money is that it did happen, in much the way we read in the bible. One more thing which helped recenter me, God is the principal author of the bible. God is the author of truth, nothing else

Crazetto, thanks for your reflections. I too love the Bible and regard it as a conveyor of important theological truths. Unfortunately, to interpret the flood story literally means to abandon geology, biogeography, paleontology, physics, orogeny, plate tectonics, sedimentology, meteorology, and a host of other sciences. I’m not sure God would want us to abandon much of human scientific knowledge merely in order to maintain a literal reading of an ancient, pre-scientific, prehistoric bit of oral tradition.

There are other ways to read the flood story that preserve the theological truths of God’s caring for the world and for humankind.

StAnastasia

 

[crazzeto]

Crazetto, thanks for your reflections. I too love the Bible and regard it as a conveyor of important theological truths. Unfortunately, to interpret the flood story literally means to abandon geology, biogeography, paleontology, physics, orogeny, plate tectonics, sedimentology, meteorology, and a host of other sciences. I’m not sure God would want us to abandon much of human scientific knowledge merely in order to maintain a literal reading of an ancient, pre-scientific, prehistoric bit of oral tradition.

There are other ways to read the flood story that preserve the theological truths of God’s caring for the world and for humankind.

StAnastasia

I understand what you say, because I too once thought as you did. I guess this most important question is this, did Christ believe in the flood?

37 And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, 39 And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then two shall be in the field: one shall be taken, and one shall be left.

Christ seems to beleive in the Flood, given Christ is God does it not seem foolish to basically say “well Christ was wrong, if he knew about Geology et. al. he wouldn’t beleive it either”. Christ is God, Christ is the author of Geology, sedimentology, plate techtonics etc.

 

[grannymh]

Crazetto, thanks for your reflections. I too love the Bible and regard it as a conveyor of important theological truths. Unfortunately, to interpret the flood story literally means to abandon geology, biogeography, paleontology, physics, orogeny, plate tectonics, sedimentology, meteorology, and a host of other sciences. I’m not sure God would want us to abandon much of human scientific knowledge merely in order to maintain a literal reading of an ancient, pre-scientific, prehistoric bit of oral tradition.

There are other ways to read the flood story that preserve the theological truths of God’s caring for the world and for humankind.

StAnastasia

May I respectfully ask – Which of the science disciplines you listed in post 9 proved conclusively that it absolutely never rained anywhere near the Yarkon River?

May I respectfully ask – Do you really intend that we should abandon geology, biogeography, paleontology, physics, orogeny, plate tectonics, sedimentology, meteorology, and a host of other sciences, because they have not offered evidence that it never rained anywhere near the Yarkon River region?

Please explain.

These are very important common sense questions regarding the literal meaning of the flood.

Blessings,
granny

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org

www.CatholicsComeHome.org

 

[MrZetterlund]

I believe the story is litteral, just not the way everyone thinks. I think it was a series of regional floods after the melting of the ice after the last Ice Age. regions would have been flooded suddenly and immediately. But remember, the Bible is written from down here, not up there. Imagine being Noah, seeing the waters flood over the tallest mountains in your region. Seeing it cover the ground as far as your eye can see. There are tons of flood legends that correspond with this. I’ll post a video once I get home about what I’m talking about.

 

[MrZetterlund]

GEEAHH! The picture isn’t available on my school’s computer.

 

[StAnastasia]

I believe the story is litteral, just not the way everyone thinks. I think it was a series of regional floods after the melting of the ice after the last Ice Age. regions would have been flooded suddenly and immediately. But remember, the Bible is written from down here, not up there. Imagine being Noah, seeing the waters flood over the tallest mountains in your region. Seeing it cover the ground as far as your eye can see. There are tons of flood legends that correspond with this. I’ll post a video once I get home about what I’m talking about.

MrZetterlund, I’m sure there was an historic flood experienced in the prehistory of the Ancient Near East. I’m sure at least one family survived this flood with some of their animals on a raft or boat. I’m sure they reestablished their community after the flood, perhaps with the help of survivors. I’m sure the story of this exploit was told and retold in the oral tradition of succeeding generations, until it became written down in Sumerian or Babylonian texts. I’m sure the Hebrew scribes adopted the story and provided it with a new theological interpretation based on their unique experience of salvation history.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

May I respectfully ask – Which of the science disciplines you listed in post 9 proved conclusively that it absolutely never rained anywhere near the Yarkon River?

Granny, who is telling you that it never rained near the Yarkon River?

 

[edwest2]

Crazetto, thanks for your reflections. I too love the Bible and regard it as a conveyor of important theological truths. Unfortunately, to interpret the flood story literally means to abandon geology, biogeography, paleontology, physics, orogeny, plate tectonics, sedimentology, meteorology, and a host of other sciences. I’m not sure God would want us to abandon much of human scientific knowledge merely in order to maintain a literal reading of an ancient, pre-scientific, prehistoric bit of oral tradition.

There are other ways to read the flood story that preserve the theological truths of God’s caring for the world and for humankind.

StAnastasia

If the Bible was just another book, I might agree but it’s not. To say certain parts of the Bible are not literal based on things science cannot demonstrate is the problem. A scientist standing next to Jesus when he performed His miracles would have no explanation for how He raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind or fed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fishes and ended up with baskets of leftovers. Jesus demonstrated how God works because He is God. No technology is used, at least as we understand it.

A bunch of prehistoric people built pyramids that modern engineering cannot duplicate. A team from Japan came to Egypt with modern equipment in an attempt to build a small pyramid. They failed. “Oral tradition” does not define sacred Scripture.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Granny, who is telling you that it never rained near the Yarkon River?

Perhaps you would like to reword post 9 regarding human scientific knowledge. If something is not a real event, then all the scientists in the fields you mentioned have to prove that it could not have happened which means that it could never rain in a specific area of “ancient, pre-scientific, prehistoric bit of oral tradition.” (from Post 9) By the way, what kind of oral tradition is considered prehistoric?

Here’s another thought – Since it is my understanding that you teach theology, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would elaborate on the post 9, last sentence, in the context of your description “an ancient, pre-scientific, prehistoric bit of oral tradition.”

“Caring for the world and humankind” needs to be described by the theological how and why.

Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

www.CatholicsComeHomeRockford.org

www.CatholicsComeHome.org

 

[grace_singh]

i’m with Edwest.

Christ’s treatment of the flood and of Noah as historical and real prompt me to be less than skeptical about the entire flood narrative (Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-27).

if Christ, God incarnate, treats the person, event, or narrative as literal (which He does from Genesis 1:1 onward) i am compelled to put aside my human understanding, ego, or tempations to appeal to what the world thinks, and trust the Bible over man’s wisdom and skepticism.

the Apostle Peter also refers to the flood narrative as true and significant for Christians in 1 Peter 3:18-21.

 

[grannymh]

GEEAHH! The picture isn’t available on my school’s computer.

Talk about stories of floods everywhere While researching native legends in Juneau, Alaska, I came across a reference to a flood in a general compilation. Sorry no details.

I agree with this previous comment.

From post 8. That said, I think there is far more truth in the bible, than people want to give it credit for.

Perhaps downgrading the flood is a way of avoiding the truth that there are consequences from sin. Consequences which pertain to the unique human being who has a spiritual soul with the powers of intellect and will.

Blessings,
granny

The goal of human life is eternal life.

 

[StAnastasia]

Perhaps downgrading the flood is a way of avoiding the truth that there are consequences from sin. Consequences which pertain to the unique human being who has a spiritual soul with the powers of intellect and will.

Who is “downgrading” the flood?