BBC Report: Noah's Ark "...more credible version based on Babylonian sources."

BBC On Line ^ | Friday, 19 March, 2004 | Jeremy Bowen

[yankeedame]

Last Updated: Friday, 19 March, 2004, 11:06 GMT

Did Noah really build an ark?

By Jeremy Bowen
Presenter, Noah's Ark

In the Bible, God tells Noah he has to build an ark and load a pair of every kind of animal before a great flood engulfs the world. It is widely regarded as a myth, but could it actually be true?

The story of Noah and his ark is one which sticks in the minds of children and never gets forgotten.

God warned Noah - the only good man left in a world full of corruption and violence - to prepare for a great flood. With his sons he built a great ark and the animals marched in two by two. By the time the rain started to fall, Noah was ready. The ark was a refuge until the waters went down, leaving Noah and his menagerie high and dry on Mount Ararat.

There are many problems with the story. If the story is taken literally, it would have taken 35 years for Noah and his family to load two of every animal on earth. And a flood that engulfed the Earth would have left a signature for geologists - yet none has been found.

But it is possible to build a much more credible version of the story based on a different reading of the Bible, on ancient Babylonian sources that predate the Book of Genesis, and on archaeology and science.

Broken apart

The traditional shape of Noah's Ark comes from the imaginations of 19th Century artists. It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart.

Even if such a feat of marine engineering had been possible, there are about 30 million species of animals in the world. For so many creatures, a fleet of enormous arks would have been needed.

Geologists have also proved that there is not enough water in the world to cover all the continents, then or now.

Loading 30 million species of animal would have taken 35 years But just because the details of this familiar story do not add up, should we turn our backs on Noah and the ark?

We have to forget the idea that such a huge boat carrying all known animals existed, that it came to rest on Mount Ararat in modern-day Turkey, and that a flood covered the entire Earth.

In 1851, British archaeologists discovered hundreds of clay tablets while digging in ancient Babylon.

It was 20 years later that British Museum assistant George Smith became the first person to read them. He found the story of Gilgamesh, which bore strong similarities to that of Noah. He was visited by the great gods, who decided there would be a great deluge, told him to make a boat and carry in it the seed of all living things.

Further Iraqi texts were discovered, showing the story emerged in Mesopotamia. And in the 1930s conclusive evidence of a huge flood in the area about 5,000 years ago - the time of the story of Noah - was found.

Trading centres

What we know of the culture of what is now Iraq gives the first glimpse of the real-life historical figure behind the myth.

Noah might have been king of a city called Shuruppak. He would have had a kilt, a shaven head and eye make-up, like the figures portrayed in artworks created in what was then known as Sumeria.

The epic of Gilgamesh says Noah had silver and gold, then the currency of wealthy merchants, suggesting he was a businessman.

Could this story have provided the inspiration for the Book of Genesis 2,000 years later?

Instead of building an ark to survive a great flood, he is more likely to have built boats to trade goods like beer, grain and animals.

All the big trading centres of the era were on the River Euphrates and it was cheaper to move goods by water than land. Sumerians were able to build barges about 20ft in length, and marine archaeologists have not found remains or inscriptions of larger vessels.

But they believe they would have had the technology to have built a series of barges and used them like pontoons on which a much larger boat, or ark, could have been constructed.

Tropical storm

Parts of the Euphrates were only navigable at certain times of the year, when the waters were deep enough for large boats.

Noah was likely to have waited for the melt waters to arrive in June and July and, if these had combined with a tropical storm, the river could have flooded the Mesopotamian plain.

The currents in the area would not have taken him towards Mount Ararat, but out into the Persian Gulf. Life would have been difficult, but they could have survived on the animals and beer on board.

One Babylonian text suggests the ark came to rest on what is now the island of Bahrain, providing a very different yet plausible end to the adventure.

Could this story have provided the inspiration for the holy men who wrote the Book of Genesis 2,000 years later? When they first heard the story, how could they fail to recognise its moral power, that if humankind falls short of God's laws, there's a dreadful price to pay. Behind that moral message lies one of the world's greatest stories.

And behind that story we can just glimpse a real man, a real boat and a real adventure.

[dartuser]

If you believe that the fossil record was produced by Noahs flood, and the fossil record contains dinosaurs, then its a forgone conlusion that you have to believe that there were dinosaurs living in Noahs time.

And if there were dinosaurs living in Noahs time, then there were representatives on the ark.

[dartuser]

Genesis 7:20 - The waters rose more than twenty feet above the mountains.

[PatrickHenry]

You don't ping to a thread like this. The term is "splash."

[Junior]

Geez. I guess I'm all wet, then. But then again, I was expecting a deluge of posts following my ping, too.

[Dog Gone]

If there were dinosaurs living in Noah's time, Noah would have been something's breakfast long before he could have gotten an ark built.

Plus, where are all the survivors today?

[dartuser]

You are assuming the Earth was filled with T-Rex's ...

[dartuser]

Survivors are extinct ...

[Oztrich Boy]

How many species were there at the time of Noah? THAT is the question ... not how many there are today

Young Earth Creationists, they willing believe in a rate of Evolution that the most ardent Darwinist would consider totally unsupportable.

[dartuser]

Current thinking in creationism supports the idea that volcanism was severe in the years following the flood ... its probably that some of the species on the ark couldnt adapt to rapid climate changes ...

Huge dinosaurs certainly werent on the ark, they perished in the flood ... their survivors were chosen for extinction by natural selection ...

[dartuser]

Ardent Darwinists, they willing to believe that given enough time, anything can evolve from nothing ...

[LiteKeeper]

Now, if you are saying Moses may have used written sources that were actual eyewitness accounts ...

This is exactly what I am saying. The linked article in my previous post lays out the case for that very thing. Take the time to read it...it is fascinating.

BTW - Wiseman's book is very hard to find...except that I have found a e-Book version online for $16. Let me know if you are interested.

[dartuser]

The article is very technical ... will take me a while to dig through it ...

[Dog Gone]

Yes, the survivors are extinct, which kind of begs the question why they were lined up two by two if none of them could survive until the beginning of recorded history. It wasn't that long.

Before landing at Ararat, did Noah drop off all the Marsupials in Australia, then swing by America to let off the bison and other critters that couldn't reasonably be expected to swim the Atlantic? That seems to be a glaring omission in the account.

[LiteKeeper]

Really not that bad...and very interesting. Wiseman's book reads like something out of Indiana Jones, sort of.

[aShepard]

From two websites: The King James Bible
Genesis 7:

days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

(So this version surely has the mountains 23 feet under water)
_______________________________________________________

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

(And this version differs and is not fully clear)
__________________________________________________________

So here we are to have a literal interpretation of a changing document, both purporting to be the King James Bible, changing before our very eyes from the same scribes who translated it 500 or so years ago.

To me, this speaks to the linguistic parable that is the Bible; a collection of great and noble "stories" founded in antiquity, and interpreted and molded to create the best impact upon first the listener (as few folks could read) and eventually on the reader, once Gutenberg was able to distribute the written version.

[dartuser]

We have species on the brink of extinction today! ... Whats the difference whether they become extinct 20 years after the flood ... or 25,000 years after. I dont know Gods mind, maybe he didnt feel like re-creating them all again, he lets species become extinct today.

As far as Australian animals, some creationists support the idea of a single land mass until the flood/post flood ...

Anyway, why would a Jewish writing which documents the events in the history of a middle eastern nation and people mention anything about events in Australia, or North America?

Do you think most Christians think every question in life is answered in the text of the Bible?

[dartuser]

Even the KJV had a few revisions since 1611 ... I think you're trying to read a difficulty into the text where none exists ...

[aShepard]

Do you think most Christians think every question in life is answered in the text of the Bible?.......

Yeah, my grown son is an ardent Baptist and unfortunately (or maybe fortunately, as he turned his life around) is guided by his belief 24/7/365.

[Gippers Brigade]

No, but what he did take on the ark were infant animals, which included dinosaurs. Which is easier and feed and care for, a baby elephant or a full grown one? More room also for extra animals.

Interesting theory! But don't baby elephants, or for that matter pretty much any mammal, require a mother (ie. adult) to survive?

[dartuser]

OK, so your son is one data point. I'm a Baptist too and I see very important questions answered in the Bible. In fact, I see the most important ones in life answered.

Who am I? Why am I here? Where did I come from? Is there anything more than what I am and what I see?

... but not every question in life. ... and I suspect if you asked him ... your son would tell you he doesn't think the Bible discusses how animals got to Australia.