No, I don't think so. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written a couple of thousand years BC, which is roughly the same time that traditional Bible chronology puts Noah.
Noah's Ark was round
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
No, I don't think so. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written a couple of thousand years BC, which is roughly the same time that traditional Bible chronology puts Noah.
Look in the mirror, then read the bolded statement out loud. Anyway, I don't have time to have a full-fledged discussion on this right now.
Oh, and the Smithsonian's position is apparently this:
https://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian_statement
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I wonder if some of them are slightly autistic or acquired savants. Dudes are smart, but have no social skills whatsoever.
Oh, and just for the record, I think the mention of items/animals that are believed not to exist is a reasonable critique. But I do feel strongly that the lack of DNA evidence is much smoke with no fire.
How do we know if this document is real? Is Mark Hoffman still in jail? Seriously, Every animal - I can not even imagine how big a ship would have to be to hold two of EVERY animal....and the food needed.. the smell. It just seems hard to believe regardless of any documents. However, if it excites you then more power to you.
The same reason why religious people love to pontificate about their religious beliefs publicly. All the time religious people state their bible is true or we have the truth and all you soulless non-believers are going to hell. So yea the world would be a better place if both sides lived their own lives and stop trying to convince others they have the truth.
Funny, I wonder why people feel the need to take innocuous items like the supposed shape of Noah's ark and spin that as archaeological evidence of the truth of the book of Mormon by comparing it to the shape of the boat used by the Jaredites.
Colton, I'm not nearly as vested on this subject as you are given that a) I'm not actually employed by the church and b) I don't take unequivocally anti-church positions. You may recall that in the past two years or so I've taken church-defensive positions regarding 1) allegations of Joseph Smith's fathering of children outside of his marriage to his first wife and 2) arguments related to Joseph Smith's use of guns near the time of his death. That makes my record of church support significantly more mixed than yours.
Given that my position regarding historicity reflects what is, BY FAR, the consensus position it is not remotely fair to claim that you can't take that position without being objective about the evidence.
So right off the bat, can we agree that FAIR is essentially the definition of apologetics?
Second, I suggest you review these various letters that the Smithsonian has sent out to previous inquiries regarding Book of Mormon historicity. While FAIR has posted one version of those letters, they chose only to present the one that is most neutral. If you'd like to review the detailed letter here: https://mit.irr.org/smithsonian-institution-statement-on-book-of-mormon
you'll see that the organization has taken a significantly more hostile position than FAIR would have you believe. That position largely reflects the consensus on this subject.
That would be fair if the church hadn't explicitly drawn links in all versions of the pre-2006 edition of the Book of Mormon by stating in the introductory page that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans.
Not even Mark Hoffman tried to forge anything that old.
I'm not sure how the lack of something can be considered smoke.
Also, the Smithsonian sent a cease and desist letter to the LDS church. That proves nothing at all. Just an additional tidbit.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Perhaps religious people enjoy talking about their religion, because they are told to. Well...at least Christians are. So ya know, they're just following their faith. Besides, if you believed that you had some amazing news, wouldn't you want to tell your friends? If you're not interested in it, then just let them know.
So atheists should just STFU and religious people should share their exciting news with people who have already had that news shared with them thousands of times?
That was a poor response, GF. That's not at all what the douche was saying.
Pretty much.
Because the DNA stuff is equally the polemic opposite of SKA's apologetics charge. There is nothing there (in my not so humble opinion).
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
So now were going to believe "according to building instructions on a recently discovered, 4,000-year-old cuneiform clay tablet" that Noah's Ark was "round" RATHER than the detailed instructions given to Noah found in the inspired account of the Bible as to its size, shape, design for light and ventilation, and materials to be used for its construction?—Gen 6:14-16.
Design and Size. The ark (Heb., te·vah′; Gr., ki·bo·tos′) was a rectangular chestlike vessel having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design. There was a door provided in the side of the ark for loading and unloading the cargo.
In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
“Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree [literally, trees of gopher].” (Ge 6:14) This resinous wood here prescribed is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree. In that part of the world what today is called cypress was in abundant supply; it was particularly favored for shipbuilding by the Phoenicians and by Alexander the Great, as it is even down to the present time; and it is especially resistant to water and decay. Doors and posts made of cypress are reported to have lasted 1,100 years. In addition, Noah was told not merely to caulk the seams but to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”
Design and Size. The ark (Heb., te·vah′; Gr., ki·bo·tos′) was a rectangular chestlike vessel having square corners and a flat bottom. It needed no rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut rapidly through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat. A vessel so shaped is very stable, cannot be easily capsized, and contains about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design. There was a door provided in the side of the ark for loading and unloading the cargo.
In size the ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Conservatively calculating the cubit as 44.5 cm (17.5 in.) (some think the ancient cubit was nearer 56 or 61 cm), the ark measured 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2. This proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects. This gave the ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.
“Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree [literally, trees of gopher].” (Ge 6:14) This resinous wood here prescribed is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree. In that part of the world what today is called cypress was in abundant supply; it was particularly favored for shipbuilding by the Phoenicians and by Alexander the Great, as it is even down to the present time; and it is especially resistant to water and decay. Doors and posts made of cypress are reported to have lasted 1,100 years. In addition, Noah was told not merely to caulk the seams but to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
Not at all what I'm saying. I never said atheists should shut up, they can talk to me about their belief in nothing if they want, I would either say I'm not interested in hearing it, or I would listen and then explain to them my beliefs.
I think everybody has a right to voice what their beliefs are, if prompted.
I really don't think it's that big of a deal. If I don't want to hear somebody talk about it, I just tell them I'm not interested. Usually people go away when you tell them that. No reason to act like a prick because of it. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, normal people aren't too pushy about these types of things.
Faith is a poor source of knowledge.
However, in this thread, I've only commented on how legends are created and passed on, and not commented on faith at all.
Both descriptions, to my understanding, are incompatible with the strength of any known wood. The ships would have had hulls that buckled under the weight.