Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,160
Interesting, have you got any sources?
So... Noah and his Ark...
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
Interesting, have you got any sources?
The key points of the story are completely missing though: there was no global flood, nobody built a boat, no-one rescued animals from the flood in said boat, etc. You may as well say that families are the kernel of truth in the story. Once you've accepted something so generic and unconnected as a "kernel of truth" then you've really lost all meaning to the phrase.
In fact is does, that is how myths get started and you'll probably find that most myths and legends start with some truth, much like Chinese Whispers and then as they are handed down and become oral traditions, followed by written traditions we end up with numerous flood myths around the world that are all in all likelihood based on some oral tradition that began with a historical flood that wiped out all but a few of a particular people or tribe.
Google 'discover the ark' or similar, they keep finding huge ancient galley type ships in moutains etc
Several floods happened.
Would you say soddom and gahmora has no basis in truth because it says god did it rather than an asteroid.
A massive flood is recorded in pretty much all civilisations, for that it must have been devasting. And as such is the kernel truth behind Noah.
People instantly dismiss stuff because it's in the bible, rather than completely ignoring the religious context and look at it from a historical point of view. They didn't have the science to explain stuff we have now. It would be similar to how people blame UFOs on aliens in present time and recorded as such, with ypthe abductions and everything else. Then in a hundred years we find out it is a natural phanominum.
Would you say soddom and gahmora has no basis in truth because it says god did it rather than an asteroid.
A massive flood is recorded in pretty much all civilisations, for that it must have been devasting. And as such is the kernel truth behind Noah.
People instantly dismiss stuff because it's in the bible, rather than completely ignoring the religious context and look at it from a historical point of view. They didn't have the science to explain stuff we have now. It would be similar to how people blame UFOs on aliens in present time and recorded as such, with ypthe abductions and everything else. Then in a hundred years we find out it is a natural phanominum.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,150
Two of every animal to be saved via this ark. The rain stops, the floods fall, and it's time for everyone to get out. Ignoring the fact that this would mean every animal would be in a very localised area, what did the animals eat? For example, a lion eats one of the two gazelles that came off the ark. The gazelle is extinct.
And this is not for a deep religious debate, but purely for forming a hypothesis.
Read the first couple of pages of the bible and you will have many, many more questions like this...its complete rubbish
But pre history people did build boats.
How are archaeologists digging them up once a decade near enough if they didn't?
That's how I view it by stripping out as much religious aspect as possible.
No-one built a boat in the context of saving people and animals from a flood. That clearer?
You are transposing your global world-view on that of a people who almost certainly thought of the whole world being the comparatively small part on which they lived, that someone may have survived a cataclysmic flood of their entire region (it happens) and escaped in some form of vessel with his family and live-stock to later repopulate the region after the waters had receded is not that difficult to accept, neither is it far-fetched to suppose that over thousands of years that the story of that survival grew as the years and stories and people spread throughout the world ending up as a Myth and parable as we seen in the Noah or Gilgamesh or even Manu stories.
I'm certainly not going to dispute that the inspiration for the flood myth of the Bible (and others) was actual flooding and the devastation observed by the people of the time. What I question is the notion that this represents a kernel of truth within the myth rather than a simple thing that people knew about. Romeo and Juliet concerns itself with a tale of tragic love; tragic love is real, but would you call it a kernel of truth within the play? I wouldn't.
If you would, well, then we're just arguing semantics and there's precious little point to that.
Mr Jack said:
No and I didn't say that either did I?
Not really, I know the literal level you are coming from but there are historical facts that add creditence to the production of myth.Mr Jack said:
This is what I am pointing out.
I don't think a fat jolly man marched two of everything onto a homemade boat by way of voices in his head, then planted those mammals back again for man.
Do I heck.
But I can recognise that people then had the ability to build vast vessels, and also suffered severe catastrophe.
In light of lack of global and environmental enlightenment on top of a what undoubtedly had to be a species wide existential crisis making up stories that convey a message, no matter how ridiculously abject to us now, were normal.
Looking at these stories can tell us something.
If people would shut the hell up with 'lol fairytales'.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,114
- Location
- Gibraltar
Why save pigs if you aren't going to eat them? IS this the hidden truth about the dinosaurs? To big to fit so sorry t rex and the gang, you screwed.
No evidence yet, but would you really expect something to survive from 6000+ years ago, not sure of the date from the earliest "Noah" myth.
However there has been sighting of what looks like a wooden structure that is shaped a bit like a boat up a mountain, which occasionally reveals itself in the moving ice and snow. However it hasn't been found, many believe this to be the boat in the myth. Whether it is or not, remains to be seen, if we can even see it.
Would you also call the minotour a complete myth, or is there a kernel of truth in it.
Last edited:
Yet you are missing the point and that is the myth may well have grown out of an actual event, and that is the kernel of truth.
Regarding the Romeo and Juliet play, you do realise that the Montague family were an actual political family in Italy as were the Capulets, the play was based on an Arthur Brooke poem based on a Matteo Bandello poem about real people who lived in Verona in 1303 so you could say there is a more definitive kernel of truth in the Shakespeare play than any of the Flood Myths.
http://absoluteshakespeare.com/trivia/faq/faq.htm
Last edited:
Why should we consider such a possibility to be more likely than the idea that the story was simply made up?
Because the Noah myth is common in most civilisations and dates back well before the bible.
That far back you will never get evidence like we do with modern archeology. Most of it comes from folk lore and the few remaining things we can find.
Remove religion from your mind, it has no bearing on the etymology of the flood myth and I think is biasing you against accepting a reasonable and rational point of view.
Due to the amount of disparate cultures that have very similar myths within their folklore, in most case these cultures had little or no contact, so it is reasonable to assume that they are derived from a shared experience of mankind prior to the human diaspora from Africa.
This more likely than several hundred different cultures and peoples all making up the same story out of thin air.
All i wanna know is how did noah get just 2 of each bacteria onboard then stop them from multiplying
Bacteria is a more complex cousin of the first single cell life forms on earth.
Noah was a walking pile of bacteria.