Relic reveals Noah's ark was circular

[Philosophia]

Relic reveals Noah's ark was circular

That they processed aboard the enormous floating wildlife collection two-by-two is well known. Less familiar, however, is the possibility that the animals Noah shepherded on to his ark then went round and round inside.

According to newly translated instructions inscribed in ancient Babylonian on a clay tablet telling the story of the ark, the vessel that saved one virtuous man, his family and the animals from god's watery wrath was not the pointy-prowed craft of popular imagination but rather a giant circular reed raft.

From here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/01/noahs-ark-was-circular).

A very interesting article about the history of this find and what the relic reveals.

[BryonMorrigan]

NEWS FLASH!

New relic reveals that Zeus's throne might actually have been composed of marble, rather than granite! STORY AT 8!

New plans of the Norse ship Skidbladnir show that it was indeed possible for it to fold up and fit in someone's pocket!

I find the "Ark" story to be one of the biggest examples that the Bible is just as full of unrealistic stories as any other mythology. It amazes me that people take this as "history."

[Lunacie]

"If the flood of Noah indeed wiped out the entire human race and its civilization, as the Bible teaches, then the ark constitutes the one remaining major link to the pre-flood world," says John D Morris of the Institute for Creation Research.


Just like everything else from the bible, it is assumed that this flood wiped out the entire human race except for a handful of people. What nonsense. No doubt it was huge local flood, and it wiped out all the people of the region. However, other regions were not affected, and the people in those other religions worshipped other gods. If it had happened to them, they would have blamed their own gods, eh? In fact, nearly every culture on earth has it's own version of the great flood story.

[Nox_Mortus]

Just like everything else from the bible, it is assumed that this flood wiped out the entire human race except for a handful of people. What nonsense. No doubt it was huge local flood, and it wiped out all the people of the region. However, other regions were not affected, and the people in those other religions worshipped other gods. If it had happened to them, they would have blamed their own gods, eh? In fact, nearly every culture on earth has it's own version of the great flood story.

Actually in order for it to be like it was described in the bible, it would have had to have been worldwide, due to how high the water level is said to have gotten.

[BryonMorrigan]

says John D Morris of the Institute for Creation Research.

I think I'm gonna start my own "institute" called the Institute for Norse Creation Research.

It will be devoted to proving that the entire world was created from the body of a dead super-giant, and that the sky above is actually the inside of the dead giant corpse's skull, held up by dwarves.

It's certainly as credible as anything that the "Institute for Creation Research" can come up with!

[Philosophia]

NEWS FLASH!

New relic reveals that Zeus's throne might actually have been composed of marble, rather than granite! STORY AT 8!

New plans of the Norse ship Skidbladnir show that it was indeed possible for it to fold up and fit in someone's pocket!

I find the "Ark" story to be one of the biggest examples that the Bible is just as full of unrealistic stories as any other mythology. It amazes me that people take this as "history."

The tablet it was written upon is historical. The tablet that the story was found upon was recently translated and that is why this is classed as "history". It's not the actual Noah myth itself that I class as history but how this tablet was discovered and translated.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I do not know about support for the biblical story of Noah but it does mesh up with the story of the trader Noah and his family. Supposedly the trader had all his goods and stock upon the raft and the flood waters caused the destruction of his livelyhood. Yet some think that the scholars in later years discovered the story of Noah and his reed raft being washed away and coming to rest (down near the current red sea area if I recall correctly) and giving the impression of his whole world being destroyed and drowned by the flood.

By proxy it had to have been by the hand of their god. So the story was recreated to show the greatness and destructiveness of thier god. One of many biblical stories they are now starting to see as simply tales and historical accounts from Summeria, Babylon and other furtile cresent areas.

[BryonMorrigan]

The tablet it was written upon is historical. The tablet that the story was found upon was recently translated and that is why this is classed as "history". It's not the actual Noah myth itself that I class as history but how this tablet was discovered and translated.

The story, particularly the title, is written in such a way that the Noah story is to be taken as historical "fact." There's more evidence that Troy existed than any Noah's "ark," but you don't see newspaper articles assuming that the most outrageous episodes of The Iliad are "historical."

[Philosophia]

The story, particularly the title, is written in such a way that the Noah story is to be taken as historical "fact."

Really? Because I'm not getting that from the title or the story. In the article, it goes into the myth behind Noah's ark:


Finkel's research throws light on the familiar Mesopotamian story, which became the account in Genesis, in the Old Testament, of Noah and the ark that saved his menagerie from the waters which drowned every other living thing on earth.

In his translation, the god who has decided to spare one just man speaks to Atram-Hasis, a Sumerian king who lived before the flood and who is the Noah figure in earlier versions of the ark story. "Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! Atram-Hasis, pay heed to my advice, that you may live forever! Destroy your house, build a boat; despise possessions And save life! Draw out the boat that you will built with a circular design; Let its length and breadth be the same."

The article states that there is no scientific evidence found to support the Noah's myth. However, it does go into the great lengths many creationist archeologists will spend to somehow prove that the flood existed while overlooking the evidence that it was taken from previous civilizations.


There's more evidence that Troy existed than any Noah's "ark," but you don't see newspaper articles assuming that the most outrageous episodes of The Iliad are "historical."

I agree.

What I do find interesting is that this discovery of the tablets were nearly overlooked because it didn't fit into the evidence that creationist archeologist (i.e. the flood, etc.). In the article, it does show a very likely link to how that Noah's ark myth came about:


The Mesopotamian flood myth was incorporated into the great poetic epic Gilgamesh, and Finkel, curator of the recent British Museum exhibition on ancient Babylon, believes that it was during the Babylonian captivity that the exiled Jews learned the story, brought it home with them, and incorporated it into the Old Testament.

[BryonMorrigan]

Really? Because I'm not getting that from the title or the story. In the article, it goes into the myth behind Noah's ark:

The title of the article is: "Relic Reveals Noah's Ark Was Circular."

That's a totally unprofessional headline, which implies that there was a Noah and an "ark." Would a similar news story stating, "Bones Found of the Wolf that Suckled Romulus and Remus Located in Rome!" be a professional headline?

[Philosophia]

The title of the article is: "Relic Reveals Noah's Ark Was Circular."

That's a totally unprofessional headline, which implies that there was a Noah and an "ark." Would a similar news story stating, "Bones Found of the Wolf that Suckled Romulus and Remus Located in Rome!" be a professional headline?

Well, I don't think it does imply that at all. I put it in the same grouping as "Divers seeking Atlantis in Bahamas", "'Vampire' discovered in mass grave", or "Birth of Jesus Christ: June 17", Australian astronomer says". It's ambiguous to the actual content of the article but, in my opinion, it doesn't imply that it existed. Your headline would work if the exclamation point was taken out and it was shortened to a more substantial level. But there is this headline article "Romulus and Remus cave may have been found: experts" (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2069138320071120) that you can look at.

[RoseKitten]

Just like everything else from the bible, it is assumed that this flood wiped out the entire human race except for a handful of people. What nonsense. No doubt it was huge local flood, and it wiped out all the people of the region. However, other regions were not affected, and the people in those other religions worshipped other gods. If it had happened to them, they would have blamed their own gods, eh? In fact, nearly every culture on earth has it's own version of the great flood story.

I'm not sure about the bible, but the Sumerian flood story (a lot of the myths in the bible can be linked to Sumerian myths) included the "world." However, the world by Sumerian standards, was the civilized world, which did not include the "barbarians." So, it is possible that it was a small localized flood that destroyed quite a bit.

[Lunacie]

I do not know about support for the biblical story of Noah but it does mesh up with the story of the trader Noah and his family. Supposedly the trader had all his goods and stock upon the raft and the flood waters caused the destruction of his livelyhood. Yet some think that the scholars in later years discovered the story of Noah and his reed raft being washed away and coming to rest (down near the current red sea area if I recall correctly) and giving the impression of his whole world being destroyed and drowned by the flood.

By proxy it had to have been by the hand of their god. So the story was recreated to show the greatness and destructiveness of thier god. One of many biblical stories they are now starting to see as simply tales and historical accounts from Summeria, Babylon and other furtile cresent areas.


I'm not sure about the bible, but the Sumerian flood story (a lot of the myths in the bible can be linked to Sumerian myths) included the "world." However, the world by Sumerian standards, was the civilized world, which did not include the "barbarians." So, it is possible that it was a small localized flood that destroyed quite a bit.

Yes. ^ These posts help explain why I have the opinion I have about the story of Noah and the great flood. I believe that most of the stories in the bible are of initial revelance to a certain tribe and the god they worshipped. I still don't really understand how it came to be seen as "good news" for the entire world, usurping all those other traditions, culture, and dieties. :nuhuh:

[RoseKitten]

Yes. ^ These posts help explain why I have the opinion I have about the story of Noah and the great flood. I believe that most of the stories in the bible are of initial revelance to a certain tribe and the god they worshipped. I still don't really understand how it came to be seen as "good news" for the entire world, usurping all those other traditions, culture, and dieties. :nuhuh:

Having not read the actual myth yet, I can't really say if it was seen as good. I believe that it was actually seen as something bad, like... "holy crap, we pissed off the gods." Honestly, I'm not sure. :lol:

[Lunacie]

Having not read the actual myth yet, I can't really say if it was seen as good. I believe that it was actually seen as something bad, like... "holy crap, we pissed off the gods." Honestly, I'm not sure. :lol:

Ah, I wasn't clear. I meant that I don't understand how the bible came to be seen as "good news" - not this story that is said to confirm the myth of Noah's ark.

[RoseKitten]

Ah, I wasn't clear. I meant that I don't understand how the bible came to be seen as "good news" - not this story that is said to confirm the myth of Noah's ark.

Sorry... I misunderstood. :) I would imagine from the bible's perspective it was because all of the "unclean" were killed in the process.

[ninurta2008]

It was ziusudra's flood that was historical, and did cover the world, the civilized world:hyper:

On a more serious note, I liked the article, it was so right, the creationists hang on to everything that may hint they are right, but ignore everything saying otherwise.

[C. Iulia Regilia]

It was ziusudra's flood that was historical, and did cover the world, the civilized world:hyper:

On a more serious note, I liked the article, it was so right, the creationists hang on to everything that may hint they are right, but ignore everything saying otherwise.

yeah that's my biggest beef with this story. It's like saying "Ten Commandments of Muhammad found" when in fact it was Moses' ten commandments. It's inaccurate, and it gives the impression that we're talking about a Jewish Noah when it's most likely Akkadian Utnapishtim.

But proving the Bible gets more attention than proving another story.

[David19]

NEWS FLASH!

New relic reveals that Zeus's throne might actually have been composed of marble, rather than granite! STORY AT 8!

New plans of the Norse ship Skidbladnir show that it was indeed possible for it to fold up and fit in someone's pocket!

I find the "Ark" story to be one of the biggest examples that the Bible is just as full of unrealistic stories as any other mythology. It amazes me that people take this as "history."

The Flood Myth comes from Mesopotamia, where, apparantly, there was a large scale flood.

Personally, I find it very interesting and a very cool find.

[David19]

The story, particularly the title, is written in such a way that the Noah story is to be taken as historical "fact." There's more evidence that Troy existed than any Noah's "ark," but you don't see newspaper articles assuming that the most outrageous episodes of The Iliad are "historical."


Really? Because I'm not getting that from the title or the story. In the article, it goes into the myth behind Noah's ark:



The article states that there is no scientific evidence found to support the Noah's myth. However, it does go into the great lengths many creationist archeologists will spend to somehow prove that the flood existed while overlooking the evidence that it was taken from previous civilizations.



I agree.

What I do find interesting is that this discovery of the tablets were nearly overlooked because it didn't fit into the evidence that creationist archeologist (i.e. the flood, etc.). In the article, it does show a very likely link to how that Noah's ark myth came about:


The title of the article is: "Relic Reveals Noah's Ark Was Circular."

That's a totally unprofessional headline, which implies that there was a Noah and an "ark." Would a similar news story stating, "Bones Found of the Wolf that Suckled Romulus and Remus Located in Rome!" be a professional headline?

I agree with Philosophia, the only reason the title called it Noah's Ark is 'cause most people know the Story of Noah's Ark, it wouldn't get as much attention if it was called "new relic proves ancient Mesopotamian flood".

Is it shocking that the media wants to attract readers?.

[David19]

Well, I don't think it does imply that at all. I put it in the same grouping as "Divers seeking Atlantis in Bahamas", "'Vampire' discovered in mass grave", or "Birth of Jesus Christ: June 17", Australian astronomer says". It's ambiguous to the actual content of the article but, in my opinion, it doesn't imply that it existed. Your headline would work if the exclamation point was taken out and it was shortened to a more substantial level. But there is this headline article "Romulus and Remus cave may have been found: experts" (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2069138320071120) that you can look at.

QFT :thumbsup:.


I'm not sure about the bible, but the Sumerian flood story (a lot of the myths in the bible can be linked to Sumerian myths) included the "world." However, the world by Sumerian standards, was the civilized world, which did not include the "barbarians." So, it is possible that it was a small localized flood that destroyed quite a bit.

Very true.

[David19]

Having not read the actual myth yet, I can't really say if it was seen as good. I believe that it was actually seen as something bad, like... "holy crap, we pissed off the gods." Honestly, I'm not sure. :lol:

I've also read in a book that it's the only thing that comes close to an ancient Mesopotamian Apocalypse, except, instead of looking toward the future for The End, their End Times happened at the beginning, and, they Mesopotamians saw themselves as living in a less perfect world than before (before the flood, people lived longer, may have had other abilities, etc).

Interestingly, that could have a lot of Esoteric significance (that's my own opinion, the book I read was by a professional scholar on Mesopotamia).

[Snapdragon]

Now we know where they originated from.

[omar]

From what I read of the Sumarian texts the first flood was a world wide deluge. This was when Noah built the Ark about 75ft x 150ft & round. It was like a "submarine" made to roll over & bob back to the surfice when hit by the tidal wave of the Deluge.