The Size and Shape of Noah’s Ark

[@Esthersimpson620]

This is why I 100% reject Discovery Media in their find of Noah's boat This boat is found with a Stern and a Bow, why would Noah need a rudder etc.

[@hanger6740]

I had a dream about the ark some years ago. Picturing parts inside vividly. The main thing I noticed was all the animals came on as eggs and/ or very young. Thus creating a much lighter load both in animals and food to be carried. Never heard this mentioned before. But a real light bulb moment.

[@creationministriesintl]

It is unlikely that he brought eggs onboard the Ark. Young creatures, yes. Noah was told to bring a pair of the animals: the male and his mate. In addition, he was told to bring seven pairs of the clean animals: again, male and female (Genesis 7:2, 3). It would be hard to imagine Noah having to distinguish between male and female from eggs. Furthermore, Genesis 7:9 tells us that God sent the animals into the Ark, so that they went into the Ark by themselves. These also argues against the likelihood that they were bought on the Ark as eggs (Genesis 7:8-9, 14-16).

[@_bibleap_com]

Cool! Please continue such podcasts more often

[@hennyberends8521]

Thankful for the talk. God bless your ministry

[@TickedOffPriest]

Imagine hating God so much that you attack His Word looking for contradictions.

[@Esthersimpson620]

They did and they still do today, this is why God said to them, had ye believed Moses you would have believed in me for he wrote of me. They never believed literally in a 7 day creation, to this day their Talmud states the earth and universe are billions of years old. Hence Romans 1:30 states they are haters of God and inventors of evil.

[@henryschmit3340]

You guys are doing an awesome job of explaining what is described in the flood account. True history.

[@androcracy]

Re “basket”: People get hung up on the English word “ark” because they’ve never given thought to what the word means. Put it aside for a second. There are three Hebrew words for “boat” or “ship”. You will never find a bible author ever referring to Noah’s vessel as a boat or a ship in Hebrew. But they do call it a “tebah” which lexicons identify as box/chest. Baby Moses was in an Egyptian papyrus reed box/chest. I have a file full of photos of Egyptian papyrus reed chests. They are like wooden Egyptian chests but made with papyrus stalk/reed. Just because something is made of reeds it does not mean it is a “basket”. The material composition of the object does not define the object. Today we have a box/chest made out of wood, cardboard, plastic etc. The material composition is irrelevant. So is the case with Egyptian Nile culture where papyrus was easier to work with then palm trees. Thus papyrus uses in Egyptian culture were diverse in fabrics, rope, furniture etc. When Scripture says Moses (exodus 2:3) was in a chest made of papyrus, that is not to be mistaken with Egyptian baskets. Furthermore, it is not possible to have a “whole spectrum of possibilities” when it comes to geometry. There is relatively little room to round the edges of a box before it ceases to be a box by definition. So it cannot be “highly curved”, and yes we can be fairly dogmatic about that. Its basic geometry. Yes Exodus 2:3 uses the word “ark” in English because the English word comes from the Latin “arca”, which again means box/chest in Latin. But I skipped pointing this out because the relevant scriptures are in Hebrew & Greek. Thus, as I pointed out exodus 2:3 is not “basket”. “Basket” is a misnomer. A mistranslation. It is objectively a mistake to say Moses was in a basket. I don’t fault people for not seeing the difference at first glance though… as I didn’t understand it either until I studied the issue & controversy on the shape of Noah’s Ark. The lexicons identity “tebah” (the word in exodus 2:3) as box/chest. A chest is a box. A chest is not a basket. A basket can be rounded or rectilinear, but a chest cannot be rounded. It is a shape-specific object. It is geometrically limited by definition. I’ve studied Egyptian chests & baskets. Greek chests. Roman chests. A box/chest cannot be “bathtub” or boat shaped. A box cannot be pointed like a canoe or rounded at the ends. It cannot be rounded in relation to the overall shape. If someone called a cylinder can a sphere, they would be incorrect because although there are rounded aspects, a sphere is not a cylinder. Neither is a box/chest anything other then rectilinear and or Parallelopiped. The misinformation surrounding this debate on the topic of the shape of Noah’s Ark came from Tim Lovett. It was later adopted in error by AIG and continues to be promulgated defend to their ship. But it is provably false. ICR & CMI we’re always right to insist on the rectilinear shape. Unfortunately misunderstanding is now forwarded by many others however well meaning. Even IF for the sake of argument the Hebrew word “tebah” was vague & ambiguous on shape (which it is not), we have the koine Greek word “Kibotos” which is used of Noah’s “ark” in the New Testament. “Kibotos” is the Greek word for box/chest made of wood. So if the OT was neutral we can STILL be dogmatic on the general shape of Noah’s “ark” because the NT calls it a box/chest made of wood. And YES there are at least two Greek words for boat or ship & neither are ever used in the NT to refer to what NT authors call Noah’s “Kibotos”. There is absolutely no disputation concerning the meaning of the Greek word “Kibotos”. Thus the NT is in perfect harmony with “Tebah”. The latin word “arca” is in perfect harmony with “tebah” & “Kibotos”. Which means the capitalization of “A” in “Noah’s Ark” gives people the impression “Noah’s Ark” a name rather than a category. Unfortunately few people ask what is an “ark” because its an antiquated English word for box/chest. Lastly, the last 2000 years of Jewish & Christian culture, synagogues, churches, & liturature clearly show an understanding of both “tebah” & “Kibotos” to mean box/chest. Most simple minded artists in history fail to understand how a box could float (based on boyancy principles) and frequently put the box/chest ON or INTO a boat/ship, then they put a roof on the box, and fail to depict proper HxLxW leading to the standard artistic misrepresentations. Unfortunately AIG has embarrassed themselves depicting Noah’s chest as a ship. They’ve refused to debate us publicly on the subject. Yes we’ve been in contact with them. Understandably not an easy mistake to acknowledge at 80+Million $. Building an entire ship that can’t even be called an “ark” by definition. Sad. Anyway. Hopefully this helped clarify murky waters! 😄👍

[@BrainDamagedBob]

@androcracy The tebah used to save Moses was unsinkable by virtue of the bouyancy of the reed construction that had been daubed with pitch. Reed "boats" have been used in various parts of the world for thousands of years. They are unsinkable too. If they are daubed with some sealant/preservative, then they stay bouyant longer. Something significant about Noah's instructions was that he was told to apply pitch to the outside and inside of the ark. If the inside needed waterproofing, doesn't that imply that the vessel didn't have a watertight hull? I think balsa logs that were waterproofed and lashed together is a more sensible vision for the ark than the unseaworthy notions that everyone has

[@joaovitorlima7457]

Hi! I'm a student of college of Science and Technology here from Brazil. I have follow your job and I think very helpful to me as a christian student who loves study the works of the Lord. I can listen in english and read a little, but would be very great if you could put some subtitles in portuguese, to me and others who here from Brazil who are supported by your ministrie. Thanks and greetings from Brazil. May Lord bless you all!

[@creationministriesintl]

We are very glad that our resources have been helpful to you! Volunteer translators from around the world help us with translating some of our materials into a variety of languages. But unfortunately we can't promise if or when volunteers might work on translating these particular videos (or even if Portuguese might be one of the translations). The good news, is that we do have over 90 articles on our website already translated into Portuguese, and you can access them here: creation.com/portuguese/ We hope that's helpful. 👍

[@bobbymckenzie3202]

Show it to scale with modern ships

[@daphneraven6745]

Thanks gents! I really enjoyed your presentation. You presented a few ideas that I hadn’t thought about. You did address one that I happen to get in conversation about only last week; we were a small group discussing Enoch through to the flood, and the question of why the raven was sent out first, was raised. It didn’t occur to any of us that it was about carrion. by the same token, since the raven did return, why did he not send the raven again before the dove, if the logic was that the eater of carrion would be far more likely to find food before the vegetarian who would have to search specifically for fresh plant life? I’d be very interested in hearing your ideas on that. Until then, or until I come up with an answer, I guess I’ll rattle that one around in the back of my head some more. :-) Thanks again for your fine video!

[@creationministriesintl]

The Raven did not return to the Ark (Genesis 8:6). It is a scavenger so it would have fed on rotting carcasses in the Floodwaters. And it would also have been able to rest on the mountain tops or even on top of the Ark. There was no reason for it to return. Remember, the tops of the mountains were already exposed by this time (Genesis 8:5). Sending out another Raven would have had the same result. It would not return to the Ark. On the other hand, the dove would have to enter the Ark to find fresh vegetation to eat. This was necessary until the Earth started to produce plants again.

[@dannyroosenboom3640]

the ark could easy be build at the given dimentions bcs there were trees that large and possible larger.

[@gojerglobalnation9222]

Very nice ♥♥♥

[@lufknuht5960]

Has anybody ever made a model of the ARK of the Covenant with curved sides???

[@joshuamurray8320]

Thanks!

[@fuqui035]

Tk. They know how much it ma. Measure but if you ask how old Mary was when she gave birth to jesus

[@esbardohernandez7489]

so genesis author took all the other stories of a flood and made it more real to you. how did noah get the warning to over 6 billion people. no newspaper, no radio, no phones, no internet. 8 characters that build this ark in 120 years. how did they bend the wood to construct the rounded ends of the ark. over 1,000,000 species of animals in that small ark. one window for breathing for all that animals and human? what a fairy tale.

[@esbardohernandez7489]

what is the size of a cubit? another amount of confusion from god. no definite size. go ahead an guess what a cubit really is.

[@androcracy]

Mistake in discussing “basket”. Moses was in a box/chest. I have extensively researched the claim Moses was in a “basket”. Ancient Egyptians did make rounded but also rectangular & box shaped baskets. However Exodus 2:3 does not say basket but “papyrus reed chest”. Having studied both ancient Egyptian baskets & ancient Egyptian chests I can assure they made both & there were differences. They did make chests out of wood, but cheaper & more commonly used papyrus to make chests. There are many examples of papyrus reed chests. The lexical definition of “ark” according to greek “Kibotos” (chest/box made of wood) & Hebrew “Tebah” (chest/box). Both harmonious definitions with unavoidable geometric shape.

[@cmikeatonhalley7080]

The word in Exodus 2:3 is "Ark" (tebah). We argued for a fairly boxy shape, though there is a whole spectrum of possibilities from sharp corners to highly curved. I wouldn't be overly dogmatic on this point. The word basket is fairly ambiguous too, and some baskets have a boxy shape.

[@androcracy]

@@cmikeatonhalley7080 Mr Halley, great name! Edmund Halley was a yec Creationist too! Consider carefully what I’m saying. I invite you or Sarfati to correct anything that I’m saying here if you can. People get hung up on the English word “ark” because they’ve never given thought to what the word means. Put it aside for a second. There are three Hebrew words for “boat” or “ship”. You will never find a bible author ever referring to Noah’s vessel as a boat or a ship in Hebrew. But they do call it a “tebah” which lexicons identify as box/chest. Baby Moses was in an Egyptian papyrus reed box/chest. I have a file full of photos of Egyptian papyrus reed chests. They are like wooden Egyptian chests but made with papyrus stalk/reed. Just because something is made of reeds it does not mean it is a “basket”. The material composition of the object does not define the object. Today we have a box/chest made out of wood, cardboard, plastic etc. The material composition is irrelevant. So is the case with Egyptian Nile culture where papyrus was easier to work with then palm trees. Thus papyrus uses in Egyptian culture were diverse in fabrics, rope, furniture etc. When Scripture says Moses (exodus 2:3) was in a chest made of papyrus, that is not to be mistaken with Egyptian baskets. Furthermore, it is not possible to have a “whole spectrum of possibilities” when it comes to geometry. There is relatively little room to round the edges of a box before it ceases to be a box by definition. So it cannot be “highly curved”, and yes we can be fairly dogmatic about that. Its basic geometry. Yes Exodus 2:3 uses the word “ark” in English because the English word comes from the Latin “arca”, which again means box/chest in Latin. But I skipped pointing this out because the relevant scriptures are in Hebrew & Greek. Thus, as I pointed out exodus 2:3 is not “basket”. “Basket” is a misnomer. A mistranslation. It is objectively a mistake to say Moses was in a basket. I don’t fault people for not seeing the difference at first glance though… as I didn’t understand it either until I studied the issue & controversy on the shape of Noah’s Ark. The lexicons identity “tebah” (the word in exodus 2:3) as box/chest. A chest is a box. A chest is not a basket. A basket can be rounded or rectilinear, but a chest cannot be rounded. It is a shape-specific object. It is geometrically limited by definition. I’ve studied Egyptian chests & baskets. Greek chests. Roman chests. A box/chest cannot be “bathtub” or boat shaped. A box cannot be pointed like a canoe or rounded at the ends. It cannot be rounded in relation to the overall shape. If someone called a cylinder can a sphere, they would be incorrect because although there are rounded aspects, a sphere is not a cylinder. Neither is a box/chest anything other then rectilinear and or Parallelopiped. The misinformation surrounding this debate on the topic of the shape of Noah’s Ark came from Tim Lovett. It was later adopted in error by AIG and continues to be promulgated defend to their ship. But it is provably false. ICR & CMI we’re always right to insist on the rectilinear shape. Unfortunately misunderstanding is now forwarded by many others however well meaning. Even IF for the sake of argument the Hebrew word “tebah” was vague & ambiguous on shape (which it is not), we have the koine Greek word “Kibotos” which is used of Noah’s “ark” in the New Testament. “Kibotos” is the Greek word for box/chest made of wood. So if the OT was neutral we can STILL be dogmatic on the general shape of Noah’s “ark” because the NT calls it a box/chest made of wood. And YES there are at least two Greek words for boat or ship & neither are ever used in the NT to refer to what NT authors call Noah’s “Kibotos”. There is absolutely no disputation concerning the meaning of the Greek word “Kibotos”. Thus the NT is in perfect harmony with “Tebah”. The latin word “arca” is in perfect harmony with “tebah” & “Kibotos”. Which means the capitalization of “A” in “Noah’s Ark” gives people the impression “Noah’s Ark” a name rather than a category. Unfortunately few people ask what is an “ark” because its an antiquated English word for box/chest. Lastly, the last 2000 years of Jewish & Christian culture, synagogues, churches, & liturature clearly show an understanding of both “tebah” & “Kibotos” to mean box/chest. Most simple minded artists in history fail to understand how a box could float (based on boyancy principles) and frequently put the box/chest ON or INTO a boat/ship, then they put a roof on the box, and fail to depict proper HxLxW leading to the standard artistic misrepresentations. Unfortunately AIG has embarrassed themselves depicting Noah’s chest as a ship. They’ve refused to debate us publicly on the subject. Yes we’ve been in contact with them. Understandably not an easy mistake to acknowledge at 80+Million $. Building an entire ship that can’t even be called an “ark” by definition. Sad. Anyway. Hopefully this helped clarify murky waters! 😄👍

[@plainsman]

The Genesis Flood story contains many literary clues that its writers were not intending to narrate an actual series of events. The story employs the literary device known as “hyperbole” throughout, describing a massive ark which holds representatives of “every living creature on Earth”, and a flood which flows over the tops of the highest mountains in the world. These are not meant to challenge readers to figure out the practicality of such descriptions, but rather they are important clues that we are dealing with a theological story rather than ancient journalism. And on a logical note, the scientific and historical evidence is crystal clear: there has never been a global flood that covered the entire earth, nor do all modern animals and humans descend from the passengers of a single vessel.

[@creationministriesintl]

That's an interesting series of assertions, but all are refuted. Take advantage of the search engine on creation.com, we have already written on each of your claims.

[@plainsman]

@@creationministriesintl - Christianity has a tremendous legacy of encouraging scientific research, building on the belief that all of nature is God’s creation. Through modern science, we are becoming increasingly aware of how God has crafted the universe around us. Hundreds of years of research in geology, paleontology, biology, and many other fields have produced abundant evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that fossils and geological features formed through many processes over eons of time. Today, 99% of PhD biologists agree that plants, animals, and humans formed through evolutionary processes. The perspective offered by biblical literalists like Answers in Genesis forces people to choose between the Bible and modern science, and reinforces the harmful cultural stereotype that modern science and biblical Christianity cannot mix. Sadly, AIG and their ilk are staking the authority of the entire Bible - and Christianity itself - on the view that a global flood is a viable alternative to abundant scientific evidence for a much longer chronology of creation. To do so, they must add in many speculative details not found in the biblical text, such as the “biogeographical rafting model”. And they must rely on a theory of post-Flood animal evolution in which species diversify at rates many times faster than any known evolutionary mechanism. These theories, along with many others posited by young-earth creationists, are not based on credible scientific evidence - in fact, they contradict the clear empirical evidence in God’s creation.

[@HOLA-uk9yr]

Of course, and we are glad that you recognize that, but, what is scientific about evolution and deep time, if it cannot even be scientifically proven that they happened, on the contrary, as far as one can go is inferring or looking for the best explanation of the data. We agree that science reveals God to us, as Pasteur said: A little science distances people from God, but a lot of science brings people closer to God. As for the supposed investigation of geology and paleontology, it is false, in fact, the first geologists believed in a literal biblical creation, and not in millions of years of deep time. One of the most important geological thinkers was the Danish anatomist and geologist Nicholaus Steno (1638-1686) who was the first person to give a historical reconstruction of the formation of the geological layers of an area of the earth, in this case the area of Tuscany. , Italy, where he lived. for some time. He did so within a biblical framework and argued that geological evidence confirms the truth of the literal history in Genesis 1-11, and he made that very clear in his Prodromus 2 (1669), he believed an earth was almost 6,000 years old and that organic fossils and sedimentary strata were deposited by Noah's Flood. Based on his field observations in Tuscany and his reading of the geology elsewhere, he established several principles for interpreting the rock record. Those principles laid the foundation for modern geology and are still taught and used by geologists today, though most of them probably have no idea that Steno was a Bible-believing Young Earth creationist. Steno's key geological principles were these. One, most of the rock layers were once sediments deposited by water. Two, marine deposits can be distinguished from freshwater deposits by the fossils they contain. Three, the order of overlap of the layers indicates the relative age of the strata (older ones are deposited below younger ones). Fourth, the sediments were originally deposited essentially horizontally. Five, the layers that are no longer horizontal were disturbed after deposition. Shortly after Steno, Thomas Burnet (1635-1715), a theologian, published his influential Sacred Theory of the Earth (1681) in which he argued from Scripture, rather than geology, for a global Flood. He did not mention the fossils, and although he believed in a young Earth, he took each day in Genesis 1 as a year or more. Following him, the physician and geologist John Woodward (1665-1722) invoked the Flood to explain stratification and fossilization in "An Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth" (1695). Woodward suggested that the specific gravity of the sediments and fossils determined the order in which they were buried in the rock record. In A New Theory of the Earth (1696) William Whiston (1667-1752), Newton's successor at Cambridge in mathematics, shared similar views although they were not based on personal geological investigations. But he suggested that a comet triggered the start of the Flood, adding six years to Ussher's creation date by arguing that each day of Genesis 1 was one year long. Some of his reasoning was later used by those who were in favor of the day-age theory for Genesis 1.

[@HOLA-uk9yr]

geologist Alexander Catcott (1725-1779) used geological arguments to defend the Genesis account of a recent creation and global Flood that produced the geological record. On the mainland, Johann Lehmann (1719-1767), a professor of mining and mineralogy in Berlin, carefully studied the German mountain strata and recognized three classes of rocks: the non-fossil and steeply inclined rocks in the high mountains (formed during the week creation), fossiliferous rocks lying more or less horizontally on the sides of the mountains (attributed to the Flood), and poorly consolidated rocks on top of them (produced after the Flood by accidents of nature from time to time). The same for the first biologists like John Ray, Carlos Lineo, William Kirby, Benjamin Barton, Louis Pasteur. It is false that modern scientists have found evidence of eons when said idea, in fact, the idea of eons of time comes from the ancient Hindu religion, who grew up in a universe of 4,320 billion years. And centuries later, when Jesuit missionaries brought knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism from southern India and China to France in the mid-17th century, this was allowed to fuel discussions about the age of the earth. Returning Jesuit missionaries, who brought with them knowledge of Hinduism and Buddhism, often taught in such schools. As a result, Hindu-derived ideas about "deep time" were allowed to gain influence in Western science, especially geology. And no, they never proved that the earth was millions of years old, what Hutton made was not a discovery, but an interpretation. This site has become something of a geological icon for evolutionary geologists ever since Hutton and his outsider John Playfair wrote about it in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. But the geological evidence does not support slow, gradual processes. Ad populum fallacy, truth is not defined by majority vote, what would you say if I told you that most scientists do not believe in a personal God or in the biblical God? Don't believe me, well, most cosmologists and astronomers never postulate God to explain the origin of the universe, but rather pure natural and materialistic processes. Oh, what was missing, pure defamatory arguments against AIG, and you don't distinguish between experimental and historical science. And what damage has AIG caused to Christianity? None, they are just smears made by the well-biased media and the NCSE, an atheist and humanist organization.

[@HOLA-uk9yr]

In fact, there are scientists at AIG with scientific credentials, and others who have also invested heavily in the natural sciences: Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson has a Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University. He is a research biologist, author and speaker at Answers in Genesis and previously conducted research with the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. John Baumgardner, electrical engineer, space physicist, geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr. Élizabeth Beauchesne Biomedical Sciences. Mark H. Armitage earned a BS in Education from Liberty University and an MS in Biology (Parasitology) with Richard Lumsden (Ph.D. Rice and Dean of the Tulane University Graduate Program) at the Institute for Research in Creation in San Diego, CA. He later he graduated from Ed.S. in Educational Sciences from Liberty University and is a doctoral candidate there. Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design and Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK) Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology Dr. Change Laura Tan molecular biologist Dr. Marcus Ross, Paleontology Dr. Emil Silvestru , Geology/karstology Steven A. Austin, Ph.D. Creationist Geology Professor (USA) Todd Wood has a B.S. in biology and a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geology Dr. John Whitmore, Geology/Paleontology Dr. Kurt Wise, Paleontology