Talk:Noah's Ark

"asswaged"?

Yes. Asswaged is the proper Biblical spelling of the modern assuaged, as it is in the original authorized English translation of the Holy Scriptures. Many modern "King James" Bibles actually alter the text, which can lead to confusion and errant exegesis (see "King James Glossary" & "Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles" for other spelling alterations).

Um, how can changing the spelling in a translation result in exegetic problems? JoshuaZ 14:57, 7 March 2007 (EST)

King James-onlyism is not an official position of Conservapedia last I checked. MountainDew 15:01, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Oh my, was that the logic behind the user's comment. *checks link*. Yep, wow. I don't know what to say to that. JoshuaZ 15:08, 7 March 2007 (EST)

In fact, looking at that website in detail it argues for among other things the old-style British spelling of "Savior" as "Saviour" so per Conservapedias rules about British and American English if anything Conservapedia is anti-KJV onlyism. JoshuaZ 15:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

By that reasoning, any edition claiming to be the King James Version that omits the Apocrypha is counterfeit. What do they have to say about the Apocrypha? Is it OK to omit them? Dpbsmith 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

(Sigh) Why do I even ask? Yes, they have a pat answer. Dpbsmith 16:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Well at least they are aware that the apocrpha was in the original KJV. Many KJVist don't even know that. I can spot at least 4 factual errors in that piece though (ignoring things that aren't factual errors per se but just very odd language choice like the "Jewish Church"). What fun. JoshuaZ 16:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia is obviously not King-James-only, since the article on the Ark of the Covenant says it was made of "acacia" wood. :-) Dpbsmith 13:37, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dates

Excuse me but where the heck are the Roman calendar dates coming from? There is no way that that was the calendrical system in use. Most likely the system refferred to is a lunar calendar or lunar-solar calendar like that that Jews currently use. JoshuaZ 14:59, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Post-Diluvian Content

I am unsure that the explanation of the dispersal of animals from after they exited the Ark is within the scope of this article as it isn't really about the Ark itself. I think instead a separate article on the Post-Diluvian Diasporas should be created and linked to from here. Dr. Richard Paley 08:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. Started article Post-Diluvian Diasporas--AustinM 11:23, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Polar Bears?

Were polar species such as Polar Bears and Penguins to be found on the ark? I'm guessing they would not be friendly with their cell-mates for 40 days: Feeding regiments must have been tricky, but above all the middle-eastern climate must have been damaging to their well-being.

If God can flood the Earth, he can keep penguins alive. MountainDew 01:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If God can keep penguins alive, he could've just let all chosen animals and humans survive miraculously without the need for an ark. ;) --Sid 3050 09:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I included a comment about dinosaurs, which conceivably could have had difficulty coexisting on the Ark with other animals, as another controversial issue about the Ark. However, I'm not sure why it was removed. Fairandbalanced 22:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not being the one who removed it, I couldn't say for sure, but it was a fairly vague criticism (what "difficulty"?), and not worthy of an encyclopedia article as it stood. However, I don't think locking the article was justified; apart from your (presumably well-intentioned) edit there was only one attempt at vandalism. Philip J. Rayment 22:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. It seems like a fair amount of content on Conservapedia is locked from editing. In addition, it may be worth pointing out that as one possibility, the reason why dinosaurs are extinct is because they were not allowed on the Ark. Fairandbalanced 10:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I was premature in the above comment, as according to this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp, dinosaurs were definitely on the ark. Fairandbalanced 14:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

You are aware that this is a hotly debated topic, yes? --Hojimachong^talk 14:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It is important to consider that, pace Carl Everett, that dinosaurs and their fossilized 'remains' might well be red herrings of a sort, designed by Satan to trap or confuse the believer. DunsScotus 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm, I'll just point you to Theistic Evolution and Old Earth Creationism, both classes consider themselves Christian. --Hojimachong^talk 14:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Fairandbalanced: Yes, the Bible says that two (or more) of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing creature were on the ark. This leaves two possibilities: (a) Dinosaurs were on the ark, or (b) dinosaurs were extinct before the flood. However, the second option is ruled out because there are fossils of them in flood-laid deposits, indicating that they were around at the time of the flood.

Hojimachong, I'm not sure what you are getting at there. What is hotly debated? That dinosaurs were on the ark? Although there is a debate over whether the ark existed (as described in Genesis at least), I'm not aware of any real debate on, if the story is true, whether dinosaurs were on it.

DunsScotus: No informed creationist claims that dinosaurs were designed by Satan to trap or confuse believers.

Philip J. Rayment 21:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Pic added

And other improvements will follow. Karajou 21:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Disambig Great Flood

Great Flood should be a separate article, and the title should not have to redirect here. Noah's ark should be about the ark, it's description, and a history of searches for it. Karajou 12:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, and I've actually started drafting (off-line) an article for the flood itself. Philip J. Rayment 21:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

BBC Article: Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark

*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = BBC
| Given = British Broadcasting Corporation
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-03-28
| Title = Dutchman builds modern Noah's Ark
| Publisher = BBC News 24
| URL = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4853890.stm
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-13

Hope this helps. HeartOfGold 23:10, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

One other comment. If we only had written descriptions of the pyramids, we would not believe that ancient civilizations could have built them. HeartOfGold 23:13, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Kinds

I think kinds should be linked to Baraminology PrometheusX303 09:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Done! Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

cubit

I suggest the "design and construction" section note that there are different widely-used lengths of the cubit in ancient times (egyptian royal, sumerian nipur, roman, greek, arabic, and the potential that the cubit referred to in Genesis was different than all of them), so we don't really know what the size of the ark was in feet. Ungtss 11:47, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Do you by chance read Answers Magazine? I agree. You might also want to include which cubit measurement was used in the current cited size, and also add more info to cubit. PrometheusX303 10:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Good to see you again, my friend:). The protection of creationism-oriented articles makes development very difficult without admins dedicated to discussing and making changes. Simple, commonsense edits like this one seem to just sit on talk pages and go nowhere:(. Ungtss 20:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Lets distinguish between articles

I feel that with this subject, there could be a lot of duplication between this one and the Great Flood. This article should be talking about the Ark as you would talk about any vessel. Another way we could look at this is, we shouldn't see any general flood criticisms in this article, but we might have criticisms of the ark as a vessel. Also, we don't need to talk about the life of Noah here, since it's about the vessel itself. Just some thoughts to keep in mind while we edit. --Ymmotrojam 20:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree. And in the same vein, Great Flood is about flood accounts, not about Flood geology, which has its own article.

References

It's common in Bible study notes and the like to put scripture references inline, but in other publications, it's normal to put references as footnotes or the like. This being an encyclopaedia, I think we should put scripture references in as footnotes rather than inline, as they were before Ymmotrojam changed them.

Also, Ymmotrojam removed the explanatory footnote of the flood being a year long. The Bible doesn't spell out in so many words that it lasted a year, so as it's a (simple) deduction from what it does say, I feel that this footnote should have remained.

Philip J. Rayment 23:57, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Depth of the Ark

Is there a measurement for the depth of the Ark? The draft is the measurement from the keel to the waterline. It would be helpful to know the cubic meters for the Ark to understand its size.--Able806 09:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Did you see the footnote for the draft? Philip J. Rayment 09:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)

No, I did not, thank you for pointing that out. Could we add the 30 cubits since most hull measurements include depth? I would add it but the page is locked.--Able806 10:01, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Responses to Criticisms

I recently received my copy of Woodmorappe's Ark Feasibility Study and I see that it comprehensibly addresses all of the criticisms listed. I would like to address each criticism with a Response. Is there any chance of this article being unlocked? CherylE 12:27, 29 January 2009 (EST)

I've unlocked it. It's been locked too long anyway. Philip J. Rayment 15:00, 29 January 2009 (EST)

problematic use of reference - the graph

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

apart from the general questionable character of the Noah's Ark article, I as a historian have to object to the graph presented. Obviously methods of ship construction evolved during the first millenium B.C., wherefor the equation of technolgy levels presented is inacceptable. The graph, whereever it may come from, is clearly not based on scientific grounds. The succession of "Roman era, Dark Ages, Renaissance" is clearly made up in regards to general history, history of technology and history of ship-building.

The presented "model" of the Ark is absurd at the least. If one feels the urge to present the Ark as anything other as an allegory, it should be done another way. I would suggest a whole fleet for the beginning...

With best regards,

J.F.H.