Doubts about Noah's Ark
- William Tell
- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read
Every so often, someone new claims to have found Noah's Ark.
Some years back, a young man produced a video going to great lengths to "prove" that the Genesis Flood account is older than the similar Sumerian story; that the Sumerian story plagiarized the Bible story, and not the other way 'round. He went so far as to build scale models, showing that the vessel described in Genesis would have been seaworthy, and that described in the Sumerian story, would not.
I don't care which story's older.
I have my doubts about the Genesis story all by itself.
The Bible indicates that it took Noah and his sons 120 years to build the ark, during which time they were also traveling around the world collecting the animals and exhorting people to repent.
During and after the 40 days' rain, the people and animals remained on the Ark for a total of 365 days.
How long do you suppose it took to collect all the animals?
And, while they were going out to collect new ones, what was the situation of the ones they already had? They had to be held, and fed, and in some cases caged, to protect the prey species from the predator species, for the duration.
And how would one go about feeding the predators?
Better bring along a whole lot more than two rabbits, or mice, or chickens, or whatever it is that one has in mind to feed them.
And so also for the year that they all spent on the ark. Noah and his family had to bring on not only a year's worth of food for themselves, but also a year's worth of food for all those animals — including live prey to be fed to the predators. The zebras and giraffes and donkeys could perhaps have been allowed to run loose in the Ark; many other creatures would have had to be kept caged.
All told, it doesn't strike me as very feasible, or realistic.
Comments