Noah's Ark

[shrewsbury]

Instead of hijacking the other thread I thought I would just start a new one.

Most know I am not big on the OT, but as a Christian it does not mean I am unaware or uneducated in some of the material in it.
I started a thread a while back titles commonsense in religion, hopefully this thread has some commonsense in it.

One of the oldest and long going biblical arguments is Noah, with attention to the ark, and more specifically the animals on the ark.

I think we all imagine the classic image of Noah and his family gathering a male and female species of everything on earth in a giant boat and floating away. ok we have to deal with god talking to noah, god having noah build an ark, noah gathering all the animals on the ark and god flooding the earth, that's a lot of stuff. but to me none of these things really interest me too much, i am sure there was a flood, someone built an ark and had animals on it, sure why not, i can even go for the godly intervention, but there is something that is often overlooked about the story of noah, which interests me more than the story as we often see it.

so lets take a closer look.

If we bypass everything else and deal directly with who and what was on the ark we will be at Genesis 7:13 here it is stated that noah, his three sons, noah's wife and the wives of all three of noah's sons went into the ark.
genesis
7:14 here it states they had with them, remember they had all them with them, and it goes to state everything livestock and wild, everything that crawls and flies, big and small, everything in pairs was with them. (was with them)

now the catch
7:15
most see it as;

And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

so we assume we are still talking about the animals and creatures, so noah and his family went in first and they followed, ok no big deal, but take a step back for a moment.

they already stated that noah and his group already had with them all the animals, creatures, fowls, and such, so why repeat this, and what is up with the breath of life? why because the ark will save them? maybe not

lets look at this again

here is a literal translation;

[QUOTE]And they come in unto Noah, unto the ark, two by two of all the flesh in which is a living spirit[QUOTE]

this shows they were not with noah, as the animal and such were but they came unto noah, and they came of all flesh in which is a living spirit, which is not cattle, animals, creatures that slither, or fowls of the air,

ruah is used in hebrew to describe the living spirit, this word is used over 300 times in the OT and all refer to a life force given by god to humans, angels, or the spirit, not beasts or fowls.
so what were these flesh of the living spirit that came unto the ark in pairs?
where did they go? why were they not humans or were they? were they other races? were they homoerectus? fairies?

most would say that the story is false but based on some flood happening in our far past or it teaches a lesson to make people fear god and it explains rainbows.

i think it is a book much older than we think and it is based upon true events, but these events have been altered, changed, and forgotten over time, leaving what appears to be nothing more than a great bedtime story.

It is obviously so much more, but without older texts these answers will never be known and this is one of the reasons I focus more on Jesus, because there is more material to work with and try to figure things out, but the OT lacks this. Many will point to the dead sea scrolls, but these are way to late to prove anything. they date to around the time of Jesus, so there are new testament and other works about jesus that date with 50 years of his life, but the dead sea scrolls (which don't even have genesis 7 in them) would date thousands of years after noah.

[shortking98]

What is your take on the use of "ruah" in Ecclesiastes 3:19. To me it seems to imply that the breath of life applies to both men and animals but I am interested to hear your opinion.

[shrewsbury]

this seems to be the literal translation

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts even one thing befalleth them as the one dieth so dieth the other yea they have all one breath so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast for all is vanity

breath is used not spirit, we-ruah, which translates as deep breath, or that all living things breath, but not spirit.

as you stated the breath of life, but this does not imply the spirit of god.

this is only my take and could, with no doubt, be wrong

[Tivo32]

breath is used not spirit, we-ruah, which translates as deep breath, or that all living things breath, but not spirit.

as you stated the breath of life, but this does not imply the spirit of god.

this is only my take and could, with no doubt, be wrong

I would agree with your take. It seems like the writer of Ecclesiastes is trying to harp on the point that we are no better than animals that also breath and also die. I don't think the writer there is trying to comment on God's spirit in either people or animals.

[shortking98]

Genesis 7:15 is also translated "breath of life" in the King James, NIV, ESV, NKJV and comes from the same Hebrew word used in Ecclesiastes. Taking into account the context of verses 14 and 16, it seems to me that the "they" referred to in verse 15 is animals. Reading on into chapter 8, only Noah, his sons, their wives and animals are mentioned as leaving the ark, again implying that there were no other people in the ark. Chapter 9, specifically in verse 19 states that all the earth was descended from Noah's sons further emphasizing that Noah, his sons and their wives were the only people on the ark.

[shortking98]

Forgot to add, 1 Peter 3:20 goes even further specifically stating that only 8 people were saved from the flood in the ark (Noah, his 3 sons and their wives)

[shrewsbury]

i would disagree with the word being used in literal hebrew translation, it is much like the word chi or qi in chinese. it can mean breath, life, spirit or energy, depending on the situation it is used in. weruah is not the same as ruah, but again this in my interpretation, i am no OT scholar. so, no argument with that, but i think somethings are missing.

[shrewsbury]

sure 8 people were mentioned, but from what version were they learning from, and the oldest known copy would have been from his lifetime and is missing genesis 7

again, i am not saying you are wrong or i am right, this just points out why i stick to jesus, the OT gets to be very tricky for me.

[shortking98]

What makes you think Peter did not have a copy of Genesis 7? Simply because we do not have copies of genesis older than that era (due to preservation issues) does not mean Peter would not have had access to them 2000 years ago. I am also not sure how you would justify other people being on the ark in light of the context I mentioned in chapters 7,8 & 9.

As an aside, I am not an expert on the dead sea scrolls but my understanding of them was that several copies of genesis were part of it. Is this incorrect?

[habsheaven]

Forgot to add, 1 Peter 3:20 goes even further specifically stating that only 8 people were saved from the flood in the ark (Noah, his 3 sons and their wives)

What about Methuselah & Lamech? According to biblical geneaology. They both died years after the flood.