Onderste plasing is op facebook/kerkbode by
http://www.facebook.com/kerkbode/posts/370262972986232
Kerkbode
Adam en Atrahasis. ’n Verdere bydrae oor die verhouding tussen die Ou Testamentiese oorsprongsgetuienis en ander dokumente uit die Ou Nabye Ooste. Hierdie keer handel dit oor die Atrahasis.
Jesus Creed » Adam and Atrahasis (RJS)
www.patheos.com
Chapter three of the new book by Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins, looks at the relationship between the stories of origins contained in the Hebrew Scriptures – our Old Testament – and the stories of origins in the surrounding Ancient Near East (ANE) cultures. In the post Tuesday we looked briefly at the general relationship the ANE stories and the Hebrew Old Testament focusing on Enuma Elish and the creation story in Genesis 1. The relationship between the flood story of Genesis 6-8 and flood stories in Gilgamesh and Atrahasis is particularly clear, but this doesn’t really bear on the central question of this series of posts – which is Adam. Thus I am not going to discuss all of the details of the comparison, but rather move on to Israel’s second creation story in Genesis 2-3, the relationship of this account with Atrahasis and some general conclusions.
There are two major points to the argument Enns makes in this part of the chapter. First, scripture contains parallel accounts of the same events and these don’t always harmonize. The side by side accounts of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25 contain two different creation stories. Second, Genesis contains elements common to other ANE texts. The way that Genesis uses these elements is not consistent with the idea that Genesis tells the one true story from which everything else is derived and corrupted.
Careful study of the text of scripture itself, and the comparison of Genesis with other ANE texts calibrates the genre and thus the theological purpose of the creation stories in Genesis. This removes the pressure to see Genesis as addressing modern scientific and historical questions.
What do you make of the two creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2?
What do you make of the similarities between Genesis 1-11 and various ANE texts?
Table 3.1 in The Evolution of Adam, slightly adapted from a table by Daniel Harlow, illustrates the differences in the parallel creation accounts of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25.
Some of the differences are minor, some of them are more significant. But the two accounts cannot be easily harmonized into one self-consistent creation narrative. Parallel accounts not easily reconciled are found in other parts of Genesis 1-11 as well – in the genealogies of 4:17-26 and 5:3-32; the repopulation after the flood 10:1-32 and 11:10-32; and for that matter within the flood story. The point here is not to claim that scripture is errant, but to illustrate the fact that when Genesis was compiled and as it became accepted in the canon of Holy Scripture these differences were both obvious and not considered a problem.
Whoever is responsible for Genesis 1-11 certainly seems comfortable allowing distinct accounts to rest side by side. The reason for this may simply be that the final editor of Genesis wished to preserve Israel’s own diverse traditions, or perhaps needed to, owing to the weight of tradition behind them. I certainly think this is true … (p. 52)
The forms of the two creation narratives are different, Genesis 1 is more stylized, perhaps poetic, although this isn’t clear. Genesis 2 is written in a narrative style. But this doesn’t make one more historical and the other less historical. Fiction can be written in a narrative style and history can be written using a stylized poetic form.
Genesis 1 is not the symbolic, less historical, “poetic” account of creation and Genesis 2-3 the narrative and therefore more historical one. Both reflect ancient ways of thinking; we need to understand them first on their own terms and appreciate the tensions between them for what they tell us about their theologies. (p. 53)
Comparison with Atrahasis. The second major point in the argument Enns makes in this chapter is that Genesis contains elements common to other ANE texts. The arise from the same cultural context. In the last post Genesis 1 was considered in the context of the ANE tale Enuma Elish. The creation story in Genesis 2 has more in common with Atrahasis. In fact some have suggested that Genesis 2-8 may be modeled after Atrahasis, a suggestions Enns acknowledges as reasonable but not definite. Many of the points of comparison are listed in Table 3.2 in the book. These include humans created out of clay to cultivate the land, the institution of marriage and the flood story. But Atrahasis is not the only ancient text that carries themes common to Genesis 2. Enns also includes a summary of comparisons of Genesis 2-5 with a number of other ANE texts from Babylon, Sumer, and Egypt. The breath of life, streams of water, plant that confers immortality, serpent, and female made from the male’s rib/side are other plot elements found in ANE tales.
The bottom line: In Genesis we have parallel creation accounts allowed to stand side by side. These accounts are not consistent with each other and each has elements in common with other texts from the ancient Near East. In fact the entire primordial history in Genesis 1-11 has clear evidence of commonality with various elements from different ANE texts. The authors and editors who compiled Genesis were not concerned with harmonizing them. The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are not designed to answer modern scientific questions about science or detailed questions about history. The texts reflect an ancient world view, not a modern one because they were written in an ancient culture. Enns summarizes the situation:
Although there is no absolute scholarly consensus about how to read the creation and flood stories in all their details, the evidence points us clearly in the following direction: the early chapters of Genesis are not a literal or scientific description of historical events but a theological statement in an ancient idiom, a statement about Israel’s God and Israel’s place in the world as God’s people.
The core issue raised by the ancient Near Eastern data has helped to calibrate the genre of the biblical creation accounts. (p. 56)
But Genesis is not a patchwork quilt of material from disparate texts and sources. This post started out comparing the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. These two creation accounts have distinct differences in tone, style, and content. Yet they are allowed to stand side by side. This isn’t accidental, each text serves a theological purpose. This is one of the key ideas that shapes Enns’s overall argument in The Evolution of Adam. Completing the quote just after the table above:
I certainly think this is true but there is still more going on. The placement of these stories side by side has theological value: Genesis 1 tells the story of creation as a whole by the one sovereign God, and Genesis 2 focuses early and specifically on Israel’s story. (p. 52)
This is an argument we will consider as we move through the next several chapters of The Evolution of Adam.
What approach should we take to the apparent inconsistencies in the text of Genesis?
Do the elements of similarity between Genesis 1-11 and various ANE tales challenge the truthfulness of Genesis?
Do you think we can view Genesis as stemming from the correct original? Does our doctrine of scripture require this?
If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.
Kommentare:
Wynand Louw
So, buite- Bybelse korrelasie dat die vloed wel plaasgevind het?
Ralph Barnard
Nee, Wynand. Die Gilgamesh Epos se finale redaksie is ’n paar honderd jaar ouer as beide Gen 2, 6-8 en die latere Gen 1. Dit beteken dat die skrywers van die tuinverhaal en die Noagverhaal aangesluit het by daardie bestaande mitologiese tekste en dit kreatief verwerk het om vir Israel van ouds ’n teologiese boodskap deur te gee.
Philip du Toit
Ralph. Ons kan nie met sekerheid sê dat die Gilgamesh Epos se tradisie ouer is as die Genesis tradisie nie, as jy in ag neem dat die Genesis tradisie lank in mondelinge en dalk vroeë skriftelike vorm bestaan het, voordat dit in finale vorm neergeskryf is. Buiten dit is die Genesis tradisie uniek op baie punte. Met die finale skriftelike Genesis te midde van ander tradisies, wys die unieke aard van die Genesis-weergawe dat daar wel ’n outentieke tradisie is en was, en daarom nie-outentieke tradisies verwerp.
Johann Perkins
Ralph as teoloë soos jy dalk net so intens die Bybel bestudeer het as wat julle afgods verhale bestudeer het, sou julle dalk nie probeer het om God en Sy Woord te reduseer tot net nog ’n menslike afgodjie nie wat geen persoonlike verhouding het met sy skepping of sy skepsels het nie.
Dit is hartseer om te dink dat julle die Ware God tot leuenaar kruisig elke keer wanneer julle beweer dat Hy so ’n gebrek aan almagtige krag en kreatiwiteit het dat Hy nie eens sy eie Skeppings of Vloed verhale kon beskryf of verwoord nie.
Daar is oor die 200 bekende vloed verhale wat aansluit by Wynand se vraag/stelling dat daar buite Bybelse korrelasie dat daar wel ’n massiewe destruktiewe vloed was wat die mensdom nog nooit kon vergeet nie. Tensy jy Ralph bereid is om Jesus tot leuenaar te verklaar want Hy het immers self in Matteus 24 na die vloed verwys? Die vraag is dus nie of daar wel ’n vloed was of nie, die vraag is op wie se ark jy eerder tydens daardie vloed sou wou wees.
Utnapishtim se ark was blokvormig (cube) en sou nie eers die eerste dag van die vloed oorleef nie, hiermee ’n uittreksel uit ’n artikel waar die bouvorm, sterkte en vaardigheid van die twee Arke bestudeer is.
{……the passengers get knocked over or seasick. On the Gilgamesh ark they will be lucky to stay in one piece. A few waves would make the upper decks un-inhabitable. No solutions are apparent for ventilation and lighting.}
Daarteenoor die Ark van die Bybel waarvan die planne deur God aan Noag gegee is wat selfs golwe van oor die 30 meter kon weerstaan.
{Naval Architects at the world class KRISO facility conducted a study on Noah’s Ark and found the vessel’s proportions to be near optimal. The 6:1 length to breadth ratio (L/B) is a little wider than today’s vessels designed to move forward quicky, but it provides increased stability for a drifting vessel. A longer vessel has disadvantages for stability and seakeeping as the US Navy discovered.}
Wat jy dus voorstel Ralph is dat die Joodse skrywers van Genesis nie net die verhaal gesteel het van die Gilgamesh verhaal nie, maar dat hulle selfs die vermoë gehad het om te verbeter op die verhaal deur die struktuur en mates van die Gilgamesh ark te verander en aan te pas tot so ’n mate dat hulle op die einde van die dag met ’n optimaal seewaardige skip gesit waarvan vloot argitekte net kan droom. Dit terwyl die Jode nog nooit as kenners op die gebied van seevaart erken is nie?
Berto Hendrikse
Die ontwerp van die “boot” is duidelik die van iemannd wat geen seevaart kennis gehad het nie. Hoekom kan die geinspireerde mense nooit iets beter as die teenswoordige ontwerpe lewer nie? Die ark in die studie is vanselfsprekend beter omdat dit ’n moderne romp gegee is, teenoor die meer tradisionele reghoekige ontwerpe van die Bybel en ander vloed verhale. Die aannames en vermenging van antiek en moderne seevaart ontwerp maak die studie van lae waarde en meer studies sal gedoen moet word om die probleme in hierdie studie te wysig.
Ralph Barnard
Philip, dit is korrek dat die Abrahamverhale ens (Gen 12 e.v.) gebaseer is op ouer mondelinge tradisies. Dieselfde kan kwalik gesê word oor Gen 1-11. Die volledige Gilgamesh Epos se Akkadiese weergawe op 12 kleitablette is gevind in die biblioteek van die Assiriese koning Assurbanipal wat in die 7e eeu regeer het. (Op daardie stadium was die gebruik om op kleitablette te skryf reeds uitgedien.) Toe het Gen 1 nog nie bestaan nie en ook dele van die Noagverhaal nie. Die oorspronklike korter weergawe van die Gilgamesh Epos (ons weet mos mitologiese verhale groei met verloop van eeue) is uiteraard veel ouer en was op skrif voordat Israel ’n nasie was.
Johan Perkins, jy soek nie debat nie. Dus lewer ek nie kommentaar op jou opmerking nie.
Noag se ark was nie ’n skip nie. Dit was in die vorm van ’n doodskis. Soos die res van Gen 1-11 (wat ’n sterk teologiese eenheid vorm, het ons nie in die Noagverhaal met historiese beriggewing te doen nie.
Johann Perkins
Ralph jy is doodreg ek is nie opsoek na debat nie, beslis nie met persone wat die Waarheid verdraai nie en nog minder met persone wat opmerkings op Kerkbode se FB oor Plaasmoorde wat geregverdig word a.g.v sogenaamde wanbetaling ondersteun nie!
Johann Perkins
Jean as jy maar net soveel twyfel in die Heidense geskrifte en literatuur getoon het as wat jy in die Bybel toon het jy dalk nie so maklik probeer om God binne in ’n boks te plaas waar Hy net in staat is om te doen wat vir jou menslike brein verstaanbaar en verklaarbaar is nie!.
Wynand Louw
Ralph, verskoon tog, maar ek het di everhale almal gelees en daar is geen bewys dat die Bybelse verhale afhanklik is van die ander nie. En dit is onmoontlik om te bewys watter is ouer as ander. Indien die vloed plaasgecvind het sou daar verseker onafhanlike tekste wees wat dieselfde ding beskryf. Die hele storie oor die sogenaamde afhanklikheid van genesis van gilgamesh is so ooglopend belaglik en die gevolg van sekere onwetenskaplike vooroordele, dit verstom my elke keer as mense daarvoor val.
Philip du Toit
Ralph, hoe kan jy met sekerheid sê dat Gen 1-11 se tradisie nog nie bestaan het toe die Akkadiese weergawe van die Gilgamesh Epos neergeskryf is nie? Dit is juis dit wat ons nie met sekerheid kan sê nie. Die feit dat die Epos op kleitablette geskryf is is op sigself geen bewys nie.
Hennie Mouton
Ralph, glo jy darem dat Moses die meeste van die laaste 4 boeke van die Pentateug geskryf het?
Of moet ek eerste vra of jy glo dat Moses ’n werklik historiese figuur was?
Indien wel, wanneer dink jy het hy bestaan?
Ek stem saam met Enns dat die vertolking dat Genesis saamgestel is met Atrahasis as basis, nie met sekerheid aanvaar kan word nie.
Onderstaande brei onder andere uit op die toepaslike punt wat Johann Perkins hierbo gemaak het, en wat Ralph met ’n veralgemeende stelling sonder enige substans probeer afmaak het.
——————————————
A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis
by Nozomi Osanai (http://creation.com/comparative-study-of-gilgamesh-and-genesis-introduction)
2004; Posted 3 August 2005
…
Conclusion
The purpose of this research has been to examine the relationship between the flood accounts of the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis. Three possibilities of relationship are commonly discussed: (1) that the Epic derived from the Genesis account; (2) that the Genesis account used the Epic as its source; and (3) that both accounts depended on a common source.
The first possibility—that the Epic account derived from the Genesis account—has been discounted in this research because of the dates of the extant copies of the Epic and Genesis. The original compilations of the Epic are older than the original compilations of Genesis. Few scholars would consider this theory credible. Therefore, this writer has investigated the remaining two popular theories about the relationship between the Epic and Genesis.
The second hypothesis—that the Genesis account is dependent on the Epic—has significant difficulties. According to this hypothesis, the author of the Genesis account would have needed to revise the Epic as follows:
* change the concept of god from polytheism to absolute monotheism and add the strong, consistent moral motivation for the Flood by establishing God as righteous and gracious;
* write clear descriptions that show the Flood as universal in order to make the whole account consistent;
* change the character of the survivors to portray them as righteous and worthy to be saved;
* specify the survivors as four couples who are capable of replenishing the human race;
* add their descendants’ genealogy which agrees with the secular historical records;
* add the details about animals being included in pairs of every kind for the preservation of the created kinds;
* improve the source of the Flood from only rain to rain and underground water sufficient to cover the whole world;
* specify the duration of the Flood from only six days and nights and unspecified days to more than one year which is adequate for a universal Flood;
* redesign the structure of the Ark from the unstable cube to the ideal safe design for floating;
* change the order and the kind of the birds of the test flights in order to make them more logical;
* specify seven days interval between each test flight;
* and add the account of the freshly plucked olive leaf which is botanically realistic and more informative than the Epic.
Therefore, despite the many similarities between the two accounts, it would have been inconceivable to rewrite the Epic to the Genesis account, the more reliable one, unless the author was not only ethical, creative and logical, but also had enough knowledge about zoology, biology, physics, naval architectural skill, botany and ancient ethnic histories. If one does not accept the Genesis account as an historical record, there is no escaping the fact that an heroic effort has been undertaken to make that account appear to be historical. This has been remarkably successful at point after point, as the preceding pages have shown.
Hermann Gunkel can only explain these facts by positing a long history of rewriting:
If a man such as our narrator became acquainted with the Babylonian material, filled with the most crass mythology, he would have only felt disgust. Furthermore, a comparison of the Babylonian and the very different Israelite narratives teaches that a long history must lie between the two.1
This writer believes the third theory—that both accounts descended from a common origin—is the most plausible one. As noted in chapter one, the Epic was likely derived from the Sumerian story which was probably based on an historical event, though distorted. On the other hand, according to the specifics, scientific reliability, internal consistency, the correspondence to the secular records, and the existence of common elements among the flood traditions around the world, the Genesis account seems to be more acceptable as an accurate historical record. If all human races are descendents of Noah’s three sons, the survivors from the universal Flood, and the two accounts had derived from the same historical event,2 the reason the accounts have many similarities is explicable. As K. A. Kitchen states, it is likely that “The Hebrew and Babylonian accounts may go back to a common ancient tradition, but are not borrowed directly from each other.”3 Even though the Genesis account was written in Hebrew which was used later than Akkadian in which the Epic was written, the historical event of the Flood was much earlier than the publication of the Epic.
Henry Thiessen writes:
First, it is known generally that a considerable portion of the people could read and write as far back as the time of Hammurabi; that genealogical tablets and lists were known in Babylonia centuries before Abraham; that it is possible that Abraham carried cuneiform tablets containing such records with him from Haran to Canaan; and that in this manner Moses may have come into possession of them. Whether because he had access to such records, or because he had only oral tradition, or because he had only a direct revelation from God, or because of a combination of these, conservative scholarship has always held that Moses wrote Genesis.4
Even if Moses had used some source materials which are not extant today, the process of his gathering and compiling them to write Genesis would have been guided correctly by God.5 Thus, after investigating the differences between the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, it seems reasonable for this writer to conclude that the flood account in the Epic is the story which lost historical accuracy and was distorted, whereas the Genesis Flood account is the accurate historical record of the Flood event.
——————————————
Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway
by S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je
(http://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway)
Abstract
In this study, the safety of Noah’s Ark in the severe environments imposed by waves and winds during the Genesis Flood was investigated. Three major safety parameters—structural safety, overturning stability, and seakeeping quality—were evaluated altogether to assess the safety of the whole system.
The concept of ‘relative safety’, which is defined as the relative superiority in safety compared to other hull forms, was introduced and 12 different hull forms with the same displacement were generated for this purpose. Evaluation of these three safety parameters was performed using analytical tools. Model tests using 1/50 scaled models of a prototype were performed for three typical hull forms in order to validate the theoretical analysis.
Total safety index, defined as the weighted average of three relative safety performances, showed that the Ark had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied. The voyage limit of the Ark, estimated on the basis of modern passenger ships, criteria, revealed that it could have navigated through waves higher than 30 metres.
…
Comparative study of Gilgamesh and Genesis, thesis by Nozomi Osanai — Introduction
creation.com
Was Noah’s flood borrowed from the Gilgamesh epic?
Berto Hendrikse
Die leemtes in die studie oor die relatiewe veiligheid van die moontlike romp ontwerpe van Noag se ark “bewys” ironies genoeg dat romp ontwerpe soos in die Bybel beskryf onveiliger is as die “barge romp” wat aan die Bybel dimensies toegevoeg is. Die studie is egter so vol aannames en misbruik van formules en data, dat julle dit darem gelukkig maklik sal vind om dit af te skiet vir wat dit is.
Johann Perkins
Berto ek vind dit vreemd dat aannames in die studie jou pla. Nog voor enige wetenskaplike eksperiment plaasvind word daar ten minste drie tot ses aannames gemaak.
Berto Hendrikse
Johann, stem saam ons bring klomp aannames na ons eksperiment toe, stem saam dat die aannames self die eksperiment kan beinvloed, maar ons moet nog steeds in ons gevolgtrekkings hierdie aannames probeer verreken. Die boot wat relatief veiliger is as die ander het niks met die Ark van die Bybel te doen nie. Die dimensies van die Bybelse Ark is een van die wat relatief onveilig was in die teoretiese vergelykings in die studie. Ironies dat die menslik verbeterde weergawe van die studie relatief veiliger is as die onveranderde Ark van die Bybel. Die aanname dat die ontwerp wat gewen het dieselfde is as die Ark in die Bybel is duidelik nie houdbaar nie. Dit sal dalk beter gewees het om eerder vanaf die standpunt uit te gaan oor hoe groot wonderwerk God gedoen het om die Ark te laat dryf en veilig te hou in die 30m golwe ten spyte van die ontwerp probleme.
Johann Perkins
Hi weer Berto, jammer ek kom nou eers terug na jou toe. Ek het weer na die studie gaan kyk en ek dink in die eerste plek is ek en jy soos twee skepe in die nag wat mekaar net net mis. Pun intended!
Met opregtheid vra ek dat jy my moet reghelp indien ek die studie verkeerd interpreteer ek is geen kenner op die gebied van skeepsvaart nie. As ek reg lees word daar twee groot aannames in die studie gemaak,
1) Die romp-vorm van die ark – “Little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull” – jy het ook tereg hierna verwys – die outeurs maak egter die volgende opmerking – “While little is known about the hull form and the structure of the Ark, the size and the material of the Ark given in the Bible1 themselves are enough to warrant the attention of naval architects and so enable investigations of the practicality of the Ark as a drifting ship in high winds and waves.”
2) Die interne struktuur van die ark – “Since little information on the internal structures of the Ark are known, we made the following estimation from the viewpoint of modern shipbuilding technology, although we assume that the Ark was in fact built using relatively ancient technology.”
Daar mag verseker ander aannames ook wees, maar volgens die outeurs van die artikel was hierdie die twee wat ’n redelike invloed op die uitkoms van die studie kon hê. Die feit dat hulle self in die studie noem dat hulle nie veel inligting oor die romp-vorm van die ark gehad het nie, het die navorsers genoodsaak om daarvoor te kompenseer en daarom het hulle “relatiewe veiligheid” as een van die maatstawwe ingebring? – “ In order to avoid any error due to the lack of complete hull information, we introduced the concept of ’relative safety’, which was defined as the relative superiority in safety compared to other hull forms.”
Volgens hulle is dit ’n erkende metode en term wanneer na stabiliteit, veiligheid ens. in skepe nagevors word. Die outeur noem dan ook dat hulle nie net blindings die aanname oor die romp-vorm gemaak het nie, maar dat hulle van verwysings gebruik gemaak het – “The concept of relative safety of a ship has been introduced by several researchers, such as Comstock and Keane,2 Hosoka et al.,3 Bales4 and Hong et al.,5”
1) twee boeke/artikels wat geskryf is deur persone wat glo experts is op die Ark
2) soos hulle dit noem “common sense” en kundigheid van huidige seevaart kenners. – “Information about the hull is of course available from the existing references to Noah’s Ark, and from the reasonable (common sense) assumptions of naval engineers”
Ek dink hulle het toe op die “barge” romp-vorm besluit, soos jy ook erens in een van jou skrywes genoem het.
Om dus te hou by die “relatiewe veiligheid” parameter is daar twaalf verskillende romp-vorms getoets en met mekaar vergelyk waarvan die ark as boot nr 0 gemerk was. – “n order to apply the relative safety concept, 12 different hull forms of barge-type were generated by varying principal dimensions while keeping the displaced volume constant.”
Na aanleiding van jou skrywe stem ek saam dat ’n mens verseker op verskeie punte die studie kan kritiseer. Ek dink egter die studie het in sy doel geslaag om wel te bewys dat die Ark, ’n leefbare, veilige en stabiele dryf-vaartuig was, wat ’n relatiewe goeie kans sou staan om in die omstandighede van ’n massiewe vloed te kon oorleef.
Ek verwys graag na ’n paar aanhalings vanuit die studie:
“In the ship classification rules, a ship should satisfy two kinds of stability criteria: GM for small heel angle, and dynamic stability. We applied the ABS (American Bureau of Shipping)’s rule to all 13 hull forms. The results showed that all hull forms except hull #1 sufficiently satisfied all the requirements. It should be especially noted that the Ark was 13 times more stable than the standard for safety required by the ABS rule.”
“Since all the hull forms except hull #1 had sufficient overturning stability compared to ABS’s criteria, we derived the first total safety index as the average of the indices of seakeeping safety and structure safety (see Figure 8). This revealed that the Ark had the second best hull design, with the best hull design in this case being hull #1, which had the worst overturning stability.”
‘n Vaartuig ongekend vir die persone wat dit gebou het, a.g.v van hulle ondervinding, ambagte en die omgewing waarin hulle gewoon het. Met die verwysing na die studie wil ek onder geen omstandighede enige eer van God wegneem nie. En Noag, die Ark en die beloftes van die verhaal bly vir my ’n wonderwerk wat volgens my verstaan van die Bybel werklik gebeur het.
Dit is juis waarom ek na die studie verwys het, want heelwat persone glo dat die verhaal van die Ark gesteel is van die verhaal van Gildamesh. My vraag/stelling was dat indien die verhaal gesteel was van die verhaal van Gildamesh moes die “diewe” agtergekom het dat die ark van Gildamesh nie ’n baie stabiele skeepswaardige ark was nie, en moes dus die kennis van vloot-argitekte aan die dag lê om die mates van en bou van die Genesis Ark so te verander dat dit ten minste ’n veilige stabiele skeepswaardige vaartuig so wees.
In conclusion, the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a reasonable-beam-draft ratio for the safety of the hull, crew and cargo in the high winds and waves imposed on it by the Genesis Flood.
Volgens my is dit absoluut absurd en verkies ek om te glo dat omrede God die mates en instruksies aan Noag gegee het dit die rede is waarom die Ark nie gesink het nie. Dit vir my is deel van die hele wonderwerk van Noag en sy oorlewing. My vraag is dus geskiedkundig maar meer belangrik ook teologies van aard. Op wie se Ark wil jy wees, ek verkies God se Ark bo die van Gildamesh!
Berto Hendrikse
Johann, ek dink nie ons mis mekaar net net nie, ons is ligjare verwyder (dus nou as jy ligjare as korrek aanvaar). Ek volstaan met my kritiek wat ek gelewer in terme van die Holy Grail uittreksel, gaan kyk dit weer en jy sal sien hoekom ek die aannames en gevolgtrekkings (hulle funksioneer in die studie net soos in die video) as onvoldoende vir ’n goeie studie beskou. Ek waardeer jou opsomming van die studie, maar ek gaan glad nie verder betrokke raak in die detail van die Ark verhaal nie. Ek sien dit as ’n mite, en met alles wat daarmee saamgaan. Die studie se geloofwaardigheid is in elk geval die kleinste probleem vir mense wat die Ark verhaal as geskiedenis wil sien, ten spyte van die probleme daarin. Mens het nog nie eers gekyk na dinge soos kos en water, na werkslading van die bemaning, beheer van die vlot, ens. ens. Die goed sien ek word op die kreasioniste se forums bespreek, en wat hulle daar vorendag mee kom is snaaks op ’n tragiese manier. Die moeilikste ding vir mense is om objektief teenoor hulle hipoteses te staan en nie te probeer om antwoorde te kry wat hulle hipotese beskerm nie. Ek seg weer ’n simbolies, mities interpretasie sal vir mense waarskynlik meer beteken as om te probeer om mense op ’n swak gefundeerde studie te oortuig van iets wat fisies nie moontlik is nie. Hout bly hout en 135m bly 135m. (Ps. Watter vlot?- my hipotese is dat beide vlotte sou sink binne die toegelate tyd wat hulle kwansuis oorleef het tydens die vloed.)
Hennie Mouton
Ralph, jy het nog nie my eenvoudige vrae hierbo geantwoord nie.
Berto, hoe dink jy het hierdie skepe gedryf? :
The large ships of antiquity
by Larry Pierce
(http://creation.com/the-large-ships-of-antiquity)
Each generation produces a fresh crop of sceptics who are legends in their own minds. C. H. Spurgeon wryly said about such men in his day:
‘It is but the shallowness of his mind that permits him to see the bottom of his knowledge.’ 1
We should not be surprised that we are awash today with such experts, falsely so called. The Apostle Peter warned us this would be the case (2 Peter 3:3 ff.). It has become fashionable to scoff at anything biblical.
Noah’s Ark has never failed to be the target of sceptics and the butt of many jokes.2 ‘Everyone knows’, for instance, that you cannot build a boat as large as Noah did from wood, even using today’s advanced technology. Only when ships were made of steel, in the last hundred years or so, we are told, has man been able to build a ship approaching the biblical dimensions of Noah’s Ark, (137m (450 feet) long, 23m (75 feet) wide, and 14m (45 feet) high).
But these so-called experts display their ignorance of history in making such statements. Let’s look at what ships the ancients actually built, some of which were almost as large as the Ark.
…
Coert Welman
Hennie, moenie hulle verwar met feite nie. Die feite wat jy op die tafel plaas druis teen hulle geloof in.
Berto Hendrikse
Hennie, ek het nie gedink dit is moontlik om ’n nog swakker bron aan te haal om jou hipotese te beskerm nie, maar jy het. Gesels jy en Johann en Coert verder oor die feite, ek kan nie verder deel neem nie. (ps. Lionel Casson se boeke oor die goed kan dalk vir julle interessant wees.) Cheers.