Noah: The Movie and the Ark
by Andrew Hanson
By Andy Hanson, April 9, 2014
I saw the newly released movie Noah at a Friday matinée. I concur with Paul Young’s evaluation: “Overall it is disjointed, incoherent, and awful. For all the expense, even the computer-generated imagery was hit and miss [even before] the jarring introduction of transformer-ish fallen-angel rock creatures…There is barely enough truth in this film to warrant attention.”[1]
It seems moviegoers agree. Captain America: The Winter Soldier's ticket sales last weekend were $96.2 million to Noah’s $17 million. Read the entire plot at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_%28film%29.
Paul Young’s review is kind! However, my reason for mentioning this movie isn’t to pan the acting, CGI, or script. It demonstrates visually what reasoned arguments with a biblical literalist might not: this story is a myth.
Even using modern equipment, building the set was a monumental task (https://screenrant.com/noah-movie-2014-preview/).
Of course there are other problems with the Genesis story, involving the numbers of land animals, birds, insects, and their devastating microbial companions that marched into the Ark. And it can be argued that the Bible story itself claims that the Flood did not accomplish its stated objective.[2] But in this blog I want the reader to imagine the Ark as described in the Bible: the required building materials, its engineering, and its ability to weather the conditions described in the Genesis 5-9 story.
Building Materials
“Noah's Ark was a great rectangular box of gopherwood, or perhaps some combination of other woods colloquially referred to as gopherwood. Its dimensions are given as 137 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 14 meters high. This is very, very big; it would have been the longest wooden ship ever built. These dimensions rank it as one of history's greatest engineering achievements; but they also mark the start of our sea trials, our test of whether or not it's possible for this ship to have ever sailed, or indeed, been built at all.”[3]
“Tens of thousands of massive timber-quality trees would have to have been imported into the middle of what's now Iraq.”
Engineering
“Scale up a simple wooden beam large enough, the weight will exceed its strength, and it will break from its own weight alone. Scaled up to the immense size of Noah's Ark, a stout wooden box would be unspeakably fragile… If there were even the gentlest of currents, sufficient pressure would be put on the hull to open its seams… Noah's Ark would bend with eddies like a snake. Even if the water itself was perfectly still, wind would expose the flat-sided Ark's tremendous windage, exerting a shearing force that might well crumple it.”[3]
“Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking.”
“There's no precedent for a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark being seaworthy, and plenty of naval engineering experience telling us that it wouldn't be expected to work. Even if pumps had been installed and all hands worked round the clock pumping, the Ark certainly would have leaked catastrophically, filled with water, and capsized.”
Meteorology
“A real-world problem for those believing this story is meteorology. Genesis 7:19-20 states that all earth was covered by 15 cubits (approximately 25 feet) of water. In order to cover Mt. Everest by 25 feet—over 29,000 feet above sea level—during a span of 40 days, it would have to rain an average of 6 inches per minute for the entire time. The record for rainfall for any one-minute at any one location is 1.5 inches. Also, if all that vapor was in the air before the rain started, the air pressure at sea level would be an astounding 13,000 psi instead of the normal 14.5 psi.”[4]
__________________________________________________________________
[1] Paul Young, author of The Shack.
[2] I’ve included two biblical references that indicate that God knew that the flood was a waste of time, and that other humans actually survived the Flood.
“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood” (Genesis 8:20, 21).
“The most devastating problem facing believers in the "Great Flood" surfaces in Numbers 13:33. Here the Israelites encounter the sons of Anak. The Anakites came from the Nephilim (giants) who, according to Genesis 6:2-4, originated in pre-flood times as a result of the sexual union of male angels (sons of God) and the daughters of men. Therefore the presence in post-flood Canaan of Anakites, the descendants of the Nephilim, would mean that not all who lived on earth, other than Noah and his family, were killed in the flood. This stands as a direct contradiction of Genesis 6:17 where God vows to…bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die” (The Myth of The Great Flood).[4]
[3] Noah's Ark: Sea Trials, https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4279.
[4] The Myth Of The Great Flood, https://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?45224-How-did-Noah-build-the-ark.
'The most devastating problem facing believers in the "Great Flood" surfaces in Numbers 13:33. Here the Israelites encounter the sons of Anak. The Anakites came from the Nephilim (giants) who, according to Genesis 6:2-4, originated in pre-flood times as a result of the sexual union of male angels (sons of God) and the daughters of men. Therefore the presence in post-flood Canaan of Anakites, the descendants of the Nephilim, would mean that not all who lived on earth, other than Noah and his family, were killed in the flood. This stands as a direct contradiction of Genesis 6:17 where God vows to…bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die” (The Myth of The Great Flood).'
Very interesting – never heard this. Perhaps this illustrates an important point. For those who wish to argue in favour of theistic evolution (or whatever varient) or a non-worldwide flood, perhaps the best way to engage the issue is from the Bible itself – not from science.
Usually, it becomes a science vs scripture argument. But right here, whether rightly or wrongly, we can see this as a scripture vs scripture argument.
'And it can be argued that the Bible story itself claims that the Flood did not accomplish its stated objective.'
Interesting, I guess the question is what does the Bible literally say itself? For me, the question is what does 'earth' mean exactly in Gen 6:17, Gen 7:4,6,10,12,17,18,19,20,21,23,24, Gen 8:1,27,9,11,13,14,15,18,19,22 and Gen 9:1,2,7,10,11,13,14,16,17,19 etc?
I am no expert in ancient languages, but a percusory search of the OT suggests the term 'whole earth' (Heb. kol erets or translated 'whole land') sometimes is a phrase to mean the whole land (i.e. in like all of North America or all of the USA) as opposed to literally all of planet earth (notably because the ancients didn't know we lived on a planet floating in space). We have passages such as:
It would see a problem for us today, is that all these biblical passages suggest 'the whole earth' really meant something which we ourselves can see is entirely logical – the whole known world of the ancient Middle East.
I readily admit I have no idea about this and more than happy to be corrected. Just putting these 'problems' out there, as Andy has with the Anakites, descendants of a people who supposedly were destroyed in the Flood! If anyone can explain these problems away I would be very appreciative.
I think it far more fruitful to focus on what the Bible actually says, on sola scriptura, rathing than supposedly scientific theories. But that is just me.
Since the author of the story of Noah probably was recording a story passed-down through many generations it seems very likely that it has been embellished and polished to some (perhaps very considerable) degree. Though a few things stand out to me.
First, the dimensions of the Ark. I have read commentaries by maritime engineers who say that those dimensions are perfect for a ship and provide both the maximum capacity while giving it the greatest potential stability in various sea states.
Second, the story presents that the flood significantly changed the surface of the planet. Were there high mountains like Mt. Everest before the flood? (Geologic evidence projects that Everest is the result of tectonic plates overlapping with one getting pushed upward to produce the Himalayan range, which appears to still be rising by a few centimeters per years.) If the general terrain was much lower then the volume of water required to cover the planet reduces greatly.
Third is that part about the "fountains of the deep" being broken-up. How much water was below the surface that came rushing upward? Geology provides us with numerous examples of surface levels dropping as water is extracted from below. One of the more dramatic examples of this is Venice, Italy where there is an effort to stop the city from sinking into the sea by pumping water back into the subterranean water table. Another is the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which has been tilting at an increasing rate for centuries and was in danger of falling-over until engineers started pumping grout into the ground below it. Now they are actually slowly pushing it back toward vertical.
While I've not seen the current "Noah" movie and have no plans to do so, I think it may provide us with a great example of what product can come from a fertile imagination when it begins with a story told by those well removed from being eyewitnesses.
The movie director clearly explained that it was not to be explicitly based on the biblical story; and they accomplished that quite well. They add much to the mythic tale in order to sell more tickets. We shouldn't have expected a documentary.
I completely agree with your assessment, Andy. What was great about the movie is that it caused me to go back, read the story, and cross-reference it. Mind you, my overview was pretty superficial. But I found that my Flood myths are not at all supported by the Bible. For example, how do we know that Noah preached repentance, much less that he did so for 120 years? It's just not there. Peter calls him a preacher of righteousness. But even if we accept that as factual, it tells us very little. How do we know it was 120 years? The text tells us that God decided that the years of man would be limited to 120. Does that mean 120 years from the time he decided to destroy life on earth, or does it mean a life span of 120 years? The geneology that follows the flood would suggest that humans were still living several hundred years after the flood. But does that mean Noah preached 120 years?
Ellen white tells us that Noah warned of a coming flood and was mocked and ridiculed. Really? Where is that in the Bible? Jesus seems to suggest that the victims of the Flood had no warning whatsoever. As to the idea that Noah's generation had never seen rain – what is the source of that myth? Well, we find in the Genesis 2 creation story that, before any vegetation or humanity appeared on the earth, the Lord had not sent rain. Streams or a mist watered the earth. What happened between then and the time of Noah? How do we know there was no rain? On what evidence do those who reject uniformitarianism when it comes to naturalistic evolution, embrace it to perpetuate the mythic narrative of the Flood?
Now maybe there are really simple explanations. I spent about half an hour cross-referencing the Bible and Ellen White, with no scholarly commentary. Incidentally, Ellen White creates a beautiful, highly embellished, pastoral picture of the natural world in Noah's time that, like most of her narrative commentaries, is quite credible and entertaining, but totally detached from Biblical confirmability. I find her fertile imagination more consonant with my picture of the character of God as revealed in the Bible, but no less removed than the movie from what can be confirmed by Genesis 6-9.
Since we are speculating, why do we think that Peter referred to Noah as a preacher of righteousness at all?
Where in the Genesis narrative is that indicated?
Since Peter said indicates that Noah preached, what did Noah have to preach about? In what context did he preach righteousness? I there some connection to Matthew 24:38, and why can’t the 120 years in Genesis 6:3 be considered a 'countdown' prophecy?
Im actually fine with going beyond the Genesis narrative to inform conjecture and imagination. I was just surprised to see how much of what I had assumed to be Biblical is really just not there.
It would be difficult to imagine that the flood could really have been a complete surprise, given the conspicuousness of the ark and the time it must have taken to build it. Undoubtedly, when Jesus spoke of the flood coming as a complete shock, He meant it in the same way that The Second Coming will be a complete shock to many AToday commenters, because they have closed their minds to it as a realistic scenario.
I agree, Stephen, that the 120 years can be considered a countdown prophecy. It's just not clearly stated in the text, and I found that interesting, given how firmly some of the details of childhood stories were implanted in my mind.
Had the movie portrayed Noah as a Godly, relatively righteous man who confronted the pagan culture with its insidious moral evil (which I believe was the case), rather than as a persecuted nomad, on the run, who was primarily concerned with helping God eradicate humanity due to original sin and environmental evil, it would still have been a bad movie. In the movie, humanity is saved not by a Redeemer or the intention of a merciful God. Rather, humanity is saved from God's intended "final solution" by human sentiment and impulse operating to frustrate the purposes of a vengeful, judgmental diety, who communicates His will through hallucinogen-induced visions. In that sense, it's morality is very contemporary, and quite consistent with the non-Biblical world views of its creators.
Keep reading. Too many Adventists have been taught a mixture of the Bible and EGW where she adds to the Bible stories and then dicover much later, that their beliefs have not been from the Bible at all! If the church had limited its message from the Bible only, it would have avoided the confusion that began from the start, and still is quite pervasive throughout the membership. Nearly daily on this, and other blogs, one can read of Bible stories and essentials that were never from the Bible at all. Noah is a perfect example. How many were taught that Noah preached for 120 years and yet was able to convince no one to enter the ark? It is not from the Bible. How many were taught that incest was sinful, and yet multiplication of the species was only possible by incestuous mating.
I find the suggestion that what EGW extrapolated from the Bible isn’t actually Biblical to be somewhat curious; yet somewhat understandable.
Since Peter declared Noah to be a preacher of righteousness, the idea that he preached righteousness comes directly from the Bible. The idea that Noah preached righteousness to ungodly people who weren’t saved but destroyed—because they didn’t heed Noah’s preaching of righteousness—is directly from 2 Peter 2:5.
The New Living Translation (not Ellen White) says: And God did not spare the ancient world—except for Noah and the seven others in his family. Noah warned the world of God’s righteous judgment. So God protected Noah when he destroyed the world of ungodly people with a vast flood.
The concept of warning no doubt comes from the Greek since ‘preacher’ is literally translated as ‘herald’ which in our language is “an official crier or messenger” or “one that precedes of foreshadows” or “one that conveys news or proclaims” (announcer) or “one who actively promotes or advocates (exponent).
So Ellen White didn’t make this up.
The 120 years was, per Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, “meaning not the term of man’s life, reduced to this from the length of time he lived before the flood; but this designs the space that God would give for repentance, before he proceeded to execute his vengeance on him…” And per the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary “yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years"—It is probable that the corruption of the world, which had now reached its height, had been long and gradually increasing, and this idea receives support from the long respite granted.”
The point of course being that EGW didn’t write either of these commentaries. Nor did she write 1 Peter 3:20.
What ‘we’ learned about Noah was/is Biblical.
Are you also willing to explain Peter's statements:
Christ, in the spirit went to preach to the spirts in prison. Now it was long ages ago when Noah was still building the ark," or
"When angels sinned, God did not spare them: he sent them down to the underworld and consigned them to the dark underground cafes to be held there till the day of Judgment."
If the angels are held captive in underground caves, how can they be tempting people to sin? .
This is hilarious Elaine—but nice try. The fact is we were discussing Ellen White’s extrapolation of the Biblical facts of the flood story, as you well know.
Let’s face it, unless these commentaries and this NLT version of 2 Peter 2:5 owe the wording of their exegeses to Ellen White’s influence, then Ellen White’s take on events is not at all unusual. Not that it would make any difference if it was, I hasten to add; since it is based on the Bible.
I have not seen the newest "Noah" movie. After reading the comments I have reached a tipping point (Malcolm Gladwell's) book or "Blink" by the same author. You get a feeling that something is askew as I filter through the blog.
Noah and the Flood
.
After reading about Noah's ark I believe the bible and what E.W. stated in PP to be true. If you believe EW statements to be true then there is great insight of some of the events going on at the time. The following toughts are from PP 90-106 to prove some points I would like to make.
1. I believe at the time of the flood, the earth was mostly flat with rolling hills, mountains not as high as today. Climate was mostly tropical without the ice caps. The trees were a lot larger and harder than we find on earth today and the men before the flood lived centuries their intelect and strength was far beyond ours today. Men pre-flood may have had the ability to move stone and large timber with their minds.
2. During the flooding of the earth, so violent was the event satan and his angels thought they might not survive. Mountains rose and fell leaving sharp jagged stone protruding through the soil and rocks. Volcano's vented lava, continental plates were moved out of place. God sent angels to protect the ark and guide it's path safely.
3. Today, oil, gas & coal is the result of all the foliage, trees and plant life buried deep within the earth as a result of the flood and the surface of the planet turned upside down. Gold and precious stones no longer found in abundance on the surface but deep below the earth. The "Grand Canyon" a perfect example of fast erosion. Fossil's found at very high places around the earth are unexplained other than a flood and some earth shaking event.