BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers
• 0

# Enough Room in the Ark?

## Question

Guest

Here's one for you guys to do a little homework on.

Should be easy peasy.

Let us state for the record, by todays standards, that a cubit is 18 inches.

That will prevent a lot of ridiculous and argumentative posting.

Question #1

What was the square footage (floorspace) of Noah's Ark?

Question #2

What was the volume in cubic feet?

hint

Question #3

What is the square footage and volume of a standard American Freight car (rail car, box car)

Question #4

How many freight cars (internal area not external car) would fit in the ark?

I know these are easy ones but I will post spoilers if necessary in 48 hours.

Peace

## 35 answers to this question

• 0
Guest

Good day,

Let me start with a public statement of thanks for your patience and thoughtful responses in this discussion. That being said I will try to briefly summarize up to this point.

We began with the premise of the entire math problem being suspect because we could not know what size Noah's cubit was. I think we both agree that it was Moses' cubit that really mattered and had the book of Genesis been written by Noah then the measurements may have been very different because they would have been multiples of a different base measure.

Because of the cubit question we briefly discussed the feasability of the ark supporting its own weight but that became moot when we found agreement on the base measure.

We briefly touched on the shape of the ark. This has been long debated by many. We agreed that God would know how to build it and it is only relevant for this discussion in that the shape would affect the internal volume and surface area of each deck. This we won't know dogmatically until the ark is found, photographed, measured etc. I personally choose to go with the barge because it maximizes the internal area, minimizes the draft, and simplifies the order to build rooms within. Again, that is my opinion and it is more than ok to disagree with me on this.

The majority of our discussion has regarded sea level; past and present, topography, volume of water in our closed system and realistic expectation of the ability for all of the land surface to be covered in water, especially for the year long experience described in the biblical account. We seem to agree that it is possible and considering geologic indicators everything was under water at some time but the real question is, when?

The "when" question is what usually causes the most disagreement with anyone who seriously looks at the evidence for a global flood. I personally have heard arguments that range from the 4500 year time frame that I adopt, to millions of years that many modern scientists choose to accept. We can go back and forth on that debate until the Lord returns but most people enter into any debate with their pre-formed beliefs and seldom will any interpretation of evidence, except their own, suffice. I am not saying this is the case with you or I, just making a general stereotypical and biased statement

You stated that you thought my science from the 50's was bad and I will give you that I can not say that I was there to see the canyons formed. I do know that the heavy water argument was presented almost as quickly as the above water rapid erosion theory was made public. I accept whole-heartedly that any erosion happening to those canyons at present is happening because of water currents. I will, however, hold at present to the belief that the majority of the erosion happened VERY rapidly and then continued in a much slower process later. This is how I generally view almost all major erosive evidence we see today, whether it be waterfalls, canyons, river deltas, etc...

Lastly,

Everyone in any scientific field develops a bias at some point in their life. Geologists take on a young or old planet opinion and then interperet the evidence through that lens. Biologists accept macroevolution or creation and then likewise interperet data according to their personally held belief structure. I think you and I agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive, but scientists are human and humans are prejudiced. I personally believe that the Word of God is reliable and therefore I look at the evidence to see if it lines up with the biblical account. If it does not I do not try to change the evidence, I simply start looking to see if I am in error in the interpretation of the data. Could I personally be misinterpreting the Word? or could I be misinterpreting the evidence. Either way the error is always on me, the student, but never God the creator.

Peace,

Happy Thanksgiving,

HPT

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest
I will, however, hold at present to the belief that the majority of the erosion happened VERY rapidly and then continued in a much slower process later. This is how I generally view almost all major erosive evidence we see today, whether it be waterfalls, canyons, river deltas, etc...
I understand why you would hold to this view if you date the earth less than 8000 years old. The science, though, is pretty convincing that the earth is much older and that erosive processes over a longer period of time created many of the features of the earth. In fact, the evidence they do have for sudden catostrophic water events (such as the great deluge of the great basin area of the United States) creates visably different effects compared to longer erosive processes. I think that dating the earth to less than 10,000 years is a misreading of a mistranslation of the Bible.

Also, the idea that contenental drift is an entropic effect of a major catostrophic event is tenuous at best, in my opinion. I think that we would see some measurable slowdown in drift if that was the case. Entropic events of that sort are usually subject to the inverse square rule. After the initial "catastrophe" the slowdown accelerates toward zero. This just isn't the case with drift. We have a sustainable, measurable effect for over a century, which is a significant time period if you think the earth is only a few millennia old. Something I think that could be much more feasable is a sudden catostrophic release of water from the lithosphere, causing a subsequent "settling" of the crust of the earth - which would in turn cause raising and lowering of different parts of the crust. This also would fit a timeline of the flood and the earth being divided later (as in the time of Peleg). I don't think it's necessary for contental drift to be still prior to the flood. After all, what caused the mountains and hills of Noah's time?

Everyone in any scientific field develops a bias at some point in their life. Geologists take on a young or old planet opinion and then interperet the evidence through that lens.
I think this is a broad overgeneralization. I know men of faith who are also men of science. They take very seriously the scientist's role in observing data, and then interpreting it. Some of them struggle with the dichotomy in their personal belief systems. Others do not. I think most scientists, though, struggle to find "truth" and not to fit their science to an agenda. In fact, I find it's usually conservative religious groups who try to fit the science to an agenda. In either event, I think it's bogus and sad to try to do so. I think that God is not dependant upon what we choose to believe, and that science (pure science) merely tries to explain the processes by which Our Father works.

I personally believe that the Word of God is reliable and therefore I look at the evidence to see if it lines up with the biblical account.
I agree with this to a point. The Word is twofold in my opinion. And, to be honest, I feel strongly that this opinion is borne up by all of the evidence that we have available. I believe scripture is divided into a gospel, and a history. The history is as fallable as the men who wrote it. Consider the two versions of the death of Judas the Betrayer. They cannot both be correct. One is wrong. There is no rational dispute to this. The fallable parts are even more confusing and twisted by translation and the insertions and deletions of men who would gain power over others. If you look at the history of Christianity, you can't deny that men have used the Word to their own benefit and that scripture has been changed and promulgated to aid the unworthy and evil. But, this has nothing to do with the Gospel. When confronted with eternal salvation, who cares how Judas died? Do you see my point? I think that Jesus told us clearly how to discern the two. See John 14:26 and 7:16-17. The Bible is a mix of fallable history of man and a non-fallable Gospel of peace and love.

Either way the error is always on me, the student, but never God the creator.
And this is the essence of it all. I agree wholeheartedly, but don't be too quick to accept blindly the errors of men who came before. The Bible is full of them. We must turn to Him to see where it is right and where it is wrong.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest

I know this response has been a long time coming, and I am sorry for not MAKING the time.

I won't cut and paste item for item what you wrote but I will take two items that jumped out at me in which I feel merit some discussion. I can't say we agree on all of the MAJORS without you and I sitting down and having coffee, and maybe that will be possible some day.

1st. regarding the example you gave of the differing accounts of the death of Judas being irreconcilable. I disagree. Much like the differing accounts of what was written above Christ's head on the cross. Different accounts can easily be brought into agreement when we realize they do not contradict, but rather give further information (fleshing out) the topic so to speak.

It does not take mental gymnastics to see agreement either, if it did, I would be very hesitant to accept such an explanation. If we consider that the Gospel account of his death says that he hanged himself and the account in Acts says falling headlong he burst open and his bowels spilled out. Graphic as this may be we need not assume that either one is the "means" by which he died but rather a description of events as they happened. There are actually multiple possibilities that allow both accounts to line up. If Judas hanged himself and was left there because no one wanted to soil themselves by touching his corpse until after the feast, then he could have bloated. Then being cut down days later, burst open and the bowels spilled out of the semi-decompsed body. Did he hang himself, botch it, fall, and split open on rocks below? who knows. The nature of his death means little to me compared to the fact that God's word is inerrant in the telling of what actually happened.

regarding the verses that you recommended.

#1

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This was said by Jesus in private to the Disciples, who would later be responsible for writing down the Gospel accounts. I think if anything, this verse solidifies my faith in the inerrancy of what the apostles wrote.

#2

Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.

This is Jesus speaking publically to all who would hear, confirming that we could trust all he said. If we do the will of the Father we will have discernment to realize that all he said can be trusted through the test of application.

Up to this point I have never found an irrefutable conflict in the Word. The Gospels do not contradict and once again I will offer to you in the most loving way I can. "If there is a supposed contradiction that you wish to discuss we will take it one at a time and with prayer and humility find that God's word is trustworthy every time."

Lastly, don't let everything that has happened in history by religious groups be lumped under the title "Christian". There have been horrible atrocities commited in the name of God, but by their very works these people have proven themselves not to be "Christian" in the least.

God Bless,

Peace.

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest
Lastly, don't let everything that has happened in history by religious groups be lumped under the title "Christian". There have been horrible atrocities commited in the name of God, but by their very works these people have proven themselves not to be "Christian" in the least.

I agree wholeheartedly. I further expand this to individual acts by "christians." Isaiah 29:13 applies to many "christians" as I see matters today.

1st. regarding the example you gave of the differing accounts of the death of Judas being irreconcilable. I disagree.

I respect your reading but I don't see it as supportable. If the apostoles are going to give details concerning his death and he did indeed get hung and then fell and exploded on the ground, why not say that? Further, there is a discrepancy in what happened to the 30 pieces of silver between Acts and Matt. He CANNOT have cast them away AND used them to buy a plot of land unless you again add your own part to the story that he cast them away and then went back to get them - something else not supportable and easily said by both recorders if that was the case. This seems obvious to me that different men wrote different accounts of the same story. I don't see this as harmful to the Gospel message. Rather I see it as a strength that as far as the Gospel goes, different and independant accounts confirm the same story. I think that small discrepencies are natural when four men are writing about the same events at four different periods in time.

There are other examples of this. How many times did the **** crow in Peter's denial of Christ? What were Jesus' last words just before he died? Does myrrh turn wine into vinegar (if so then why are there references to myrrh-wine being "good wine" in ancient texts [url:d3d54]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Dorsennus ? If not then what did they give Jesus to drink?

I don't think that a believer needs to make all these inconsistencies "fit" to be able to believe. As I said before, I think that there are flaws in the history of the Bible, though the fault of man and not God.

As another point,

This was said by Jesus in private to the Disciples
Do you believe that the guidance and education of the Holy Spirit is only for the Apostles? My interpretation of the two scriptures that I quoted were that anybody who wants to know Truth can look for the peace of the Spirit as a confirming witness as to the truth of not only the Gospel, but anything in life. I know that has been my own experience and that I am not an Apostle.

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest
If the apostoles are going to give details concerning his death and he did indeed get hung and then fell and exploded on the ground, why not say that? Further, there is a discrepancy in what happened to the 30 pieces of silver between Acts and Matt. He CANNOT have cast them away AND used them to buy a plot of land unless you again add your own part to the story that he cast them away and then went back to get them - something else not supportable and easily said by both recorders if that was the case.

I dont know why, likely reason... One had first hand knowledge of the hanging. The other had first had or common knowledge of the gruesome entrail episode and each recorded exactly what they could verify first hand? either way it does not reflect a conflict of truth. I'm just saying that BOTH can be true without negating the other account.

As far as the Purchase of the field, it is clear what Judas did with the money, and it is clear that he did not personally make the purchase of the field. The religious leaders made the purchase because they could not return the coinage to the treasury; it was blood money. According to their culture they most likely purchased the field in the name of Judas because if they did not it would mean they had accepted the coin. Thus Judas bought the field but not first hand. Again there is no contradiction here, just a deeper understanding of the history if one takes the time to study it and allow the richness of the story to unfold. It's not called the "living word" for nothing.

regarding your laundry list of contradictions, I will gladly discuss or debate anything related to the Word, one thing at a time. Again I will ask nicely, one thing at a time, were not trying to discredit a witness on the stand by throwing a list of discrepancies at them to sway a jury. This is not a trial, its a discussion.

I have said repeatedly that I respect you, and your level of education. That has not changed.

Originally we started with "Was there enough room in the Ark?"

We debated the justification of using a standard or Egyptian cubit.

We have run all over about geology and other scientific fields.

We are now discussing whether or not the Scriptures are reliable in the telling of the story.

You have stated plainly that you doubt the historocity of the word but believe the Gospel.

I have stated plainly that I trust the historocity of the Word and I believe the Gospel.

My greatest hope in this discussion in a nutshell is this.

That people who read our discussion will develop a thirst to go and see for themselves what the Bible says and not put their faith in a couple yuks like us.

Lastly, I totally believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and his guidance of believers. To trust my feelings without the Word as an exacting measure though is a slippery slope indeed. If my feelings ever disagree with the scriptures then I too could be deceived except that I rely on the infallibility of the Word to align my beliefs to. Many cults have been formed by saying that this or that prophet had the word that was above the scriptures. Often it is said that certain texts are more reliable than the scriptures and there is where you will find legitimate contradictions. Let us always take care to follow the call of the Bereans and search the scriptures to see if what a man says is true. I am fallible, don't trust me. GOD is not, put your trust in Him.

Love and Peace,

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest
were not trying to discredit a witness on the stand by throwing a list of discrepancies at them to sway a jury

Such wasn't my intent. I think that the infallability of the historical aspect of the bible bears on the original subject and that is why we were on that track. I merely gave those examples to illustrate that a person could reasonably see discrepancy in the bible. Part of the problem with the bible is that when these discrepancies occur and a person dogmatically clings to the assumption that the entirity of the bible is infallable, then the bible gets misinterpreted to make sense where none actually exists. No offense intended at all, but I think this is how you read the Judas story. I don't think there's anything within the context and text of the bible to assume that both stories are the same story. In fact, I see just the opposite. Similarly, there could be contextual or translative mistakes in the Noah story that would account for the "cubit" problem as I see it. You suggest that the "waters prevailing upward 15 cubits" means something different than what I read and you use your own interpolation to make it make sense with your paradigm. I think we should test that in the spirit of the original conversation. I think that the proposition that the bible is absolutely infallable as a history bears on the discussion. The only way to test it is to point to passages I see as fallable, and test your theory of cohesiveness and infallability.

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest

1st. no offense taken, your opinion is always heard and respected.

2nd. I will try to state as best I can where you wanted to go next from your last statement.

I think that the proposition that the bible is absolutely infallable as a history bears on the discussion. The only way to test it is to point to passages I see as fallable, and test your theory of cohesiveness and infallability.

I think you are saying we will take one conflict, as you see it, and measure it against a logical set of rules or tests.

If this is the case I will say this.

con·tra·dic·tion

Pronunciation: ?kän-tr?-?dik-sh?n

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1: act or an instance of contradicting

2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other

3 a: logical incongruity b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

A contradiction would prove fallability in the text. I know that anything but the most blatant contradictions are hard to prove or even define. But disproving a contradiction is rather simple. Can both statements or truisms coexist without cancelling each other out. If this is the track you wish to continue on then I am game.

Again, I am not a theologian or professionally trained in any form of apologetics. I will not even claim in the least bit capable of the discussion we have enjoyed thus far. I am confident however that the Bible does not contradict itself, and that is why I can face Giants with nothing but a strip of leather and a rock. The real trick is to make sure you run toward them in the name of GOD, not self.

I also understand that you have made many references to misunderstanding and misreading of a mistranslation. What translation are you suggesting we use, because that in itself can stymie our entire discussion for quite some time and even cause us to enter a new thread leaving this one until it is resolved. I personally use NKJV KJV for most of my studies and will occasionally reference other versions like the NASB through [url:6e4a0]http://www.blueletterbible.org since I don't personally read greek hebrew or aramaic.

Peace

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest

I use the KJV but I recognize that any modern interpretation will be different from original Hebrew and Aramaic. Since I am fluent in neither I do the best I can.

But disproving a contradiction is rather simple. Can both statements or truisms coexist without cancelling each other out.
This is close to where I am going, but more to the point, I merely point out that the Bible shows "gaps" or "holes" or "contradictions" if contained to the four corners of the text. Any attempt by anyone to rectify them begs that person's own opinions as to the "true" meaning of the bible. My point is that the history of the bible is where these "gaps" turn up. As to the cohesiveness of a doctrinal "gospel" I don't see any similar "gaps." That is kind of where I am going with my whole train of thought. The "history" is fallable, the "doctrine" is not.

A major way I learn is to stick to my own well thought out assumptions until I can be shown the fallicy of my beliefs. That's why I sometimes throw things out there for you to respond to. I see them as potential in roads into the weaknesses in my ideas and invite you to crack them open or seal them shut for me.

I am not a theologian or professionally trained in any form of apologetics.
Nor am I. I use only my own readings and experience to frame my belief structure. My readings have included the KJV and the NKJV with annotations, the Koran, the Teachings of Buddha, the Book of Mormon, the Apocrypha, translations of the dead sea scrolls, and a translation of the Talmud. Also, I have studied some eastern philosophy - Taoism and a little Confucionism. That's pretty much the sum of where I am coming from. In all that, I believe Christ is who he was proclaimed to be, and I believe that the entire bible spoke of Christ and his mission of salvation. I also don't believe that the Bible is 100% infallable - as I explained above.

Let's see where we can go.

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest

This is a SPECIAL Christmas present for Hipowertech and Writersblock.

Three quotes and a humble recommendation.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

-Einstein-

There are two ways of proving the truths of our religion; one by the power of reason, the other by the authority of him who speaks.

We do not make use of the latter, but of the former. "We do not say, 'This must be believed, for Scripture, which says it, is divine.' But we say that it must be believed for such and such a reason, which are feeble arguments, as reason may be bent to everything." ----

"We understand nothing of the works of God, if we do not take as a principle that He has willed to blind some and enlighten others."

-Blaise Pascal -

PENSEES Section VIII THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION #361 & #363 CIR. 1670

"The Only thing we learn from history is we never learn"

-Agama-

Take a quiet break and know the joy of "studying" the GREAT minds.

In Christ's love.

Agama

##### Share on other sites
• 0
Guest

Thank You Agama,

May the reason for this season not be lost on any of us, especially me and my house.

I will not be posting for a while while I reflect on the love GOD had for me in sending his son to die for my innumerable sins.

May GOD bless all those who visit these forums with the truth that is His alone.

Peace,

HPT

## Create an account

Register a new account