Kamizu wrote: On Noah's Ark, I remember hearing there were exact specifications written in the Bible. Why would it be that specific if there wasn't an Ark? (I'm not arguing your point on the fact it is myth, but really am curious)
I'm a little strange, in that I think the entirety of the Bible is meant to be taken three ways simultaneously:
- Literally
- Figuratively
- Mythically/Poetically
This "literal" interpretation in the original post, for me, falls under the 3rd point (I finally read the article. I'm a bit slow today. lol). In the same way, the common euhemeristic theory of Noah's Ark (that the "global flood" was really just a massive overflowing of the Tigris and Euphrates, flooding much of the area, accounting for a similar tale in other cultures nearby at the time) is an example of the third point: a story written in a poetic way, interpreted mythically, to explain a real occurrence.
That said, if you take the first method--a literal perspective--of the story, you get all these neat measurements. Those measurements yield pretty amazing proportions for a watercraft, something that's been tested a few times and found to be relatively seaworthy (at least, according to various tests I seem to have a hard time locating video evidence of at the moment).
*shrug* believe what you want. It's a book full of words. It's allegory and poetry, figures of power and figures of speech. This place ultimately started from a 1977 special-effects masterpiece, so it's all in the eye of the beholder.
