Mountain of Landing for the Ark of Noah

Cudi.gif

by

Damien F. Mackey

To search for traces of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat in Turkey,

as do hopeful Arkeologists, is a non-biblically-based exercise in futility.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

According to what I wrote in my Introductory Section to

 

Just How ‘Global’ Was The Great Flood? (Genesis 6-9). Part One.

 

https://www.academia.edu/8106040/Just_How_Global_Was_The_Great_Flood_Genesis_6-9_._Part_One

 

well-intentioned ark-eology can in fact be a misleading waste of time:

 

For a long time my view of Noah’s Flood was shaped by books like The Genesis Flood, that classic by Whitcomb and Morris, and other like-minded writings on the subject. When the full implications of these writings hit me – of our terrestrial globe being entirely overflown by water, with a massive boat astride it all keeping safe the last eight humans, plus pairs of every known species of animal – I was like a man in a daze: overwhelmed. What an incredible image! Nothing in human experience seemed comparable to it. Later also I became intensely interested in the search for Noah’s Ark, and was quite convinced that a boat-shaped object that had been found on so-called ‘Mount Ararat’, or Agri Dagh (Ağri Daği) in (south) eastern Turkey, was indeed Noah’s Ark. In those days I was often in touch with one of the key Ark-eologists (as they have been called), Dr. Allen Roberts, who was then making news with his visits to the Agri Dagh site and his colourful adventures there (allegedly being taken captive by bandits on one occasion). Dr. Roberts and I customarily exchanged phone calls and also articles. I even used to tell enthusiastic school children in a Scripture class that I was taking in a Sydney (Australia) suburb that Noah’s Ark had now been discovered on Mount Ararat; and we hopefully imagined that one day we might hire a helicopter and go visit the site.

 

At this particular time I probably entirely fitted the image of the Ark tragic whom Professor Ian Plimer has described in his book, Telling Lies for God. Reason vs Creationism (Random House, Australia, 1997), chapter 4, “The great flood of absurdities”. I give firstly Plimer’s provocative description of an Ark-eologist – bearing in mind that he has a certain extreme type of Flood/Ark seeker in mind – followed by that of the latter’s naïve disciple [p. 97]:

 

To be an ark-eologist is not easy because one has to abandon logic, abandon history, forget geography, abandon interpretation of the Bible, abandon knowledge, abandon modern science and have a blind unreasoning faith that a mythical stupendous maritime wooden vessel sits atop a mountain in eastern Turkey.

 

Plimer continues [pp. 97-98]:

 

One can only admire those, who against all odds, go looking for wooden boats on mountain tops. There are those, notwithstanding, who sit at home waiting patiently for their favourite ark-eologist to return with tales of horrors, dangers, divine guidance and supreme success from yet another unsuccessful expedition to eastern Turkey. These devotees already know that Noah’s ark rests on Mt Ararat, have been reassured by the unconvincing ‘evidence’ and acquiesce to supplementary purse-opening ark-eology ceremonies.

 

Yes, I could once identify with most of this.

 

But, over time, ever so slowly, I came to question: (a) this ‘global’ scenario for the Flood, and (b) the so-called Ark on the mountain – and, more recently (c) “Mount Ararat” as being the actual mountain of the Ark’s landing, or even of its ever having been submerged beneath the Flood (for more on this last, see IV. (c)) – since various lines of research I was pursuing, and methodologies, generally biblical, seemed to be conspiring against the possibility of such a scenario and were indeed pointing in the direction of a different model –indeed a far less vast one.

 

The Ongoing Genesis Flood Debate

 

The Testimony of King Ashurbanipal

 

The Flood Tablet of Mesopotamia

 

http://genesisflood.blog.com/2010/06/10/king-ashurbanipal-and-the-flood/

King Ashurbanipal was not only a hunter, but also a warrior who conquered Egypt. He took great pride in being able to read and write, at a time when usually only scribes mastered the intricacies of cuneiform writing. He also amassed a huge library of tablets such as this one, which his agents collected throughout the country, especially in Babylonia.

The Flood Tablet depicts the Babylonian version of a flood story, which is somewhat related to the story of Noah’s flood as recounted in the biblical book of Genesis. When the King’s palace was burnt down at the time of the fall of the empire in 612 BC, the library crashed into the room below, and this tablet was broken and burnt. However, whereas a parchment or paper archive would have been destroyed, the baked clay tablets survived and are now in the British Museum.

Ashurbanipal claimed:

 

“I have been initiated into the secrets of writing.

I can even read the … carvings from the days before the flood.” …

 

This statement by the highly cultured and antiquarian king Ashurbanipal suggests that the Mesopotamians were aware of the Flood, as opposed to the various minor floods that would occur from time to time in that region, and that also there were extant in Ashurbanipal’s time pre-Flood writings.

 

Now, generally, global floodists believe that the Genesis Flood wiped out all previous traces of civilisation. And this appears to be the case with U.S. Creationist, Bob Sungenis.

 

Along similar lines, Fr. Brian Harrison has written to Hugh Owen who is the Founder and Director of The Kolbe Center For The Study Of Creation (and forwarded on to me):

Thanks, Hugh.

As you know, I agree with you rather than Damien on this issue.

Like you I have very little time available to devote to this issue, but I did want to make the point that, as I noted to Bob Sungenis a while back, whether or not the beds of the pre-Flood Tigris, Euphrates, etc. may somehow have survived identifiably under all the sediment, the believer in a global Flood is in any case under no burden of proof to demonstrate the physical/geographical identity or proximity of the pre- and post-Flood rivers bearing those names.

It is entirely possible that after the Flood, supposing all trace of those original rivers had been obliterated, Noah and/or his sons and descendents could have given the familiar old names to new rivers.

This is a natural human tendency for those colonizing a ‘new world’ with nostalgia for the ‘old world’ of their origins. All over the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand there are countless place names copied straight from those in Britain thousands of miles away. (I grew up in a town, Armidale, that was named after a big landed estate in Scotland. And it’s in a region called “New England” in the NE of the State of New South Wales!)….

[End of quote]

Of course it is perfectly true – as Father says – that old world colonisers, such as the British, frequently replicated names such as the Armidale (N.E.) case in Australia. But, as I [Damien] once proposed to Bob Sungenis (who has espoused this replication argument), this is not what the post-diluvians had intended in the case of the four rivers. Moses, having led the Middle Bronze I Israelites out of 12th dynasty Egypt right to the edge of the Promised Land, had added some editorial notes to the ancient documents of his forefathers (the toledôt) for the sake of his people who would shortly occupy this land. Moses himself well knew the region, as he had already spent 40 years with the Midianites in the southern Paran desert. And he had, prior to that, led Egyptian armies into the Sinai and southern Palestinian regions. That part of the Exodus story, Moses’ sojourn in Midian, was picked up in the famous Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe which professor Emmanuel Anati has rightly noted “shares a common matrix” with the Exodus account, though it also differs from it in some very important details.

So Moses, whilst respectfully preserving the original Abrahamic history, for instance, in which the “Valley of Siddim” is mentioned – it being the location for the wicked Pentapolitan cities (Sodom, Gomorrah, etc.) – adds‘in brackets’ “(which is the Salt Sea)”. Genesis 14:

Bela (which is Zoar) verses 2 and 8.

Valley of Siddim (which is the Salt Sea) verse 3.

En-mishpat (which is Kadesh) verse 7.

Hobah (which is on the left hand of Damascus) verse 15.

Valley of Shaveh (which is the King’s Dale) verse 17.

For, since the original account had been written at about the time of Abraham, a dire catastrophe had rent the peaceful and prosperous Valley of Siddim, which had sunk beneath fire and brimstone, its place having been taken by the eerie Dead Sea, or Salt Sea.

{Russian researchers have hopes of making a sub voyage beneath the Dead Sea, on its Jordanian side (politics are typically involved here), where they say that satellite imagery has revealed the sunken cities}.

Perhaps Moses did not want his people blundering into the Dead Sea when expecting, from those ancient Abrahamic records, to find there instead a fertile valley.

Now, the same word that I have translated as “which [that] is” [the Salt Sea], Hebrew hu, is the word used by Moses to connect the ancient Genesis rivers to places named after the Flood, such as the river Tigris connected to “Ashur”,and the river Gihon to “Cush” (which Bob has previously agreed must refer to Ethiopia). But Bob had also astounded me in the past by his claiming that I believed “that the rivers of Paradise mentioned in Genesis 2 didn’t exist in Paradise, since the Flood would have taken any trace of them away, and Moses wouldn’t have know[n] about them”. Robert had said the very opposite of what I actually hold on the subject, since I have written:

But there are other biblical-minded writers who, as I noted in “The Location of Paradise”, consider that Genesis 2 does indeed preserve a definite geographico-hydrological link between the pre- and post- Flood worlds. We saw that the four rivers referred to in the antediluvian Adamic toledôt are actually named by the postdiluvian Moses as real rivers, running alongside (or around) real geographical locations. Moreover, Moses uses the very same 3rd person masculine singular Hebrew pronoun hu (comprising the Hebrew letters, he waw aleph), meaning ‘he’ or ‘himself’ (itself), in every one of the four cases, thereby directly connecting Adam’s four rivers with four known rivers of Moses’ time. Now, this hu is again the exact same Hebrew pronoun that editor Moses would use in his geographical modification of Abra[ha]m’s history, where, in that famous case of Genesis 14:3 he advises his people that the site that was in Abram’s day “the Valley of Siddim” had now become the Dead Sea. Thus Moses: “Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea)”; the Heb. pronoun hu here being translated quite appropriately into English as, “that is”. But even though the Bible seems to be interpreting itself for us here, I have found that ‘Creationists’, whilst willingly accepting the view that Moses was, in the case of Genesis 14:3, pointing to the very same geographical region that was intended in the Abra[ha]mic history (though now with considerable topographical alteration), will strenuously deny any geographical connection whatsoever in Genesis 2 between the pre-Flood hydrography and that later connected there by editor Moses with the pronoun hu.

[End of quote]

I explained this as well as follows in my Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis:

Moses’s Additions to Adam’s history

Apart from the toledôt, and catch-lines, Moses also apparently added to this revered history of his primeval ancestor Adam the first of his geographical explanations. These typical Mosaïc parentheses – added for the sake of his people emigrant from Egypt [the Middle Bronze I nomads of archaeology], coming into unfamiliar eastern territory – will be especially noticeable in Genesis 14, the story of Abraham (owned or written by Ishmael). To the most primitive statement (Genesis 2:10): “A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches”, Moses will add 4 verses of geographical detail. [Professor A.] Yahuda saw clearly, as have others, that this was a scribal addition to the original document (though he included verse 10):

“The whole passage 2:10-14 though belonging to the story itself has so far the character of a gloss in that it does not refer to Paradise itself, but to the relation of the four rivers to this one river of Paradise. Indeed, many critics have already a clear inkling that by this passage the flow of the narrative is interrupted and that accordingly it must have been inserted here from another version [sic] of the Paradise story; but in spite of all this it is connected by them with Paradise itself and they assume that the four rivers belong to Paradise”. ….

[End of quote]

So, from what editor Moses is telling us here we can assess that this is not a case of nostalgic replication of old Adamic world rivers in different new world Abrahamic or Mosaïc regions. The replication argument falls down in this case on the strength of biblical consistency. Hence it is not a waste of time trying to identify the Paradise scenario in a modern landscape.

And even some global floodists are now starting to bend to this viewpoint, including a mainstream Creationist magazine, Creation Research Science Quarterly. See

http://genesisflood-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/creationists-now-espousing-link-between.html

Creationists Now Espousing Link Between Pre and Post Flood Worlds

Australian anti-evolutionist Wal Johnson (RIP) had, I think naïvely, pioneered the parallel scenario of a global flood and an accessible antediluvian archaeology in Mesopotamia.

The Ark

Creationists (Ark-eologists) devote much time, money, thought and promotional energy to presumed Ark sightings on Mount Ararat (Agri Dagh). And I myself used to be fascinated by that very boat-like structure located there seemingly complete with (http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah’s_ark.htm) “petrified wood, as proven by lab analysis … high-tech metal alloy fittings …. Aluminium metal and titanium metal ….Vertical rib timbers on its sides, comprising the skeletal superstructure of a boat. Regular patterns of horizontal and vertical deck support beams are also seen on the deck”.

Indeed, if one peers hard enough, one might even discern oars and life-jackets.

The reason that geologists are at war with Creationists is because they know that this boat-shaped feature is a rock: variously, a geosyncline or autochthonous block. So, if we want to avoid being labelled autochthonous blockheads, we would do well to check the Bible once again – as in the case of Moses’s directional signposts listed above – and there find out where Noah’s Ark really landed. It landed, not on a mountain, but on “the mountains of Ararat”; “Ararat” being the land of Urartu (var. Aratta), well known to king Ashurbanipal since Urartu’s king, Sarduri, had sent greetings and gifts (read tribute) to the Assyrian King.

And “the mountains” belong to the land of Urartu’s Zagros range.

The best traditions have the Ark arriving at Mount Judi (Çudi) Dagh in the Zagros, north of Mosul (near Nineveh), in Kurdistan. It was from there that Ashurbanipal’s grandfather, king Sennacherib, used to collect the bituminous wood of the Ark. From David Rohl’s excellent explanation of the true place of the Ark’s landing, we should not expect to find anymore a whole Noah’s Ark (http://davidrohl.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/mountain-of-ark.html):

… what would be the real clincher to prove, beyond doubt, that Noah’s Flood was a genuine historical event? Of course, the discovery of Noah’s Ark, what else?

and he then goes on to explain:

You may think that this is a bit of a joke, but people have been searching for Noah’s Ark for decades and have been coming up with all kinds of extraordinary claims, some of which have made headline news or had TV documentaries lavished upon them. Virtually all these ‘discoveries’ have been focused on or around Mount Ararat in north-eastern Turkey. The problem here is that Mount Ararat was not the original traditional landing site of the Ark. It was only in the 13th century AD, when Vincent de Beauvais, Friar William of Rubruck, Odoric and Marco Polo came this way, that Mount Ararat superseded a much older and widely recognised location for the Place of Descent.

The first thing to note is that the Biblical text itself does not identify Mount Ararat as Noah’s mountain. What Genesis 8:4 actually says is that ‘the Ark came to rest on the mountains (plural) of Ararat’ – in other words somewhere in the mountainous terrain of the land of Ararat. Biblical Ararat is recognised as being identical with the region that the 1st millennium BC Assyrians called Urartu – a land which covered much of the central section of the Zagros range. According to Genesis, therefore, the Ark must be searched for in modern Kurdistan, not hundreds of miles to the north on the volcanic peak we know today as Ararat in Armenia. Ararat is a late Christian name for the mountain; its local name is Agri Dagh. What is more, Jewish Talmudic writings of the 6th century AD consistently interpret the Biblical Ararat to mean Kurdistan and not Armenia [Targums of Genesis 8:4, Isaiah 37-38 and Jeremiah].

So, where does everybody else, other than post-13th-century Christianity, locate the Place of Descent?

The Koran (8th century AD) calls Noah’s landing site Gebel Judi (‘Mountain of the Heights’) and the 10th-century Muslim writer, Ibn Haukal, observes that ‘Judi is a mountain near Nisibis. It is said that the ark of Noah (peace be upon him) rested on the summit of this mountain’. Nisibis is modern Nesibin or Nusaybin, one hundred miles north-west of Mosul on the southern edge of the Zagros foothills.

The early Nestorian Christians (followers of Nestorius, 4th-century patriarch of Constantinople) knew this to be the true landing place of the Ark.

The pilgrim saint, Jacob of Nisibis (also 4th century) – note the link with the town claimed to be near Gebel Judi by Ibn Haukal – was the first Christian to look for the mountain of the Ark. His search concentrated in the ‘district of Gartouk’ which scholars recognise as a late spelling of classical Carduchi which, in turn, derives from Kardu – the ancient name of Kurdistan.

But we can narrow down our search even further. Hippolytus (AD 155-236) informs us that the landing site of the Ark was located in ‘those mountains called Ararat which are situated in the country of the Adiabeni’. The Greek and Latin sources place Adiabene in the mountains to the north of Mosul where the Hadhabeni tribe still live today.

One hundred miles due north of Mosul, just across the Iraqi border into Turkey and ninety miles to the east of Nesibin, the 7,000-feet peak of Judi Dagh (‘Judi Mountain’) rises from the Mesopotamian plain. This surely has to be the landing site of Noah’s Ark referred to in all the early, Jewish, Christian and Islamic sources.

Judi Dagh is a place of real mystery and fascination for someone like me. Around this holy mountain there are devil-worshipping cults, giant rock-cut reliefs of Assyrian kings, and, near the summit itself, the ruins of a Nestorian monastery called the ‘Cloister of the Ark’. Needless to say, I am keen to mount an expedition to investigate but, unfortunately, that isn’t possible at the moment. Not only is Judi Dagh on the northern edge of the Kurdish autonomous zone of Iraq (currently a no-go area for British and American nationals) but it is also smack in the middle of the area being fought over by three different Kurdish military factions.

….

In the 1920s the Reverend William A. Wigram and his son Edgar spent some time exploring the region around Mosul. In their book, The Cradle of Mankind, they record ascending the ridge beneath the summit of Judi Dagh on the 14th of September to witness a gathering of Muslims (both Sunnis and Shias), Sabaeans, Jews and the Satan-worshipping Yezidis for a great annual religious festival. The English explorers watch each group of pilgrims deliver a sheep for sacrifice as ‘the smoke of a hundred offerings goes up once more on the ancient altar’ where the Kurds believe Noah made sacrifice to God for his deliverance from the Flood.

The Babylonian chronographer, Berossus (3rd century BC), tells us that in his day Kurdish mountain-folk ‘scraping off pieces of bitumen from the ship (i.e. the Ark), bring them back and wear them as talismans’. The practice of local women wearing bitumen talismans was still observed as recently as the beginning of this century according to European travellers’ reports. Bitumen is the oil-based ‘pitch’ with which the Ark was sealed against the seepage of the flood-waters [Genesis 6:14].

The mystery here is that the nearest source of bitumen lies hundreds of miles south of Judi Dagh in the swamps of the Iraqi lowlands. So by what mechanism did quantities of the black tar reach a mountain ridge on Judi Dagh? – unless, that is, it was a genuine survival from the wreck of Noah’s floating refuge.

Finally, we have the ancient Jewish legends surrounding the powerful Assyrian ruler, Sennacherib (705-681 BC), who, during his military campaigns against the Kurds, ‘found a plank, which he worshipped as an idol, because it was part of the Ark that had saved Noah from the Deluge’. If this tale has some historical truth to it, then knowing the approximate find spot of Sennacherib’s sacred relic would be very useful. It is interesting, therefore, to note that giant figures of King Sennacherib were discovered in 1904, carved into the cliffs at the foot of one particular Kurdish mountain. Yes, you’ve guessed it – Judi Dagh. Aren’t you just itching to get out there? …. [End of article]

Writers such as Michael Hawley and Tim Martin are very unimpressed by what they consider to be hypocrisy in the former Answers In Genesis and in the very origins of Creationist work, with Morris and Whitcomb. See e.g. “Henry Morris’ Deception” (http://www.searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight.com/Henry_Morris__Deception.html)

And see also on this same controversy:

Answers in Genesis’ integrity seems to be missing

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_integrity_slipping.htm

We recall that sometimes Creationists can go over the top in pushing their case, just as atheists are wont to do as well, prompting professor Ian Plimer to write a book, Telling Lies for God (Random House, 1994), that curiously presents, I believe, a more reasonable model for the Flood and the Ark than do the global floodists. Bob Sungenis thinks, on the one hand, that the ancient Adamic rivers could have maintained their basic shape beneath global Flood waters, though he wants to have a ‘two bob each way’ bet when arguing the replication case. But what about the rivers keeping their shape under a supposed six miles of sediment? Moreover, Bob is not sure that the Noachic Flood even produced ‘turbulence’. That seems strange.

Professors Carol Hill and Ian Plimer seem to me to be far more realistic about this.

Here is Hill, firstly, explaining global floodists’ own scenario:

…. To explain this universal flood, flood geologists usually invoke the canopy theory, which hypothesizes that water was held in an immense atmospheric canopy and subterranean deep between the time of Creation and Noah’s Flood. Then, at the time of the Flood, both of these water sources were suddenly released in a deluge of gigantic, Earth-covering proportions. Along with this catastrophic hydrologic activity, there was a major geologic change in the crust of the Earth: modern mountain ranges rose, sea bottoms split open, and continents drifted apart and canyons were cut with amazing speed. ….

Next Ian Plimer (from our ‘Genesis Flood’, emphasis added): “…. Did Noah really have the mathematical skills to solve the differential equations necessary to understand the bending moment, torque and shear stress associated with the roll, pitch, yaw and slamming expected in the turbulent globe-encompassing flood?”

And, if the Flood were ‘global’, Plimer writes (Telling Lies For God, p. 75), then:

…. every oil well, every coal mine, every drill hole in sedimentary rocks and every cliff profile would show a gradation from basal conglomerate to sand to uppermost siltstones, mudstones and claystones. … [but they don’t, Plimer maintains] – in the record of rocks, we see evidence that some sedimentary rocks (and fossils therein) are formed in freshwater environments whereas other sedimentary rocks are formed in saline marine water. This presents a slight insuperable problem as the fictitious flood fluids were either fresh or saline but unquestionably could not be both.….

A global Flood would of necessity mix disastrously, everywhere, sea and fresh waters.

Global Floodists apply the same sort of totality that they have read into the ancient account for the extent of the Flood to the extent of the animals taken on board the Ark, giving ‘maximum value’, as is their wont, to phrases like “every living thing”, “every kind”, and “every creeping thing on the ground” (Genesis 6:19,20). It is really quite painful and embarrassing to read, or view on TV, explanations by well-meaning ‘Creationists’ as to how every single species of living creature had to be fitted into the Ark. I have even seen proponents of this view on TV with a model of the Ark and toy dinosaurs having to be fitted inside, alongside lions, tigers, giraffes and kangaroos ….

This is Fundamentalism taken to the extreme. Sometimes Fundamentalists are not all that fundamental.

“Dogmatic fundamentalists do not reflect Catholic tradition,

and dogmatic evolutionists do not fairly represent science”.

James B. Stenson

Evolution: A Catholic Perspective.

….

Noah would have had to fit on the Ark only such animals as would have been needed for food, and later on for sacrifice, and for breeding and farming purposes: domestic animals, (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, etc.) the type that are named in other versions of the Flood.

Plimer of course has a field day with the ‘Creationist’ version of the Ark’s menagerie, and rightly so inasmuch as it is embarrassing, non-scientific nonsense. In his section, “The Freighter’s Cargo” (ibid., Ch.4, pp. 109-134), Plimer raises such points as:

How did Noah build a system to preserve Eucalyptus leaves for the Koala passengers from Australia, which was then undiscovered, and had an unknown flora and fauna?

Whales would have bloated with clay as they tried to strain for the odd krill which had not choked and sunk. The flood waters would have been so muddy that light could not have entered the top centimetre of water, hence aquatic animals would die.

Some organisms just don’t survive as a couplet. For example, bees, flies and other organisms live in swarms and without community activity they can neither function nor survive.

…the literal interpretation has no exceptions – not one species of bacteria to be omitted, no 80-tonne Ultrasauri, no Tyrannosaurus rex, no whales, no maritime organism. Nothing!

Some organisms only eat live food and, if it is not available, then they eat their partner (for example, praying mantis).

Many carnivores need to gnaw on bones to avoid dental diseases and many animals such as rodents need to gnaw to stop teeth overgrowth. Did the thousands of known rodents gnaw on the timbers structurally supporting the ark?

Another problem was clean potable water. A bucket could not really have been thrown overboard as it is felt that there would have been mass carnage if all organisms were fed on 1:1 saline water-mud mix.

Many animals are so sensitive that they do not survive in zoos, and yet they managed in this wildly lurching overcrowded ark for a year.

The magnitude of the feeding task is astronomical. If the crew of four males worked 24 hours a day for the 371 days at sea, then each animal would have received a total of six seconds of attention for the whole year.

It is a little difficult to calculate the volume of excreta generated by extinct animals, however even the most basic calculations shows that thousands of tonnes of urine and excreta were generated on a daily basis by those unwilling passengers. We must remember that the ark had a ventilation port of one square cubit. …

And then there are those manifold varieties of termites ….

But Plimer will also have much fun at the expense of the ‘Creationists’ in regard to the aftermath of the Flood (ibid., p. 91):

…the maiden voyage of Noah’s love boat was a dreadfully harrowing journey with no chance of survival for the passengers. It makes the maiden voyage of the Titanic look like a Sunday afternoon ferry trip in calm waters. This trip is recognized in the Yahwist’s version as traumatic because, once on dry lands, Noah planted vines (Genesis 9:21)! It appears that the ark trip was so harrowing than Noah reverted to periods of dreadful drunkenness and slept naked in his tent (Genesis 9:21)! This I can identify with. Under the circumstances, I think we can all forgive Noah for this minor peccadillo. Don’t ask me where he got the vines from after the ‘Great Flood’ which destroyed the world ….

A large dose of common sense is called for.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s