Showing posts with label Sennacherib rabbinical literature Noah’s ark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sennacherib rabbinical literature Noah’s ark. Show all posts

Sunday, September 22, 2013

How Long Did It Take for Noah to Build the Ark?

by Bodie Hodge

June 1, 2010

....

Some confuse God’s statement in Genesis 6:3 as describing the time it took Noah to build the Ark. It says:
Genesis 6:3
And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."
However, these 120 years are a countdown to the Flood.1 In other words, mankind’s violence had reached its peak and God declared that 120 years was the “drop dead” date for mankind who is a mortal being (Genesis 6:3-7 ). From a quick look, these 120 years would seem to be the absolute maximum for the time given to build the Ark, but the Scriptures reveal much more allowing us to be more accurate.
For example, Noah was 500 years old when Japheth, the first of his sons, was born (Genesis 5:32 ). And yet, Noah’s second son, Shem, had his first son two years after the Flood, when he was 100 ( Genesis 11:10).2 This means that Shem was 98 years old when the Flood came and it also means that Shem was born when Noah was 502 years old. So, for Noah to begin having children at 500 means that Japheth was indeed the older brother, as per Genesis 10:21, being born when Noah was 500. Ham is mentioned as the youngest of Noah (Genesis 9:24).
When God finally gave Noah instructions to build the Ark, it was not at the beginning of the 120 year countdown. God told Noah that he, his wife, and his three sons and their wives (Genesis 6:14–18)3 would go aboard the Ark at this same time.
Deducing that Shem was born 98 years before the Flood, it could be no more than this. But even more so, Ham hadn’t been born yet! If we were to assume the same time between Ham and Shem as between Japheth and Shem, then Ham could have been born around 96 years before the Flood.
Although the Bible is silent on the exact timing, it is reasonable to assume that some time elapsed for the three sons to grow up and find a wife. I would be most comfortable giving a range of anywhere from 20 to 40 years making Ham no less than 16 at his marriage.
So if we think about this logically and tabulate it:

Years until the FloodEventBible Reference
120Countdown to the Flood beginsGenesis 6:3
100Noah has Japheth, the first of his sons, when he was 500 years old.Genesis 5:32; 10:21
98Noah has Shem who was 100 two years after the Flood.Genesis 11:10
? Perhaps 95 or 96 the same time between Japheth and Shem.Ham was the youngest one born to Noah and was aboard the Ark so he was born prior to the Flood.Genesis 9:24; Genesis 7:13
? Perhaps 20-40 years for all of the sons to be raised and find a wifeEach son was old enough to be married before construction on the Ark begins.Genesis 6:18
~ 55-75 years (estimate)Noah was told to build the Ark, for he, his wife, his sons, and his sons’ wives would be aboard the Ark.Genesis 6:18
Ark Completed
?Gather food and put it aboard the Ark.Genesis 6:21
7 daysLoading the Ark.Genesis 7:1-4
0Noah was 600 when the floodwaters came on the earth.Genesis 7:6

We would end up with a tentative range of about 55 to 75 years for a reasonable maximum time to build the Ark. Of course, it could be less than this depending on the age that Noah’s sons took wives.
Consider that the Ark was completed prior to loading the animals that the Lord brought to Noah (Genesis 7:1-4) and that they had to take time to gather food and store it aboard the Ark (Genesis 6:21). So carefully considering the text, we can conclude that the construction of the Ark did not involve the 120 years mentioned in Genesis 6:3 but 75 years at the most.
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes

  1. Some have also described this as the longevity of mankind. For a number of generations after the Flood, people lived to be much older than this (e.g., Abraham lived to 180 years), so it is not referring to longevity. Back
  2. Shem is often listed first (e.g., Genesis 6:10, 7:13 ) due to importance much as Abraham is listed first; yet, Shem was not the oldest. From the lineage of Shem and Abraham came Christ. Back
  3. Youngest is used in ESV, NAS and other translations for the word qatan which means small, young or insignificant. Back
...

Taken from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/01/long-to-build-the-ark

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Review of the "Unsolved Mystery of Noah's Ark"


 
 
The Unsolved Mystery of Noah’s Ark. By Mary Irwin. Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2012, xv+117 pp., $11.95 paperback.

Mary Irwin, the wife of the late moon-walking astronaut, Jim Irwin, has written a book about their adventures on Mount Ararat and the search for Noah’s Ark. This book was prompted by a deceptive National Geographic special on Noah’s Ark in May 2009.
In the foreword, Bob Cornuke, another Ark hunter, laments that he has been searching for Noah’s Ark for 25 years and has never seen the old boat, and then asks: but has anyone ever seen the remains of Noah’s Ark? (page xi). We are pleased to report that over the millennia, literally thousands, upon thousands of people, including an Assyrian king, have made pilgrimages to Noah’s Ark and seen it, brought back wood from it as souvenirs or as objects of worship. We were surprised that Mary Irwin did not cite our definitive and compelling article on the true location for the landing of Noah’s Ark on Cudi Dagh in southeastern Turkey. It was published in the Fall 2006 issue of Bible and Spade (Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 99-113). (PDF download).
Early in the book Irwin writes about her first trip to the famed mountain, known by the Turks as Agri Dagh, with her husband in the early 80’s, an account that will bring back many memories to the various teams of climbers that had high hopes of finding Noah’s Ark. She then begins what is the best part of the book where she debunks several of the more notorious claims about the whereabouts of the Ark. Here she demonstrates evidence of pretty good detective work as far as she goes. Those making the remarkable claims which she exposes are: Ferdinand Navarra, George Green, George Hagopian, and Ron Wyatt. We commend her for her efforts to set the record straight.
In the Part two, she sets about to examine the off-probed story of the late Ed Davis from Albuquerque, NM. This is the story of a WWII soldier stationed in Hamadan, Iran, who claimed he had a close encounter, both with Noah’s Ark and the Garden of Eden. We wish that she had applied her skill evidenced earlier in the book to these sensational claims.
We agree with Mary Irwin’s assessment in the first half of the book (pages 1-49) that there are no credible sightings of Noah’s Ark on Agri Dagh, the traditional Mount Ararat. However, her case in the second half of the book for Mount Suleiman, northwest of Tehran, based on the Ed Davis testimony strains credulity. This idea was first espoused by Robert Cornuke, and is weak and unconvincing. First of all, the biblically designated mountains of Ararat do not extend anywhere near this mountain in Eastern Iran. It has no tradition whatsoever, and one must have quite the imagination to even consider that the claimed rock formation was once the mighty ship of Noah (here are the co-ordinates: 36 degrees, 24’14.18N; 50 degrees, 58’27.43E). Thorough refutations of Bob Cornuke’s ideas and articles have been published previously (A Review of "The Search for Noah's Ark") and (Did the BASE Institute Discover Noah's Ark in Iran?) Mr. Cornuke has never responded to these articles and Mary Irwin apparently did not interact with the material in our critiques, and thus repeated the errors pointed out in the articles.
In the book, Irwin contends that Ed Davis passed several lie detector tests (page 53) and one was “grueling” (page 54). The facts are not exactly as stated. Ed Davis, in one lie detector test of which we are aware, done on May 1, 1988 for Bob Cornuke and High Flight Foundation (Jim Irwin’s organization), by P. G. P. Polygraph, was asked six softball questions, and the final question was answered by Davis in the negative, but showed stress on the polygraph test. Apparently, he had talked with others, or read books, about the ark. The author should have been aware of the results of this polygraph test because her husband was still in charge of the High Flight Foundation and the letter should have been in her “Ararat” file. If other tests were administered, it sure would strengthen her case if these results would have been documented in the book.
Two old maps are presented in the book in an attempt to bolster the case for the landing site of the ark in Iran (pages 95 and 99). However, neither map supports the case for Mount Suleiman being the landing site of the ark.
The first map is found on page 95. It is labeled Ancient Map of the Middle East, by Jewish Historian Petras Plantius. This map is primitive, and in some cases highly inaccurate. A careful examination of the map will show that the mountains labeled Ararat mons are the Gordyan Mountains in southeastern Turkey and not Iran. Just below the Ararat mons are the cities of Nineve, Mosul, and Arbela, all cities in northern Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), and not Iran. The range of mountains to the right of Ararat mons, running in a north-south direction, is the Zagros Mountains, even though they are mislabeled Caspy (?) montes (Caspian Mountains). One can tell they are the Zagros Mountains by the location of Elam and Susa at the southern end of the mountain range. These locations are to the southeast of the Zagros Mountains. On this map, the Ararat Mons is in Turkey, not Iran. This map would be better used for the case of Cudi Dagh as the true landing site of Noah’s Ark!
The second map is found on page 99. It is identified in the book as a Terrestrial Paradise, circa 1722 showing Noah’s Ark below the Caspian Sea on the Summit of Mont Ararat. This map is Pierre Daniel Huet’s conception from Calmet’s Dictionnaire historique de la Bible (1722). With this map she is trying to demonstrate that the landing site for Noah’s Ark is below (or near) the Caspian Sea, just as Mount Suleiman, near Tehran, is near the Caspian Sea. This is very misleading. The map is not to scale and is an idealized map. Fortunately, one can locate where this mountain is by a careful examination of the map. Just below the mountain is a city named Ecbatana. The ancient city of Ecbatana is buried underneath the modern Iranian city of Hamadan.
Ecbatana is mentioned once in the Bible in Ezra 6:2 (see the margin of any good study Bible) as the capital of the province of Media. It is also possible that it was one of the “cities of the Medes to which Israelite captives were exiled by the Assyrians after the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6). Interestingly, the mapmaker places Mount Ararat in the Land of Media and not in Armenia. This should have raised red flags because this is contrary to our biblical compass. The ancient biblical and historical sources clearly show that Mt. Suleiman, north of Tehran, was deep inside the land of Media and far outside the land of Ararat / Urartu where the Ark landed.
The mapmaker was trying to convey that the Ark landed on a mountain near Ecbatana, but not, on Mount Suleiman some 250 km to the northeast of Hamadan. There are Luristan traditions that Noah’s Ark landed in the area of Hamadan. Major Rawlinson, a British Army officer, visited the area in 1836 and mentions the tradition of the landing on a very lofty range, (co-ordinates: 34 degrees, 02’02.39N; 47 degrees, 37’01.85E) called Sar Kasti on page 100 in his article in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 9 (1839) 26-116. It was to this mountain that Cornuke made his first solo trip and the first of three claims that the Ark came to rest inside Iran. See: Cornuke and Halbrook, The Lost Mountains of Noah: The Discovery of the Real Mtns of Ararat, (2001) pages 88-95.
We were both a little amused that she advocated the Karola Kautz’s theory that the Mount of Salvation (Mount Nisir) was the landing place of the Babylonian ark! Kautz advocates the Babylonian account of Mount Nisir which is what Irwin was upset about when she watched the National Geographic program on Noah’s Ark (pages 1 and 2)!!!!!
In Chapter Ten, Irwin borrows another argument from Cornuke she believes indicates that the ark landed in Eastern Iran. Genesis 11:1-2 says: And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there (KJV). The argument goes like this: If you translate the Hebrew miqqedem mdqm as: from the east, as the KJV does, it would clearly seem to indicate that the Ark must have landed somewhere to the east of historic Shinar (Mesopotamia), in modern-day Iran since it is that country that is directly east of Shinar. However, if you translate the miqqedem as eastward, as the NIV does, then you have the migration coming from the west toward Shinar. Elsewhere the miqqedem is translated in the east (NEB), that is: men moved in the east, then, the directional point is much more indefinite.
Given that this migration occurred several hundred years after the disembarking from the Ark from the previous context of Genesis chapter 10, it seems best not to push this passage too much. If one believes the Ark landed in northern Iran, or northeast Turkey, it would have certainly been more accurate for the writer to say they migrated from the north. Neither the Elburz Mountains, nor Mount Ararat is directly east of Shinar. The biblical mountains of Ararat (Urartu) are directly north of the plain of Shinar.
The apparent conflict between Genesis 8:4 and 11:2 is more easily resolved with a more indefinite interpretation in our opinion. It should be pointed out that that there is least a 100-300 year period between the landing of the Ark after the Flood (Gen. 8), and the Tower of Babel event (Gen. 11). The peoples could have easily moved from where the Ark landed to other locations east or west of Shinar [Babylonia] before the Tower of Babel incident took place.
Finally we would caution the author about advocating the Mount Sulieman discovery based on unpublished reports of petrified wood with marine fossils, etc (pages 105-109). From the book: "Until someone comes home from an expedition, with authentic photographs or a large chunk of the ark’s remains verified by authentic scientists who have looked at the samples through an electron microscope and have carbon dated the piece, I shall continue to be suspect of anymore ‘eye-witness’ accounts…" Cornuke’s team, who originally made these claims in 2006 has never produced any of the above for peer review. It’s been more than six years! If the answer is negative, those results should also be published, so people do not go around writing books and giving lectures that they found Noah’s Ark on Mount Suleiman, northwest of Tehran!
Errata:
Page 43. 1st line. Wyatt was not a psychiatric nurse, but rather a nurse anesthetist.
Page 43. 2nd to the last line. The tunnel was in the Garden Tomb area, not the Garden of Gethsemane
Page 69. 3rd line. Josephus is the 2nd half of the 1st century AD, not the beginning of the 4th century AD.
Page 74. The quote attributed to Ashur-nasipal was not made by him and not cited as a quote by Olmstead.
Page 78. The Harmonics footnote does not appear in the bibliography.
Page 113. The date for the Olmstead article is 1918, not 1998. The information cited is on page 231.
 
....
 

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Sennacherib and the Ark and Mountain of Noah


A surprising insight into the religious nature of Sennacherib comes from a Jewish tale about what happened on Sennacherib’s way back to Nineveh.  The Biblical account has only these sentences:

»So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.37 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.« (2 Kings 19:36-37)

Josephus adds: »[Sennacherib’s] own temple, called Araska« (8). The above-mentioned story comes to us through Rabbi Louis Ginzberg (1873-1953), and, presumably, originates from the Mishna tractate »Sanhedrin«.

»On his return to Assyria Sennacherib found a wooden plank, which he venerated like an idol, because it was a part of the Ark that saved Noah from the flood. He vowed that he would sacrifice his two sons if his next venture would be successful. But his sons listened to his vow. They killed their father and fled to Kardu.« (9)

This account, by the way, together with the name »Kardu« in lieu of the Biblical name »Ararat« demonstrates that Mt. Cudi in the south of today’s Turkey is to be preferred as the landing place of the Ark, over the mountain that today bears the name Ararat, since the latter is too far from the route from Jerusalem to Niniveh (10).
In  the scholarly literature the term »Nisroch« is connected with an eagle-headed creature, because the words sound similar in Arabic and Persian, and these winged beings play an important role in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh. »Nisroch« is also connected with Noah’s dove. This may be an attempt to bring the different interpretations into harmony (11).
The fact that the veneration of a sacred object was not unusual practice in those days is illustrated by Hesekiah who destroyed Moses’ staff:

»He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.« (2 Kings 18:4)

The situation with Sennacherib, Hesekiah’s contemporary, appears to be a similar case. In the end, this worship of a relic became his doom, since it caused his sons to conspire against him.
The credibility of this story gets support from Sennacherib’s fifth military campaign, which took him to the north.  In 697 BC, the Assyrian army marched to the presumed ark mountain Cudi, where several reliefs carved into the rock testify to Sennacherib’s presence.
As a result of his being stationed in the north during the reign of Sargon II, Sennacherib [AMAIC has Sargon and Sennacherib as same person] was very familiar with this region. This is his report:

»My fifth campaign took me to the warriors of Tumurru, Sharum, Ezama, Kibshu Halgidda, Kue and Kana, who wanted to throw off my yoke. Their living places were like eagles nests on the peak of Mt. Nippur a steep mountain. I set my camp at the foot of the mountain, and with my body guards and relentless warriors I stormed up to them like a wild ox. I crossed ravines, river rapids, waterfalls, and steep cliffs in my sedan. When the way became too steep I proceeded on foot. Like a young gazelle I climbed the highest peaks to pursue them.  Wherever my knees found a place of rest, I sat on a rock and drank cold water from a canteen. I followed them to the peaks of the mountains and vanquished them. I took their cities and looted them. I destroyed, burned with fire, and devastated them.« (12)

The fact that Mt. Nippur is equal to Mt. Cudi is clear from the inscriptions on the reliefs at the foot of the mountain. Leonard William King (1869 – 1919) documented and translated the inscriptions. They include the account quoted above and include a few additional lines that are preserved only in fragments: He ordered that a relief be carved at the mountain’s summit, in order to immortalize the power of his god Assur. Whoever would destroy it will feel the wrath of Assur and the great gods.
The number of reliefs at the base of Mt. Cudi leads to the conclusion that this mountain had a special significance to the king.  Although this campaign appears to have occurred some time after his return from Jerusalem, the acquisition of the relic may have influenced him to take possession of this place.
The cuneiform tablet library of Sennacherib’s successor Assurbanipal (669-627 BC) included a version of the famous Gilgamesh Epic. It gives an account of a king, later deified, who wanted to make a pilgrimage to the Babylonian Noah – Utnapishtim – in order to discover the secret of immortality.
If parts of the ark remained on on Mt. Cudi at that time – and there are several indications suggesting this – then this place, a mere 130 kilometers from Nineveh, must have had great religious significance.
There will always be a certain degree of speculation in the interpretation of events that occurred thousands of years ago. But the Biblical, historical, and archaeological data do not appear to be compatible with the conclusion that the beliefs of the Mesopotamian peoples are completely separate from the Israelite worship of Yahweh. Is the Bible Dictionary really correct when it states that »in most aspects, the Assyrian religion shows little difference from that of the Babylonian, from which it is derived« (13)?

....

Taken from: http://www.noah2014.com/html/121221_sennacherib_en.html