So let's keep dismissing Darwinist lies...The idea that Noah's Ark was not sufficient for the job? Preposterous!!!
Noah's Ark was built with the same dimensions as modern huge ocean-going ships. We made sure you knew this already...
God's design of the boat was thousands of years ahead of today's technology. That doesn't mean that the ancients didn't build boats much like it soon after the Ark landed. It does mean that a lot of knowledge that was known to our ancient ancestors was lost. We have found ancient remains of batteries and recently a computer of sorts from the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea...in fact there is much in the oceans waiting for mankind to find, as we have explored at most 5% of the oceans at this time.
Not surprising, we are still learning to copy designs in organisms because so many organisms have systems and motors and algorithms and so on that are far superior to anything we have figured out ourselves. Ah, Darwinists, your time is limited now...can you hear it coming? The end of stupidity MUST be coming soon!
First, dinosaurs could easily fit into the Ark! The idea that they were too big for Noah to take on the Ark is completely wrong.
Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Noah's Ark was brilliantly designed and just right for the job!
That post addressed pretty much any questions of whether the Ark was seaworthy and could fit all the organisms required. But might as well add more ammunition!
God's design of the boat was thousands of years ahead of today's technology. That doesn't mean that the ancients didn't build boats much like it soon after the Ark landed. It does mean that a lot of knowledge that was known to our ancient ancestors was lost. We have found ancient remains of batteries and recently a computer of sorts from the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea...in fact there is much in the oceans waiting for mankind to find, as we have explored at most 5% of the oceans at this time.
Not surprising, we are still learning to copy designs in organisms because so many organisms have systems and motors and algorithms and so on that are far superior to anything we have figured out ourselves. Ah, Darwinists, your time is limited now...can you hear it coming? The end of stupidity MUST be coming soon!
First, dinosaurs could easily fit into the Ark! The idea that they were too big for Noah to take on the Ark is completely wrong.
How did dinosaurs grow so big?
And how did Noah fit them on the Ark?
Dinosaurs fascinate kids of all ages, not least because of their immense size. Actually, only a few of them were very large, and they are understandably the most famous. But most were a lot smaller—Compsognathus was only as big as a chicken. Dr Neil Clark, curator of paleontology at the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow, has recently discovered in the Isle of Skye a footprint of a sparrow-sized dinosaur looking like Coelophysis.1
What about the huge ones? Were they simply old?
Even the big dinosaurs were small before their teenage growth spurt.
There were comparatively few real kinds of dinosaur compared to the number of named ‘species’.
There were comparatively few real kinds of dinosaur compared to the number of named ‘species’.
Until fairly recently, scientists thought that the dinosaurs could grow so big because they were reptiles. Reptiles can keep growing till they die, while mammals (including man) stop growing at adulthood. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica CD (2005):
‘The significant difference between growth in reptiles and that in mammals is that a reptile has the potential of growing throughout its life, whereas a mammal reaches a terminal size and grows no more, even though it may subsequently live many years in ideal conditions’ [italics added].
The pro-evolution Walking with Dinosaurs website provided an example of this reasoning:
‘A huge animal called Seismosaurus was found in New Mexico and many palaeontologists believe it is really an old Diplodocus. It weighed 30 tonnes and was 45 metres (150 ft) long.’2
And the Walking with Dinosaurs TV series itself claimed that the huge size (150 tonnes) they claimed for the pliosaur Liopleurodon meant it must have been over 100 years old.
Teenage growth spurts
Dinosaur Growth Spurts
But this couldn’t explain everything. There’s no way a gecko or skink, for example, will grow as big as a 50-tonne Brachiosaurus. Gregory Erickson, a paleontologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, and other researchers, studied dinosaur bones for their equivalent of growth rings.3 They showed that dinosaurs had a type of adolescent growth spurt—the pattern is called sigmoidal, or s–shaped. In fact, the growth pattern is more similar to that of birds and mammals than that of reptiles.4,5
For example, in the huge Apatosaurus, the spurt started at the age of about five years, when the dinosaur was only one tonne. During the spurt, it grew at over five tonnes per year, then the growth levelled off at the age of 12–13, when it was about 25 tonnes (see graph, above right). This was the most dramatic example, but other dinosaurs such as the 1700 kg (3700 lb) Maiasaura and the much smaller 20 kg (44 lb) Syntarsus and Psittacosaurus had the same sigmoid pattern.
Erickson later led a distinguished team in a study just of the tyrannosaurid kind, including the mighty T. rex. This showed the same pattern. At the age of 10, it was still less than half a tonne. But after it started its growth spurt, from age 14–18 it grew at a rate of about 2 kg (4–5 pounds) per day, or a maximum of 767 kg per year. By its early 20s, it was about as big as it would ever be, they said—about 5½ tonnes.6However, the biggest specimen, the famous ‘Sue’, was also the oldest, but they still estimated that it was only 28 when it died (full of injuries7). Erickson said, ‘T. rex lived fast and died young. They were like the James Dean of dinosaurs.’8
This study also analyzed other tyrannosaurids called Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus. These all had the same growth patterns, but not nearly as extreme. So it seems that they were the same created kind, and T. rex was simply a giant form, just as we have in some humans. And as with many giant humans, the giantism comes at a cost.
Superficially, the T. rex body plan might give the impression it was a fast runner. But this structure simply will not allow fast running for this type of animal over one tonne, which the T. rex reached at age 13.6 So the Jurassic Park scene of a T. rex outrunning a jeep is pure fiction—to do that, it would have needed muscle weighing over twice the entire animal!9,10
Noah’s Ark cargo—not a problem!
Dinosaur skulls 
Top: Apatosaurus excelsus
Bottom: Diplodocus carnegii The skulls above are from two huge sauropods with different names. Yet the skulls are almost identical. Thus they are likely from the same Diplodocid kind.Diplodocus was a very long and slender variety (27 m long, but only 10 tonnes), while Apatosaurus was a slightly shorter but much heavier variety (25 m, 35 tonnes). So, while there are many dinosaur names, there were most likely comparatively few created kinds. This means that Noah’s Ark needed comparatively few pairs of dinosaurs. Photos: Don Batten |
Bibliosceptics frequently mock the account of Noah and the Ark by asking, ‘How could Noah round up all the huge dinosaurs?’ Of course, this is a leading question—Noah didn’t have to round up anything, because God sent the animals to him (Genesis 6:20).
Certainly, dinosaurs would have been on the Ark: God told Noah to take two of every kind of land animal (seven of the few ‘clean’ animals). Dinosaurs were land animals, and they must have been alive then, because so many of them were fossilized in the Flood.
But these new studies show, once again, that it’s rash to claim that the Bible is wrong based on current data. The sceptic can never be sure that no new data won’t refute the claim of biblical error. These studies suggest a means of fitting the animals on board. God could well have chosen specimens He knew would undergo their growth spurt as soon as they left the Ark. This would solve the common sceptical problem of fitting and feeding huge dinosaurs on the Ark. That is, they weren’t actually that huge while they were on board. The growth spurt just after the Ark would also mean that they could quickly outgrow predators.
And the tyrannosaurid study suggests that a T. rex pair was not required. Rather, another pair, not affected by gigantism, could have represented this created kind. This applies to all the dinosaurs. Diplodocus and Apatosaurus have virtually identical skulls (see photos, above right), so it’s possible that the former was a very long and slender variant and the latter, a shorter, but much more massive, variety. And this diplodocid kind included the huge Seismosaurus, as mentioned above.
In all, although there are an estimated 668 dinosaur ‘species’, it’s more likely that there were only about 55 created kinds with lots of varieties within these kinds.11,12
Update: Female dinosaurs have been discovered to have medullary tissue in their bones—this lines bone marrow and keeps them from losing calcium from their bones when they use it to make egg shells. Furthermore, this tissue has been found in dinosaurs that were not fully grown. It follows that dinosaurs didn’t need to be fully grown before they could reproduce.13
Summary
Noah would have been able to take all the dinosaur kinds on board the Ark because:
- Most dinosaur kinds were small.
- Even the big dinosaurs were small before their teenage growth spurt.
- There were comparatively few real kinds of dinosaur compared to the number of named ‘species’.
Related Articles
References and notes
- The world’s smallest dinosaur footprint? University of Glasgow Newsletter 257,
; 25 August 2004. Return to text. - Walking with Dinosaurs Dino fact file: Diplodocus,
, 25 August 2004. Return to text. - For example, there are lines of arrested growth (LAGs) when bones stopped or slowed growing. Also, fast-growing bone has a characteristic fibrolamellar texture, where fibres are quickly deposited, and leave holes that are filled with bony structures called osteons. Conversely, slow-growing bone has a lamellar-zonal structure, which is finely layered. See Stokstad, E., Dinosaurs under the knife, Science 306(5698):962–965, 5 November 2004. Return to text.
- Erickson, G. et al., Dinosaurian growth patterns and rapid avian growth rates, Nature 412(6845):429–433, 26 July 2001. Return to text.
- Fast-growing dinosaurs, Creation 24(1):9, 2001. Return to text.
- Erickson, G.M. et al., Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs, Nature 430(7001):772–775, 12 August 2004. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., ‘Sue’, the T. rex: Does it show that dinosaurs evolved into birds? Creation 22(4):18–19, 2000. Return to text.
- Gosline, A., Bone rings hold the secrets to dinosaurs’ enormous size, New Scientist 183(2460):8, 2004. Return to text.
- T. Rex was a lumbering old slow coach, New Scientist 173(2332):6, 2 March 2002. Return to text.
- T. Rex: The bigger they are, the slower they go, Creation 24(3):56, 2002. Return to text.
- Batten, D. (Ed.), Catchpoole, D., Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C., The Creation Answers Book, ch. 13, Creation Book Publishers. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, chs. 7–8, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, 2004. Return to text.
- Morton, M.C., Teen pregnancy in dinosaurs a good thing, Geotimes, January 2008. Return to text.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How about the idea that the Ark could not be large enough or the idea that it was not seaworthy?
While the Bible gives us essential details on many things, including the size and proportions of Noah’s Ark, it does not necessarily specify the precise shape of this vessel. It is important to understand, however, that this lack of physical description is consistent with other historical accounts in Scripture.1 So how should we illustrate what the Ark looked like? The two main options include a default rectangular shape reflecting the lack of specific detail, and a more fleshed-out design that incorporates principles of ship design from maritime science, while remaining consistent with the Bible’s size and proportions.
Genesis describes the Ark in three verses, which require careful examination:
6:14—“Make yourself an ark [tebah] of gopher wood; make rooms [qinniym] in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch [kofer].
6:15—“And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.
6:16—“You shall make a window [tsohar] for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks” (NKJV).
Most Bibles make some unusual translation choices for certain key words. Elsewhere in the Bible the Hebrew word translated here as “rooms” is usually rendered “nests”; “pitch” would normally be called “covering”; and “window” would be “noon light.” Using these more typical meanings, the Ark would be something like this:
The tebah (Ark) was made from gopher wood, it had nests inside, and it was covered with a pitch-like substance inside and out. It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. It had a noon light that ended a cubit upward and above, it had a door in the side, and there were three decks. (For the meaning of “upward and above,” see point #2 on the diagram below.)
As divine specifications go, Moses offered more elaborate details about the construction of the Tabernacle, which suggests this might be the abridged version of Noah’s complete directions. On the other hand, consider how wise Noah must have been after having lived several centuries. The instructions that we have recorded in Genesis may be all he needed to be told. But in any case, 300 cubits is a big ship, not some whimsical houseboat with giraffe necks sticking out the top.
Scripture gives no clue about the shape of Noah’s Ark beyond its proportions—length, breadth, and depth. Ships have long been described like this without ever implying a block-shaped hull.
The scale of the Ark is huge yet remarkably realistic when compared to the largest wooden ships in history. The proportions are even more amazing—they are just like a modern cargo ship. In fact, a 1993 Korean study was unable to find fault with the specifications (see sidebar “Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark” below).
All this makes nonsense of the claim that Genesis was written only a few centuries before Christ, as a mere retelling of earlier Babylonian flood legends such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Epic of Gilgamesh story describes a cube-shaped ark, which would have given a dangerously rough ride. This is neither accurate nor scientific. Noah’s Ark is the original, while the Gilgamesh Epic is a later distortion.
What about the Shape?
For many years biblical creationists have simply depicted the Ark as a rectangular box. This helped emphasize its size. It was easy to explain capacity and illustrate how easily the Ark could have handled the payload. With the rectangular shape, the Ark’s stability against rolling could even be demonstrated by simple calculations.
Yet the Bible does not say the Ark must be a rectangular box. In fact, Scripture does not elaborate about the shape of Noah’s Ark beyond those superb, overall proportions—length, breadth, and depth. Ships have long been described like this without implying a block-shaped hull.
Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark
Click to enlarge.
The proportions of the Ark were found to carefully balance the conflicting demands of stability, comfort, and strength.
Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.
The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.
The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.
Dr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
In Hebrew “Ark” is the obscure term tebah, a word that appears only one other time when it describes the basket that carried baby Moses (Exodus 2:3). One was a huge, wooden ship and the other a tiny, wicker basket. Both floated, both preserved life, and both were covered; but the similarity ends there. If the word implied anything about shape, it would be “an Egyptian basket-like shape,” typically rounded. More likely, however, tebah means something else, like “lifeboat.”2
The Bible leaves the details regarding the shape of the Ark wide open—anything from a rectangular box with hard right angles and no curvature at all, to a shiplike form. Box-like has the largest carrying capacity, but a ship-like design would be safer and more comfortable in heavy seas. Such discussion is irrelevant if God intended to sustain the Ark no matter how well designed and executed.
Clues from the Bible
Some question whether the Ark was actually built to handle rough seas, but the Bible gives some clues about the sea conditions during the Flood:
- The Ark had the proportions of a seagoing vessel built for waves (Genesis 6:15).
- Logically, a mountain-covering, global flood would not be dead calm (Genesis 7:19).
- The Ark moved about on the surface of the waters (Genesis 7:18).
- God made a wind to pass over the earth (Genesis 8:1).
- The Hebrew word for the Flood (mabbul) could imply being carried along.
The 1993 Korean study showed that some shorter hulls slightly outperformed the Ark model with biblical proportions (see sidebar “Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark” above). The study assumed waves came from every direction, favoring shorter hulls like that of a modern lifeboat. So why was Noah’s Ark so long if it didn’t need to be streamlined for moving through the water?
The answer lies in ride comfort (seakeeping). This requires a longer hull, at the cost of strength and stability, not to mention more wood. The Ark’s high priority for comfort suggests that the anticipated waves must have been substantial.
1. Something to catch the wind
Wind-driven waves would cause a drifting vessel to turn dangerously side-on to the weather. However, such waves could be safely navigated by making the Ark steer itself with a wind-catching obstruction on the bow. To be effective, this obstruction must be large enough to overcome the turning effect of the waves. While many designs could work, the possibility shown here reflects the high stems which were a hallmark of ancient ships.
Scripture gives no clue about the shape of Noah’s Ark beyond its proportions that are given inGenesis 6:15, which reads: “And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits” (NKJV).
Designed for Tsunamis?
Was the Ark designed for tsunamis? Not really. Tsunamis devastate coastlines, but when a tsunami travels in deep water, it is almost imperceptible to a ship. During the Flood, the water was probably very deep—there is enough water in today’s oceans to cover a relatively flat earth to a consistent depth of over 2 miles (3.2 km). The Bible states that the Ark rose “high above the earth” (Genesis 7:17) and was stranded early (Genesis 8:4), before mountaintops were seen. If the launch was a mirror of the landing—the Ark being the last thing to float—it would have been a deep-water voyage from start to finish.
The worst waves may have been caused by wind, just like today. After several months at sea, God made a wind to pass over the earth. This suggests a large-scale weather pattern likely to produce waves with a dominant direction. It is an established fact that such waves would cause any drifting vessel to be driven sideways (broaching). A long vessel like the Ark would remain locked in this sideways position, an uncomfortable and even dangerous situation in heavy weather.
However, broaching can be avoided if the vessel catches the wind at one end and is “rooted” in the water at the other—turning like a weather vane into the wind. Once the Ark points into the waves, the long proportions create a more comfortable and controlled voyage. It had no need for speed, but the Ark did “move about on the surface of the waters.”
The box-like Ark is not entirely disqualified as a safe option, but sharp edges are more vulnerable to damage during launch and landing. Blunt ends would also produce a rougher ride and allow the vessel to be more easily thrown around (but, of course, God could have miraculously kept the ship’s precious cargo safe, regardless of the comfort factor). Since the Bible gives proportions consistent with those of a true cargo ship, it makes sense that it should look and act like a ship, too.
Coincidentally, certain aspects of this design appear in some of the earliest large ships depicted in pottery from Mesopotamia, which is not long after the Flood. It makes sense that shipwrights, who are conservative as a rule, would continue to include elements of the only ship to survive the global Flood—Noah’s Ark.
Scripture does not record direction-keeping features attached to the Ark. They might have been obvious to a 500-year-old, or perhaps they were common among ships in Noah’s day as they were afterwards. At the same time, the brief specifications in Genesis make no mention of other important details, such as storage of drinking water, disposal of excrement, or the way to get out of the Ark. Obviously Noah needed to know how many animals were coming, but this is not recorded either.
The Bible gives clear instruction for the construction of a number of things, but it does not specify many aspects of the Ark’s construction. Nothing in this newly depicted Ark (as seen on the cover) contradicts Scripture, even though it may be different from more accepted designs. But this design, in fact, shows us just how reasonable Scripture is as it depicts a stable, comfortable, and seaworthy vessel that was capable of fulfilling all the requirements stated in Scripture.
Was Noah’s Ark the Biggest Ship Ever Built?
Few wooden ships have ever come close to the size of Noah’s Ark. One possible challenge comes from the Chinese treasure ships of Yung He in the 1400s. An older contender is the ancient Greek trireme Tessarakonteres.
At first historians dismissed ancient Greek claims that the Tessarakonteres was 425 feet (130 m) long. But as more information was learned, the reputation of these early shipbuilders grew markedly. One of the greatest challenges to the construction of large wooden ships is finding a way to lay planks around the outside in a way that will ensure little or no leaking, which is caused when there is too much movement between the planks. Apparently, the Greeks had access to an extraordinary method of planking that was lost for centuries, and only recently brought to light by marine archaeology.
It is not known when or where this technique originated. Perhaps they used a method that began with the Ark. After all, if the Greeks could do it, why not Noah?
The Ark is near the maximum size that is known to be possible for a wooden vessel.
How Big Was the Ark?
It depends on your cubit size! To get the 510 ft (155 m) given here, we used a cubit of 20.4 in (51.8 cm). See How long was the original cubit? for more information on the length of a cubit.
This diagram shows how Noah’s Ark compares to other large ships.
Click to enlarge.
earned his degree in mechanical engineering from Sydney University (Australia) and was an instructor for 12 years in technical college engineering courses. Tim has studied the Flood and the Ark for nearly three decades and is widely recognized for his cutting-edge research on the design and structure of Noah’s Ark.
Footnotes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ancient records of the BC culture have shown us that mankind after the Flood was far more sophisticated than once thought. But that is another post...The Ark was well-designed and perfectly suited for the task.
Finally, those who claim that Moses copied from the Gilgamesh Epic is getting it backwards. Like many other flood myths around the world, the Epic of Gilgamesh has too many mistakes to be accurate. But it and other similar stories are evidence for a global flood and a large ship that preserved land-dwelling vertebrates and birds, including dinosaurs.
The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh
by Frank Lorey, M.A.
Background
The Epic of Gilgamesh has been of interest to Christians ever since its discovery in the mid-nineteenth century in the ruins of the great library at Nineveh, with its account of a universal flood with significant parallels to the Flood of Noah's day.1, 2 The rest of the Epic, which dates back to possibly third millennium B.C., contains little of value for Christians, since it concerns typical polytheistic myths associated with the pagan peoples of the time. However, some Christians have studied the ideas of creation and the afterlife presented in the Epic. Even secular scholars have recognized the parallels between the Babylonian, Phoenician, and Hebrew accounts, although not all are willing to label the connections as anything more than shared mythology.3
There have been numerous flood stories identified from ancient sources scattered around the world.4 The stories that were discovered on cuneiform tablets, which comprise some of the earliest surviving writing, have obvious similarities. Cuneiform writing was invented by the Sumerians and carried on by the Akkadians. Babylonian and Assyrian are two dialects of the Akkadian, and both contain a flood account. While there are differences between the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood accounts, many of the similarities are strikingly close to the Genesis flood account.5The Babylonian account is the most intact, with only seven of 205 lines missing.6 It was also the first discovered, making it the most studied of the early flood accounts.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is contained on twelve large tablets, and since the original discovery, it has been found on others, as well as having been translated into other early languages.7 The actual tablets date back to around 650 B.C. and are obviously not originals since fragments of the flood story have been found on tablets dated around 2,000 B.C.8 Linguistic experts believe that the story was composed well before 2,000 B.C. compiled from material that was much older than that date.9 The Sumerian cuneiform writing has been estimated to go as far back as 3,300 B.C.10
The Story
The Epic was composed in the form of a poem. The main figure is Gilgamesh, who actually may have been an historical person. The Sumerian King List shows Gilgamesh in the first dynasty of Uruk reigning for 126 years.11 This length of time is not a problem when compared with the age of the pre-flood patriarchs of the Bible. Indeed, after Gilgamesh, the kings lived a normal life span as compared with today.12 The King List is also of interest as it mentions the flood specifically—"the deluge overthrew the land."13
The story starts by introducing the deeds of the hero Gilgamesh. He was one who had great knowledge and wisdom, and preserved information of the days before the flood. Gilgamesh wrote on tablets of stone all that he had done, including building the city walls of Uruk and its temple for Eanna. He was an oppressive ruler, however, which caused his subjects to cry out to the "gods" to create a nemesis to cause Gilgamesh strife.14
After one fight, this nemesis—Enkidu—became best friends with Gilgamesh. The two set off to win fame by going on many dangerous adventures in which Enkidu is eventually killed. Gilgamesh then determines to find immortality since he now fears death. It is upon this search that he meets Utnapishtim, the character most like the Biblical Noah.15
In brief, Utnapishtim had become immortal after building a ship to weather the Great Deluge that destroyed mankind. He brought all of his relatives and all species of creatures aboard the vessel. Utnapishtim released birds to find land, and the ship landed upon a mountain after the flood. The story then ends with tales of Enkidu's visit to the underworld.16 Even though many similarities exist between the two accounts, there still are serious differences.
The table below presents a comparison of the main aspects of the two accounts of the flood as presented in the Book of Genesis and in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
COMPARISON OF GENESIS AND GILGAMESH
| ||
GENESIS
|
GILGAMESH
| |
| Extent of flood | Global | Global |
| Cause | Man's wickedness | Man's sins |
| Intended for whom? | All mankind | One city & all mankind |
| Sender | Yahweh | Assembly of "gods" |
| Name of hero | Noah | Utnapishtim |
| Hero's character | Righteous | Righteous |
| Means of announcement | Direct from God | In a dream |
| Ordered to build boat? | Yes | Yes |
| Did hero complain? | Yes | Yes |
| Height of boat | Several stories (3) | Several stories (6) |
| Compartments inside? | Many | Many |
| Doors | One | One |
| Windows | At least one | At least one |
| Outside coating | Pitch | Pitch |
| Shape of boat | Rectangular | Square |
| Human passengers | Family members only | Family & few others |
| Other passengers | All species of animals | All species of animals |
| Means of flood | Ground water & heavy rain | Heavy rain |
| Duration of flood | Long (40 days & nights plus) | Short (6 days & nights) |
| Test to find land | Release of birds | Release of birds |
| Types of birds | Raven & three doves | Dove, swallow, raven |
| Ark landing spot | Mountain -- Mt. Ararat | Mountain -- Mt. Nisir |
| Sacrificed after flood? | Yes, by Noah | Yes, by Utnapishtim |
| Blessed after flood? | Yes | Yes |
Some comments need to be made about the comparisons in the table. Some of the similarities are very striking, while others are very general. The command for Utnapishtim to build the boat is remarkable: "O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, tear down thy house, build a ship; abandon wealth, seek after life; scorn possessions, save thy life. Bring up the seed of all kinds of living things into the ship which thou shalt build. Let its dimensions be well measured."17 The cause of the flood as sent in judgment on man's sins is striking also. The eleventh tablet, line 180 reads, "Lay upon the sinner his sin; lay upon the transgressor his transgression."18 A study of these parallels to Genesis 6-9, as well as the many others, demonstrate the non-coincidental nature of these similarities.
The meanings of the names of the heroes, however, have absolutely no common root or connection. Noah means "rest," while Utnapishtim means "finder of life."19 Neither was perfect, but both were considered righteous and relatively faultless compared to those around them.
Utnapishtim also took a pilot for the boat, and some craftsmen, not just his family in the ark. It is also interesting that both accounts trace the landing spot to the same general region of the Middle East; however, Mt. Ararat and Mt. Nisir are about 300 miles apart. The blessing that each hero received after the flood was also quite different. Utnapishtim was granted eternal life while Noah was to multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over the animals.
Conclusions
From the early days of the comparative study of these two flood accounts, it has been generally agreed that there is an obvious relationship. The widespread nature of flood traditions throughout the entire human race is excellent evidence for the existence of a great flood from a legal/historical point of view.20 Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis.21 However, the probability exists that the Biblical account had been preserved either as an oral tradition, or in written form handed down from Noah, through the patriarchs and eventually to Moses, thereby making it actually older than the Sumerian accounts which were restatements (with alterations) to the original.
A popular theory, proposed by liberal "scholars," said that the Hebrews "borrowed" from the Babylonians, but no conclusive proof has ever been offered.22 The differences, including religious, ethical, and sheer quantity of details, make it unlikely that the Biblical account was dependent on any extant source from the Sumerian traditions. This still does not stop these liberal and secular scholars from advocating such a theory. The most accepted theory among evangelicals is that both have one common source, predating all the Sumerian forms.23 The divine inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version. Indeed the Hebrews were known for handing down their records and tradition.24 The Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological. The One-source Theory must, therefore, lead back to the historical event of the Flood and Noah's Ark.25 To those who believe in the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, it should not be a surprise that God would preserve the true account of the Flood in the traditions of His people. The Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the providence of God until it was finally compiled, edited, and written down by Moses.26 The Epic of Gilgamesh, then, contains the corrupted account as preserved and embellished by peoples who did not follow the God of the Hebrews.
REFERENCES
- Keller, Werner, The Bible as History, (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1956), p. 32.
- Sanders, N.K., The Epic of Gilgamesh ,(an English translation with introduction) (London: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 9.
- Graves, Robert, The Creek Myths, Volume 1,(London: Penguin Books, 1960), pp. 138-143.
- Rehwinkel, Alfred M., The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing, 1951), p. 129.
- O'Brien, J. Randall, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", Biblical Illustrator, (Fall 1986, volume 13, number 1), p. 61.
- Barton, George A., Archaeology and the Bible, (Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1916), pp. 273-277
- Keller, The Bible as History, p. 33.
- Whitcomb, John C. and Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Flood, (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), p. 38.
- Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949), p. 13.
- O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", p. 61.
- Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallel, p. 13.
- Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, p. 21.
- Vos, Howard F., Genesis and Archaeology, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963), p. 35.
- Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, pp. 20-23.
- Ibid., pp. 30 39.
- Ibid., pp. 39-42.
- The Bible as History, p. 33.
- Sanders, The Epic of Gilgamesh, p. 109.
- O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", pp. 62, 63.
- Morris, Henry M., Science and the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), p. 85.
- O'Brien, "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East", p. 64.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Morris, Science and the Bible, p. 92.
- Ibid., p. 85.
- Whitcomb, John C., The Early Earth (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 134; Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood, p. 488.
* Mr. Lorey is a Registered Historical Archaeologist.
Cite this article: Lorey, F. 1997. The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh. Acts & Facts. 26 (3).