Here's a lat/long location.
Noah's Ark (39° 42' 33.07" N 44° 18' 1.26" E): Cavitation Damage and Fracture Fatigue ( 3:45 )
Published on Nov 11, 2013
Posted on 03/29/2014 3:58:30 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Edited on 03/29/2014 3:59:40 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
I do stand corrected. When we recall that “GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”, it seems that some were eating meat as well as all the others evil deeds.
Bet their was plenty of pot, booze, and cocaine though. To ease the pain of eating the calking-compound-like food of course.
It’s not too far of a stretch that amidst an ark full of animals being saved from the great flood that a movie director would think it to ironic for Noah to be serving meat.
A collection of FREEPER threads on the movie - Noah ...
Religious tide turns against ‘Noah’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3138393/posts
Noah: a classic blunder
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3138403/posts
Nine problems with the movie “Noah”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3138569/posts
Don’t Get Punked by Paramount’s Pagan Noah Film
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3138604/posts
Noah – The Emperor’s New Movie (The Utter Embarrassing Mess of ‘Noah’)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3138663/posts
‘Noah’ Review: Brilliantly Sinister Anti-Christian Filmmaking
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3138716/posts
Noah, The Film: All Washed Up
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3138756/posts
Box Office: ‘Noah’ Winning Over Faith-Based and Mainstream Moviegoers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3138788/posts
No meat at ‘Noah’ party
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3138805/posts
The Noah Movie: Our Detailed Review [Christian Review]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3138815/posts
The Noah Movie: Deconstructing Noah’s Ark; Godawful Storytelling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3138821/posts
Doesn't make sense, though. Historically, you see cave paintings that show humans hunting. Long before the Genesis story came out.
Not to mention that according to anthropologists, it made sense that pre-historic people ate meat. High density food that sits in your stomach for a long time.
If all we ate were plants, we'd be hungry all the time, and also be LOOKING for plants all the time.
That's not efficient.
Any survivalist will tell you that if you expend all your energy trying to find food, once it becomes a greater effort to obtain food, than the benefit of eating it, your body says "no more" and you give up.
Not saying Genesis is "wrong" about this. It just doesn't add up with what we know historically.
That's true of a lot of Genesis, actually, unless it is viewed allegorically. But the vegetarian part is consistent with a literal reading.
It never got off the ark I guess
I've always thought of Genesis as allegorical, not literal.
IIRC, (supposedly) Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible to answer the questions every human had.
Where did we come from?
What's the reason for our laws?
Who are we as a people? (Jews).
For the record I don't think that people who believe the Noah's Ark story are "stupid, flat-earther anti-science kooks. And worse are probably conservative".
Good grief. I take it as stories, that the people of the time could grasp.
Pretty much every major religion has an Adam and Eve.
It's part of who we are a humans. We WANT to know the reason why we're here.
The pre and post flood worlds displayed different qualities. If you have a God that does what Scotty can’t, then it’s harder to trace what has happened when. I’m not jumping whole hog in the tank with the creation science guys, because that might just be another error.
Anyhow, if in a sinful world nobody tried to eat meat, it would seem to me more surprising than if someone did.
Fruits and nuts and insects might be able to fulfill the energy requirements. Monkeys do okay on that.
What if the Noah story from the Bible is true?
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=7781&p=1&showrashi=true
...In the beginning: Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you,” (Exod. 12:2) which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded, (for the main purpose of the Torah is its commandments, and although several commandments are found in Genesis, e.g., circumcision and the prohibition of eating the thigh sinew, they could have been included together with the other commandments).
Now for what reason did He commence with “In the beginning?” Because of [the verse] “The strength of His works He related to His people, to give them the inheritance of the nations” (Ps. 111:6). For if the nations of the world should say to Israel, “You are robbers, for you conquered by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” they will reply, “The entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it (this we learn from the story of the Creation) and gave it to whomever He deemed proper When He wished, He gave it to them, and when He wished, He took it away from them and gave it to us...
I try not to delve into this kind of stuff too much (I’m Christian and have obvious disagreements with extra-scriptural sources) but even the idea of Torah-as-teaching necessarily means the furnishing of moral lessons. If we didn’t have the creation story and the story of the garden disobedience and all of the other stuff, we’d miss a whole lot of “why” and “how” that reflect helpfully on how people, both Jewish and gentile, live today. To focus the whole thing around the exaltation of Israel is in fact tellingly self centered. It needs to be focused around the exaltation of God.
True, but I see a somewhat deeper dimension. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written almost a thousand years before the Hebrew Bible, and the story of Upnapishtim, which is re-told within it, is much older. That story has many details which were repeated in the biblical story of Noah-- a world-wide flood; one man, chosen by a god, survives in a boat with two of every animal; he sends out a first a raven, then a dove who returns with an olive branch; etc.
Notwithstanding all these similarities--great and small-- to the Bible, the earlier story is morally repugnant: the gods quarrel among themselves like spoiled children; they decide to destroy mankind in a fit of pique; the decision which man to save is purely arbitrary; and they decide to save one man at all only because they will starve unless men sacrifice animals to them.
My own view is that the story of Utnapishtim was as well-known in the ancient middle east as the story of Goldilocks is in our culture, and what we have in the Bible was a deliberate deconstruction, or parody, of that story-- keeping all the details, however improbable, to put into focus how the Bible was re-telling this as a moral story, in which the One God destroys the wicked and saves the righteous.
I don’t recall who it was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.