In a previous post I wrote about the alleged small-scale reproduction of Noah’s Ark, built in India and supervised by Dr. Irving Finkel, who based his blueprints on a 4000-year-old cuneiform inscription on an clay cylinder. A quick refresher: Dr. Finkel’s‘ark’ is round, has two floors, and is made of bitumen-coated reeds, much different than the vessel described in Genesis.
There’s another problem, though; let’s call it a discrepancy, shall we?
The cylinder with the inscription has been dated to roughly four thousand years ago, which means it would have been inscribed around 2000 BC. Dr. Finkel maintains this story is ‘the first record of the famous Babylonian flood story, which was later recorded in the book of Genesis’ (emphasis mine).
Later:So, which is it? Is the Genesis story based on the Babylonian flood story of around 2000 BC, or is it based on a flood that occurred 250 years later in 1750 BC? Picking one would probably be the best scientific way to go.
Dr Finkel said that the story of Noah’s Ark was an oral narrative for a long time, based on a destructive flood in around 1750BC (emphasis mine again).
Whether or not the author of Genesis used the 2000 BC story or the 1750 BC story – or even a combination of both – doesn’t answer the most fundamental question regarding the ark.
Why would Genesis’ author, familiar with the Babylonian story and the 1750 BC story, and familiar with the ubiquitous coracle, and trying to write a plausible story, choose to so radically change the design of the vessel as to open himself up to questions and/or ridicule from his peers?
I’ll look into that in a later post.