A Cubit is approximately 18 inches or 1.5 feet.
At 300 Cubits Long, the Ark would be approximately 450 feet Long.
At 50 Cubits Wide, the Ark would have a width of approximately 75 feet.
At 30 Cubits High, the Ark would have a Height of 45 feet.
That's as tall if not taller than a modern four story apartment building and as wide and as long as a city block. Or put another way, it would have more than half the volume of space then the HMS Titanic. I would estimate 70 to 80 percent because the Ark is much more wider than the Titanic.
The Ark is definitely larger than a foot ball field at 300 feet Long from goal post to goal post and almost as wide.
So get your facts straight people. That's...BIIIIG!!!
AndyDufresne wrote:How much would Noah's Ark weigh, and how much water would it displace?
The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716 foot long (218 meters) heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The gross tonnage, which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton), would be 15,100 tons.http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.htmlBIG FAT REFERENCE JUST ABOVE! SEE?
Regardless, this is not even close to being large enough to contain 2 of every living species on Earth. The story you believe the Bible tells is not possible.
There are several other real possibilities.
1. That the ark was something like Snoopy's doghouse or Mary Poppin's bag... outside of time and place so that the space available was greater than that visible from the outside. Possible, certainly, given God.. but not what the Bible says.
2. The Bible is just wrong. An easy answer and favored by people who are neither Christian or Jewish, but not acceptable to those of the faiths. Though favored by some non-Crhistians, it is not worth debating in Christianity.
3. The story was never intended to be taken entirely literally. The point was that people sinned and God took action, but it was such a destructive action he won't do it again. Some say that the details were put in, really by humans, because they needed those details to understand God's story/message. Others say that the details are true, but not in the way literalists tend to think. Again, this one gives a lot of Christians and Jews pause. Some within the faith do believe this, but many don't.
4.That the story is true, but because the awareness of others, outside areas was minimal or non-existant, the people would truly understand the "world" to be their whole world of experience, not the whole round ball that we today know is the entire world. This would be consistant with the Babylonian text, because true stories will often permeate through mutliple societies. That the Jews did not write it down is irrelevant because they had a strong oral tradition at that time. Not all was written down.
5. That the story refers to true events, but many details were distorted over the very, very, very long time. It might have been included within the Bible because it gave an important lesson and was considered too true by the people for them to consider it might not be accurate. That, too, is not an easy idea for many Christians.
That the flood did away with dinosaurs. There are many reasons this is not true, beginning with the fact that almost all, if not all dinosaurs were gone when humans came onto the scene. A more important religious
reason is that dinosaurs were not mentioned at all in the Bible. Early people had no real awareness of Dinosaurs. (no, references to "behemouths' and the like are not referring to dinosaurs.. certainly not in the numbers that were prevalent at one time on Earth). The Bible gives a very good record of modern, known animals, but not ancient ones. That is because the Bible is a history of humanity and faith, not a natural history of the world, not a scientific text.