Essay: Noah’s Ark and Biblical Inerrancy
I've noticed an increasing tendency among certain groups of fundamentalist Christians to advance the notion of a Bible that is literally and unerringly true. They would utterly deny the use of the poetic metaphor and allusion so common to the writings of the era, and instead treat this work as a kind of spiritual technical treatise. In doing so, they degrade both their Bible and their religion, and cut themselves off from the larger body of thinking peoples, both Christian and nonbeliever alike.
Let us examine the well-known story of Noah's Ark then, and see if it makes sense to interpret it in a literal fashion. The tale of Noah and the ark is so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our culture that it scarcely warrants any detailed repetition here. The common image is that of a tiny ship (Well, battleship size actually, but we'll get to that in a moment) braving the storm tossed oceans over the ruins of our sinful planet, until at last it came to rest on the top of Mount Ararat (Genesis 8:4) as the waters receded. Now rather than examine the scientific impossibility of such an event (An explanation which fundamentalist Christians would reject out of hand anyway), I'll instead look at a simple detail from within the narrative itself concerning the reported height of the diluvian waters.
Consider Genesis 7:20: "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." Now this seems a straightforward enough statement, until we consider how long a cubit is. A cubit was a common and eminently practical measurement of the day, equal in length to a man's forearm. This was not a standardized measurement in the sense we're accustomed to, but varied slightly in length depending upon the size of the particular individual making the measurement. The English foot was once used in a similar fashion before being standardized, and it's still not unusual for people to pace off a given distance heel to toe in lieu of using a tape measure. Not accurate perhaps, but close enough for most practical purposes. After checking five different sources, the length of a cubit was given as anywhere from 17 to 21.888 inches (This last figure is ridiculously precise and was probably an average of several other figures). Fifteen cubits would then be equal to a water level of 328.32 inches, or 27.36 feet (8.34 meters) high, using the uppermost figure.
The 'mountains' being referred to in this passage are not specified, so this can only be taken to mean all mountains in general. I hope that I may here be granted the indulgence of assuming that an omniscient God would have been well aware of how high His highest mountains were when He inspired the author of this narrative to write it. The world's highest mountain (disputably) is Mount Everest, at 29, 028 feet (8,850 meters) above sea level. This would correspond to a height of 15,914.47 cubits, which is also the minimum height to which the floodwaters would have to have risen to cover it. Some may argue that I'm cheating here by introducing a mountain unknown to the author(s) of Genesis. But the text very plainly states: "...and the mountains were covered." Everest is quite undeniably a mountain and must therefore be included if we're to read the text literally.
As can easily be seen, there is over a thousand-to-one discrepancy between these two values. I've resorted to no trickery here, no word games, no sleight of hand to derive these figures. I've used nothing but the King James Bible and commonly known geological facts available to any schoolchild. But is there a way out of the quandary? As I see it there are four possible resolutions:
1.) Mountains were much shorter in Biblical days. This idea should be ridiculous enough not to require any additional elaboration. Still, some might argue that perhaps the great mountain chains were actually created by the turbulent floodwaters of the deluge. There are several problems with this idea. Mountains are understood to be formed through processes involving plate tectonics and volcanism, not water. All geological projections, including mountains, are worn away by the action of water; therefore, if anything, Mount Everest might well have been even higher before the flood. Even assuming that the plate tectonic explanation is rejected by the fundamentalists (As it sometimes is), it still stands to reason that the waters that supposedly created Everest would have had to have risen to approximately the same level as Everest, and nothing is thereby gained by this contention. It might also be argued that God created the great mountain chains after the flood. If so, there is nothing in the Bible to support such a view. Either way, if one wishes to argue for smaller mountains, they're engaging in pure speculation and fanciful interpretation; the very things one shouldn't have to do if the Bible is unerringly true and to the point.
2.) The length of the Biblical cubit is much longer than is believed. I honestly can't say I've ever heard anyone advance this theory, but it seems only fair to consider it all the same. Let's assume that the cubit is much longer than is believed, despite all the numerous independent lines of evidence to the contrary. Let's assume that fifteen cubits are indeed enough to reach to the top of Mount Everest. What, if anything does that purchase? If one divides fifteen cubits into 29,028 feet, then our newly defined cubit measures not 21.888 inches, but 23,222.4 inches. This is equivalent to 1,935.2 feet or 645.07 yards (589.85 meters). This is a somewhat unwieldy, but not unreasonable length to deal with. Now the problem involves the size of the Ark itself. The Bible is quite specific about the Ark's dimensions: "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." (Genesis 6:14) "And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." (Genesis 6:15)
Even using the smallest commonly accepted value of a cubit (17 inches), this is a very large boat. The length would have equaled 425 Feet (129.54 meters), the breadth 70.83 feet (21.59 meters), and the height 42.5 feet (12.95 meters), a little under half as long as the Titanic. Multiply these figures by the Everest sized cubits and we're left with a ship that truly beggars the imagination. Our ark then becomes 580,560 feet, or 109.95 miles long (176.92 kilometers), 96,760 feet, or 18.32 miles (29.49 kilometers) wide, and 58,056 feet, or 11 miles (17.69 kilometers) high! This would be a ship far larger than any mountain on earth! Noah couldn't have found enough wood on earth to build it, and even assuming he had, it wouldn't have supported its own weight. Any man or beast foolish enough to attempt the arduous climb to the upper levels of this super ark would die of asphyxiation long before they made it. Nor could such an ark have come to 'rest' on Mount Ararat, as its keel would have been very near the base of the mountain. In short, the 'big boat' theory is of no more help than the 'little mountain' theory was.
Even if one were to claim that the author really had some other unit in mind besides the cubit, it does nothing to nullify this argument because the proportional size of the ark to the mountain would remain exactly the same. Furthermore, this would introduce the additional problem of introducing a mistake into the Biblical text; the very thing the fundamentalists wish so ardently to avoid.
3.) The author of Genesis got his figures wrong. At least here we've entered the realm of possibility. If we assume the Biblical cubit was approximately the length we believe it to be, then perhaps the author simply forgot to add enough 'zeros' to his water height figure (A figure of speech, as the notational system then in use didn't work the same as ours.). If he had said 15,000 cubits instead of fifteen, then everything would work out more or less correctly. There are a couple of problems with this idea as well. As was stated earlier, this was a common everyday unit of measurement with which the author would have been well acquainted. It's difficult to see how he could have unknowingly made a mistake of this magnitude. The author may well have been ignorant of science, but we certainly can't accuse him of gross stupidity. Merely possessing the ability to write marked him as a well educated man in his day.
Furthermore, if one assumes the author made a mistake, then one is forced to admit that the Bible contains a mistake, the very thing the fundamentalist Christians are trying so hard to deny. Where there is one mistake, there may well be others. Even we absolve the author of guilt by claiming a translation error, this leaves open the possibility of additional translation errors. Either way, the Bible becomes untrustworthy and open to interpretation.
4.) The praise: "... and the mountains were covered." is simply a poetic metaphor. Picture the scene: The river by which you and your family have spent your entire lives has flooded. Your fields are covered, your crops ruined, your house destroyed, and your livestock is drowned...everything you own is lost. All your neighbors have been similarly afflicted. As you look around you, all you can see is muddy water, polluted with the bloated corpses of men and animals. Your world has been utterly destroyed, and you might well come to believe that the entire world has been cursed, perhaps as a payment for some untold iniquity. You might well come to believe that the very mountains themselves have been covered over by the waters.
Poetic imagery, playful allusion, irony and analogy have all been an integral part of the written word since human beings first began recording their thoughts. Even the parables of Jesus are a form of this kind of creative story telling, used in order to drive home his points in an indirect but powerful way. They were never meant to be taken in a purely literal manner. It is only now in the twentieth century that we've begun writing in such an artificially regulated fashion, and only when we require absolute precision. To view the Bible in a strictly technical sense, with every line unerringly true, is to ascribe to it a style of writing and purpose totally unknown in that era.
Let us briefly summarize these four possibilities: The first is the 'little mountain' theory; discredited because it requires the evocation of processes or separate creations never mentioned in the Bible. The second is the 'big boat' theory; equally dubious for its requirement of a larger than mountain-sized ship. The third is the admission of a sizable error, either in the original text or the subsequent translation, which is on principle unacceptable to the fundamentalist's mindset. The forth is the use of poetic imagery and metaphor; a perfectly common form of literary expression, then and now.
I have not attacked the story of Noah upon any sort of scientific basis, nor have I made any unwarranted assumptions. I have examined but a single line of scripture and presented the necessary conclusions that result from a strictly literal interpretation of it, just as the fundamentalist Christians insist we must do. I invite any Christian to examine the same text and perform the same calculations for themselves if they feel I'm in error.
The flood story may be many things. It may be entirely fictional, or it may be an embellishment of an actual event. It may be the retelling of an older legend which is itself the dim remembrance of an actual event. Regardless of what it may be, it makes no sense to believe it as a literal fact. To do so quickly leads us down the treacherous paths of nonsense, contradiction and error. Nor would it be at all reasonable to assume that this single line of text is the one and only example of metaphor to be found in the entire book. The Bible is compelling work of literature filled with heroic stories, powerful metaphors and moral instruction. But it behooves thinking Christians everywhere to understand what it is, and what it is not.
