Noah ,the ark and location
-
Salaam,
And there is a misconception About the age of noah ,i didn`t lived 950 yaers ;it is said that he lived with them a thousand years minus 50.
In my humble opinion these should mean that the long term of human society in this area will come after 1000years(meanig a long undefinite time like "Tausendj?hrige Reich" to end .
And Noah lived in this area with this people for 50years til it happend ,so we dont know how old he was.
allah u? lam
peace
Possible explanations
There's no shame in admitting that I simply DON'T KNOW. We don't yet have archeological evidence explaining what kind of calendar system Noah and his people used. But I can give you an example supporting the Quran's use of the two non-synonymous terms
Assume, for example, that Noah's people used a system based on 12-day weeks. Hence, each "sanah" is composed of 12 days. 1000 sanah would then be equal to around 83 of our years. Now, 83 - 50 = 33 years. So Noah lived among his people for 33 of our solar years.
So to answer the question Yes, I believe the verse is literal... However, I don't believe that Noah lived to a supernatural age.
Peace.
If Noah lived in this area and Age then, this explanation might be interesting.
source https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
"The antediluvian reigns were measured in Sumerian numerical units known as sars (units of 3,600), ners (units of 600), and sosses (units of 60)."
Allah knows best.
-
Possible explanations
Quote from Pazuzu on August 08, 2012, 112746 PM
There's no shame in admitting that I simply DON'T KNOW. We don't yet have archeological evidence explaining what kind of calendar system Noah and his people used. But I can give you an example supporting the Quran's use of the two non-synonymous termsAssume, for example, that Noah's people used a system based on 12-day weeks. Hence, each "sanah" is composed of 12 days. 1000 sanah would then be equal to around 83 of our years. Now, 83 - 50 = 33 years. So Noah lived among his people for 33 of our solar years.
So to answer the question Yes, I believe the verse is literal... However, I don't believe that Noah lived to a supernatural age.
Peace.
Quote from ibn_a on March 20, 2018, 031610 AM
If Noah lived in this area and Age then, this explanation might be interesting.
source https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List
"The antediluvian reigns were measured in Sumerian numerical units known as sars (units of 3,600), ners (units of 600), and sosses (units of 60)."
Allah knows best.
I dont think noah lived in that area where they used a 12-week calender it isn?t showed up in the the quran and i don?t think in the quran you have to guess what calculation it could be.
If it is said for god there a 12 month then thats it period.
When it comes to express a long time or huge amount the heavenly speech uses a 1000.
Maybe the civilization existed a few millenias more or less
-
Back to the Gopher Wood mentioned in the AT .
According to the bible god gave Noah the instruction for the Ark and you can imagine it was build in the best way ,the best measures to make sure that gods servant an the others inside a safe and so you can conclude that it is the best material it was used for the ark.
i guess it is harder then cedar some Kind like an iron Wood tree.
ps.id the Chiefs mock of Noah beacuse of the shape the ark? as i wrote imagine a boat instructed for the worst case it would not look like Ferry at all.
-
I have one tree in mind its a hypothesis but the celts were know to be afraid of the heaven.to be fallen on to them .The history descibe the as brave wariors,they fought against every army which opposes them with mighty power but when the weather changes and thunder and flashes occured ,they ran away from the Battlefield and prayed.Why? Trauma?
The holiest tree of the celts is the oak and it is like iron.
-
Why do People belive the Flood is to be happend in the middle East after they connect it with summerian stories About a Flood Mention there?
The area was ruled by kings so the sumerians but Noah did not convey his message to a ruler or king because his People had a different ruling structure.
Said the eminent among his people, "Indeed, we see you in clear error." 760
-
i want you to remind that god send Mose to Pharao to release the Hebrews from the on going miserable Task the egyptains put on them.
Pharao was the athourity who could Change that,thats why.
But did Noah went to the King to bring him the Message which result is worse then the Plaques of Pharao?
Because,there was no King over there .
Can you prove me wrong that there was no sumerian KIng or one Ruler at all, in the land of Noah?
peace
-
-
These are some stories from the past that we reveal to you. Neither you, nor your people knew them before this. So be patient. The future belongs to the pious.
The story in the Quran of a Flood in the middle east wasnt known to the Prophet or his people. The Quran was the first to proclaim it.This means the Flood in Mesopotamia didnt happend and the arabs didnt heard of it because it happend somewhere else.Or the Flood in Sumer happend but it wasnt so big to be told through nations as it goes on In 2537 it says that it is a sign for mankind.
This seem to me another evidence that it happend not in the middle east
-
as per archeology earliest known civilisations originated from continent AFRICA
-
to add my thoughts About the ark i guess it wasnt as big as it is decribed in the bible thats a false passage,falsly claiming that the boat was 500 feet Long and 50 feet tall.
God said take from the animals two pairs this means the animals in the Region ,the AT define it to be seven pairs of the animals and it says some of clean aniimals and some of the unclean animals ,dont know what sort of animals but from the area and from other parts of the world.
You Need a bunch of Workers for a 500 feet boat and that hight and it would take years.And it would be the biggest woodboat ever ,such a big boat would stay in mind of the People if it lands somewhere,but it didnt.
-
Sheikh Wiki says
"A still earlier version is found in the history of the Umayyad conquest of Hispania by Tariq ibn Ziyad, written around AD 750 by Abulcasim Tarif Abentarique. It holds that Japheth's son Tubal or (Sem Tofail) divided Iberia among his 3 sons ? leaving his eldest Tarraho the northeast section (called Tarrahon, later Aragon); to his second son, Sem Tofail the younger, he left the west, along the ocean (later called Set?bal); and to his youngest, Iber, he left the eastern part, along the Mediterranean, called Iberia. Tubal then built for himself a city he called Morar (today M?rida, Spain) ? where Abentarique claimed to have seen a large stone above the main city gate inscribed with these details, which he translated into Arabic. " -
The legend is the conquest. There was no conquest at all. The oldest documentary hint of such a thing is two hundred years yunger than the purported conquest. It was wholly made up for political purposes.
Of course some of the documents of later centuries enjoyed very much posing that their ancestors conquered something, but it is pure fantasy.
However it has served very well the imperial designs of the Roman church to expel anything but it from the territories it wanted, which were all territories, of course.
Just as it did with the crusades.Salaam
-
so they immigrated to europe like today lived there peacefully together till one day they had to go because of their Religion or what?
The oldest documentary hint of such a thing is two hundred years yunger than the purported conquest. It was wholly made up for political purposes.
i would appreciate a source of that documentOf course some of the documents of later centuries enjoyed very much posing that their ancestors conquered something, but it is pure fantasy.
Again, so the muslims in spain did not conquer they were invited to live there and the islamichistorian made it conquer of it?
-
To start with at the time tht "conquest" os suposed to have happenned, Spain was not Europe, Spain under the name it had was on both sides of the straight. It wa the same kingdom what is now Morokko and Spain. No border. And therefore people of any ancestry were spread on both sides and Arabs and other could travel unhindered. Why not?
Secondly christianity was not a monolith, Higher gothic estament was roman church, but many, many people of lower classes were arrians and persecuted. There had been civil strife and the arrians were beaten and forbidden. Only roman church was legal. The arrival of a new creed skinner to arrianism was welcomed by people.
It is in those cirumstances where later church people invented the conquest and some muslims followed because bragging seems to have been a weakness of some of them back then too.
As to the first document, I can't remember exactly but it was a mention somewhere. Of course later on many things were added, but completely unhistorical But don't worry. It is so. Conventions demands that we carry on believing in the conquest, but amongst knowledgeable people it is common knowledge. On the other hand even medieval popular literature gave hints about it.
Salaam
-
quote]To start with at the time tht "conquest" os suposed to have happenned, Spain was not Europe, Spain under the name it had was on both sides of the straight. It wa the same kingdom what is now Morokko and Spain. No border. And therefore people of any ancestry were spread on both sides and Arabs and other could travel unhindered. Why not?
Spain in Northafrica?Who was the king of that Kingdom.
The Arab had to fight there way through northafrica
quote]To start with at the time tht "conquest" os suposed to have happenned, Spain was not Europe, Spain under the name it had was on both sides of the straight. It wa the same kingdom what is now Morokko and Spain. No border. And therefore people of any ancestry were spread on both sides and Arabs and other could travel unhindered. Why not?
Spain in Northafrica?Who was the king of that Kingdom.
The Arab had to fight they way through Northafrica.
Secondly christianity was not a monolith, Higher gothic estament was roman church, but many, many people of lower classes were arrians and persecuted. There had been civil strife and the arrians were beaten and forbidden. Only roman church was legal. The arrival of a new creed skinner to arrianism was welcomed by people.
It is in those cirumstances where later church people invented the conquest and some muslims followed because bragging seems to have been a weakness of some of them back then too.i agree there were social-religious unrest and that parts of people welcomed them especially the jew who suffered under the visigots the most.There was a change in the rulership after fighting roderic, the Moors takeover and they moved till the Gots are gone.
In my view historically a conquest by fighting against one party who is in control and beeing in power is a conquest.
As to the first document, I can't remember exactly but it was a mention somewhere. Of course later on many things were added, but completely unhistorical But don't worry. It is so. Conventions demands that we carry on believing in the conquest, but amongst knowledgeable people it is common knowledge. On the other hand even medieval popular literature gave hints about it.
Without any source it is just a hypothesis from someone without credibility.
salam