Previously on the Genesis Account of
Noah’s Ark we delved into the idea of whether Noah’s Ark and
the Flood were believable, what the actual size of Noah’s Ark was and
what kind and how many animals were on board. Join us now as we explore the possible
shape and construction of Noah’s Ark, and what its ability to survive
such a catastrophic experience would have been… in part 2 of the
Genesis Account of Noah’s Ark… Noah’s Ark has been depicted in a wide variety
of ways over the years, even among the Christian church. And this is likely because, in contrast
to other divinely specified constructions in the Bible which are meticulously detailed, like
the descriptions of Moses’ Tabernacle or the temple in Ezekiel’s vision, the
description of the Ark in Genesis 6 is very brief and consists
of verses 14, 15 and 16. However, even though they are brief and
contain only simple information about the Ark, the data given is critical. And although these
verses only contain the Ark’s overall dimensions, Noah was almost certainly
given more detail than this. It is important to realize what is NOT
explicitly stated here, because despite the minimal description, the Bible doesn’t
specifically say the Ark was a rectangular box. In fact, Scripture gives no clue about the
exact shape of Noah’s Ark other than the proportions—length, width, and depth. We need to
recognize that ships have long been described like this without ever implying a squared,
block-shaped hull. The Patriarch Moses, the writer of the account, used the obscure
Hebrew term tebah to describe the Ark, a word that is only used again for the basket that
carried him as a baby down the Nile in Exodus 2:3. So the same word was used to describe both a huge
wooden ship, and a tiny pitch-coated wicker-reed basket. We can be quite sure that the baby basket
didn’t have the same proportions as the Ark, and Egyptian baskets of the
time were typically rounded. Other than that, they both
float, both rescue life, and both are covered, the similarity ends there.
So perhaps tebah simply means “lifeboat.” For several centuries many biblical depictions
simply portrayed Noah’s Ark as a rectangular box. This shape helped illustrate its
size and made it easy to compare volume. By using a short cubit and
the maximum number of animal “kinds,” Christians could easily demonstrate how the
Ark could fit the biological payload described required according to the Bible’s specifications.
Most of the time, most people felt space was the main issue and other factors were
considered as more secondary in nature. However, another more modern phase of research
focused on demonstrating the Ark’s feasibility and investigated other key factors, such
as seakeeping (which encompasses behavior and comfort of passengers at sea), its
hull strength, and overall stability. Surprisingly for many, this began with a study
performed at a world-class ship research center in 1992, the Korean Research Institute of Ships
and Ocean Engineering, or KRISO. The team of nine KRISO researchers was led by Dr. Hong, who is now
director-general of the research center in Korea. The study combined analysis, model wave
testing, and ship standards, yet the big picture conceptually was simple: compare the biblical
Ark with 12 other vessels of the same volume, but modified in length, width, or depth. Three
qualities were measured—stability, hull strength, and comfort. The takeaway conclusion from the
study was the confirmation that the Ark could handle immense waves as high as 98 feet tall, and
that the proportions of the biblical Ark are near optimal—which was an interesting admission
from Dr. Hong, who believed evolutionary ideas. While Noah’s Ark was only an average performer
in each separate quality, it was among the best designs overall. In other words, the proportions
show a careful design balance that is easily lost when proportions are modified the wrong way. It
is no surprise that modern ships have similar proportions—why do most ships look like most
ships? Because those general proportions work. Interesting to note is the fact that this study
makes nonsense of the claim that Genesis was written only a few centuries before Christ and was
based on flood legends such as the commonly touted Epic of Gilgamesh. In it, the Babylonian ark is
a cube shape, something so far from reality that even the shortest hull in the aforementioned
Korean study wasn’t even close. But we would expect mistakes from other flood accounts, like
that of Gilgamesh, as the Scriptural account of Noah would have been appropriated and distorted
as it was passed down through different cultures. But, one mystery remained. The Korean
study was quite thorough and honest, and didn’t hide the fact that some shorter hulls
slightly outperformed the biblical Noah’s Ark. Why would that be if this was a work commissioned
by God? Well, further work by two naval architects, Jim King and Dr. Allen Magnuson, as
well as by Noah’s Ark specialist, Tim Lovett, focused attention on a key and dangerous issue,
the issue of broaching—a vessel being turned sideways by the waves and being beaten apart by
the tremendous force pounding into its hull... Ship builders know that this problem can be
overcome to a great degree by certain specific and clever design features. You see the Bible says
in Genesis 8:1 that after several months at sea, God sent a wind, which could
have produced very large waves since these can result from a strong, steady
wind. And open-water testing confirms that any drifting vessel will naturally
turn side-on to the waves and broach. With a sea with waves approaching the side of the
vessel, whose surface motion is approximately at a right angle to the course of a vessel (called
a beam sea), a long vessel like the Ark would be trapped in an uncomfortable situation; and in
heavy weather it could become extremely dangerous. This could be overcome, however, by the vessel
catching the wind at the bow and gathering the water at the stern—aligning itself like a wind
vane. And this specific design can be seen in many other ancient ship designs that came
after, perhaps inspired by the Ark itself. If this was the case, as the wind aligned the Ark
so it pointed into the waves, the long, ship-like proportions would create a much more comfortable
and controlled voyage for all on board. Now some might ask how do we
know what the waves were like? Well, if there were no waves at all, stability,
comfort, or strength would be unimportant, and the proportions simply wouldn’t matter.
Remember, the great Ark had no specific destination. And with nowhere to arrive
to at a certain time, and traveling slowly with the wind, it had no need for
speed. However, the Bible does say the Ark moved about on the surface of the waters
in Genesis 7:18. However, not all waves are aligned with the local wind so the ark may also
encounter distant swells from other direction. So the first line of defense would come
from the excellent proportions of the ark, confirmed in the study by the world-class
ship research center in Korea. In addition, the outer keels
that provide protection on land also improve roll damping in the waves,
much like the bilge keels of a modern ship. With all of the potential perils
he would face, it would have been prudent for Noah to put lots of ancient
ingenuity into the project of his life. So as we can see, although a possibility,
the familiar box shaped Ark doesn’t make a lot of sense. Compared to a ship-like bow and
stern, blunt ends aren’t as strong, have edges that are vulnerable to damage during launch and
beaching, and would likely have given a rougher ride. And since the Bible gives proportions
like that of a true ship, it makes sense that it would have looked and acted ship-like. The
design depicted is an attempt to flesh out the biblical outline using real-life experiments
and archeological evidence of ancient ships. While Scripture doesn’t point out
a wind-catching feature at the bow, neither does the abbreviated account
we are given in Genesis make mention of drinking water, the exact number of
animals, or the way they got out of the Ark either. So nothing in this newer
depiction of the Ark contradicts Scripture; in fact, it shows how accurate Scripture is, since
the proportions are so realistic! The bottom line is, Noah’s Ark was ideally suited to survive
the catastrophic event that was- Noah’s Flood. Of course, another real-life consideration
sometimes brought up is that another type of wave may also have affected the
Ark during the Flood—tsunamis. Earthquakes can create tsunamis that devastate
coastlines. However, the Bible states, “Now the flood was on the earth forty days.
The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth” in Genesis
7:17. So if launched from high ground by the rising floodwaters, the Ark would have avoided
the initial devastation of coastlines and low-lying areas and would likely have remained
safe from tsunamis throughout the voyage. When a tsunami travels in deep
water it is imperceptible to a ship. During the Flood, the water
would of course have been very, very deep… and this leads to another
common question and objection asked and brought against the plausibility of the
flood account— Where did all that water go? Join us next time as we explore,
“Where did all the water go?” as well as answer questions as to whether
Noah’s flood might have been a local rather than a worldwide event as some have proposed –
in part 3 of The Genesis Account of Noah’s Ark.
