| Comments |
| |
| Beautiful illustrations, thanks for posting. |
|
| Tempted to get into it about the legend.
But, what has always amused me about pictorial depictions of Noah's Ark is the totally inappropriate animals depicted.
I think the visual traditions must have started in the Victorian timers. The animals are almost always African,
So the lineup on page 13 - [2 by 2] is all African except for Camels and one chicken. Page 15 has two polar bears and two moose- which must have been uncomfortable for them - and two kangaroos. And one dog. Page 17 has 5 ducks and 4 chickens. Also two horses and I'm pretty sure Horses weren't known in the middle east at that time. They were introduced much later by a people known as the HYKSOS.
The artist is making wry editorial comment I think, by some of his depictions. On page 19 we have a cat eyeing off two mice, two dogs chasing two rabbits, two foxes eyeing off two geese and Noah apparently throwing up his hands in horror!
Page 23 - two Walrus, two Bison and two Vultures!
Page 25 - two Dinosaurs. (which had to be left behind) and page 27 a list of animals which refused to go in, had to be left behind and of course went extinct. The artists editorial comment is shown by the addition of two unicorns and two pink elephants.
OH, he was having fun! There are little gags in corners in all the illustrations .
My reaction to page 37?
After 40 days, can you imagine the smell?
Page 47 is interesting because he has apparently depicted people from many races and cultures. |
|
| From Wikipedia: ELMER BOYD SMITH (May 31, 1860 – October 5, 1943) was an American writer and illustrator of children's books and painter.
Smith was born in Saint John, New Brunswick and studied art in Paris with Gustave Boulanger and Jules Joseph Lefebvre at the Académie Julian from 1881 to 1884, and also with H. Lefort for several years. In the early 1900s he moved to Wilton, Connecticut, where he spent the remainder of his life. He illustrated more than seventy books for both adults and children, beginning with "My Village" in 1896, written while he was living in France. His first children's book was "The Story of Noah's Ark" in 1905. |
|
| What an absolutely beautiful book! |
|
| I love the sly humour in both the text and the pictures. I note that the author has prudently supplied wives for Noah's sons, thus neatly avoiding an awkward question arising out of the Genesis version. Anyone wanting to do serious research on the Ark story should search Youtube for "Irving Finkel ark," for some very learned but humorous lectures. |
|
| I am surprised at such a horribly inaccurate version of the ARK story being allowed to be published at this time. The Bible was generally taken much more seriously, except for the error of all animals coming in twos when the clean came in sevens. I invite everyone to visit the THE ARK exabit for the facts. And yes the story perfectly fits science and genetics when looked at as the science it is. Most who do not know the true story have amazing misconceptions. |
|
| "Most who do not know the TRUE story have amazing misconceptions."
NO ONE can ever know the TRUE story, because even the earliest written version that will ever be found will be, at least, a word-of-mouth, passed down legend, a few thousand years later than the original real-life event that spawned it (likely the end of the great glacial melt, at the end of The Earth's last Ice Age, which caused the breakthrough of the rising Mediterranean waters into The Black Sea Basin around 5600 BCE. Irving Finkel's theories on the reed ark that Utnapishtim could have used is appropriate for exploring the possibility of what might have been the situation of what spawned the legend carried through the generations by word of mouth down to the Pre-Sumerians at the mouth of The Persian Gulf. But, I rather think that the original event was the experience of a farmer dwelling in a village near the northern shore of The Black Sea (when it was a large freshwater lake) just before The Bosporus breakthrough, who put his family, and one breeding pair of each of his domesticated farm animals (and perhaps one or two breeding pairs of non-dangerous wild animals (deer?)), and whose was forced to migrate to a new place to live, because their land ended up at the bottom of a new ocean sea. His descendants likely eventually ended up in Northern Mesopotamia a few hundred years later, and the legend was carried south to the mouth of Persian Gulf along with other north Mesopotamian culture, after farming had been developed and refined there, and was carried south by migrants there, who mixed with the other elements of the eventual Pre-Sumerians, who had migrated to southern Mesopotamia from southern Iran, Pakistan, and northwestern India. Naturally, the original story was exaggerated greatly over the almost 3,000 years of word-of-mouth storytelling, before it was first written down many hundreds of miles away from the location of its occurrence, in a land of vastly different climate and physical features, with different indigenous animal life. |
|
| Well I am a Bible believer who does not consider it a legend but a fact as written in Genesis. Most who would have bought the book when it was printed considered as fact also. Visit THE ARK and see how it can ll be true and fits science much better than the myth of macro-evolution. And I have a Science degree and was a science and math teacher. |
|
| | |
