From that last post, I wanted to single out one of the criticisms Answers in Genesis has of other people’s renderings of the book of Genesis.
10. Ark looks like a bathtub with happy animals sticking out of it
That’s an odd complaint. So children’s books are all bad because they have cartoonish simplifications of the old myth? This collection of medieval and more recent art showing the Ark is all wrong?
Here’s the entirety of the description of the Ark from Genesis 6:
Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
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.
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
That’s it. A wooden something, sealed with pitch, of certain dimensions, with one window and one door in the side. Not very specific, with a lot of latitude in how it could be rendered. But Answers in Genesis is adamant about how good Christians will illustrate it. It seems like a peculiarly narrow requirement…but then, of course, the Bible is full of peculiar restrictions.
I was curious about this attitude, though, so I looked at the archive of AiG cartoons by Dan Lietha. This was painful. A collection of unfunny, judgmental, repetitive cartoons? The things I do for you.
And it’s true. They’ve long been damning “inaccurate” drawings of the Ark, going back at least 15 years.
Strange, but it’s obvious why. AiG is building an Ark. They clearly want to set it up as canonical, and also have a tool for wagging their fingers and thundering at organizations that do not illustrate Noah’s Ark looking exactly like the one they’re cobbling together in Kentucky.
How cunning: they are going to shame every other church in the country to advertise the Ark Park, on pain of damnation.