No.

All humanity descends from Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Ishmael was descended from Shem, through Abraham and his Egyptian wife, Hagar, and was the father of the Ishmaelites.(Genesis 11:10-27)(1Chronicles 1:28)

The Canaanites descended from Ham, through Canaan, and were made up of eleven tribes who lived in the land of Canaan: The Amorites, Arkites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Hamathites, Hittites, Hivites, Jebusites, Sidonians (Phoenicians), Sinites, Zemarites. (Genesis 9:18; 10:6).

One view:

Nobody knows 'how many' animals ended up on the ark, but according to the Genesis 7:2, there were 2 of each kind of "unclean" animal, 7 of each type of "clean" animal--those which would be used for sacrifices and eventually for food.

Genesis 6:19-22 says that Noah took two of each sort of animal into the Ark - cattle, fowl and every living thing. Genesis 7:1-5 says that Noah took seven of each clean animal, but only two of each unclean animal into the Ark. The reason for this difference is that there are actually two different Flood accounts woven together, so that unless read carefully they seem to be just one account. The verses attributed to the Priestly author are: Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6, 7:8-9, 7:11, 7:13-16a, 7:18-21, 7:24, 8:1-2a, 8:3b-5, 8:7, 8:13a, 8:14-19, 9:1-17. The verses attributed to the Yahwist are: Genesis 6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7:7, 7:10, 7:12, 7:16b-17, 7:22-23, 8:2b-3a, 8:6, 8:8-12, 8:13b, 8:20-22.

Either way, the total number of animals should have run into the millions, as animals that were not taken on board would have died, and we would have no descendants of those animals today.

Answer:

The scriptures are not clear on how many, only that they came in as one male and one female. To say that every species which exist today was on the ark cannot be proved. One must take into account the theory of evolution.

Genesis 7 implies that either 2 or 7 of each animal species on Earth went on board. It isn't stated, but plants would also need to be saved - non-marine/water species would not survive being submerged for either 40 or 150 days (Genesis gives both durations). This implies several million animals on board; the most common of which would be beetles - there are around 350,000 species of beetles - and many thousands of plants and trees.

Answer:

As to how many, it is uncertain, but it was actually no multiple of two, due to the uneven number of asexual and polysexual creatures that hab existed since a few months before 1000 b.c.

However, as non-avian dinosaurs were left to drown in the flood (being the "sinners" that Genesis refers to) there is a discrepancy regarding how many semi-avian animals that had recently evolved, many of which survived by coasting around the ark and picking of small, now extinct species from the ark's deck, before transforming back into serpants, lizards, amphibians, and killer birds.

Answer 5:

None; Geology and archaeology have determined that there was never a world-wide flood on earth in the last 20,000,000 years. The story is pure myth.

Answer 6:

From Genesis--no specific count given

Total numbers can't be known, but one pair of each kind of unclean animals and seven pairs of each kind of clean animals and birds were taken on board.

Genesis 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Answer 7:

Spiritual Vessel--no count possible

There is no way of counting them. Noah's Ark is a spiritual, not a scientific vessel. Its meaning is not to be found in numbers, and indeed, attempting to quantify such things is missing the point. Answer 8:

Real Vessel--Science may yet determine count

Noah's Ark was a real vessel; it was reported found by the Russians and seen by others and is in a glacier somewhere. If a non-biased expedition is sent to locate it, perhaps we will learn how many animals it may have carried. Answer 9:

It cant be decided - but certainly not 2 of every kind of animal in the world - it would never have been possible. Answer 10:

It is impossible for there to have been two of every animal on earth in the Ark. That is like 1.5 million species! This story is ether allegory or is just plain false, probably based on ancient folklore of a real flood that has been altered and changed over the millennia.

Answer:

The story of Noah's Ark is not to be taken literally. Noah's Ark represents the human mind (Spirit). "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens," represents the 7 chakras or 7 major endocrine glands which are affected by our way of thinking. "…beasts that are not clean by two," represent the 2 affects(tree of good and evil) that those glands have on us, fear, self preservation, selfishness, (sin, evil) etc… or faith, love, giving (holiness, good) etc...We must take into consideration that when the Jews came out of Babylon and Ezra put the Bible together, they where influence from the stories from both east (India and surrounding areas) and from the west (Africa and surrounding areas). Babylon means "The Gate of the God" and was considered the gateway between both worlds (East and West). What the Jews did was take the stories of both worlds, put them together, and changed it a little to make it there own.

Answer:

Genesis 6:19-22 says that Noah took two of each sort of animal into the Ark - cattle, fowl and every living thing. Genesis 7:1-5 says that Noah took seven of each clean animal, but only two of each unclean animal into the Ark. The reason for this difference is that there are actually two different Flood accounts woven together, so that unless read carefully they seem to be just one account. The verses attributed to the Priestly author are: Genesis 6:9-22, 7:6, 7:8-9, 7:11, 7:13-16a, 7:18-21, 7:24, 8:1-2a, 8:3b-5, 8:7, 8:13a, 8:14-19, 9:1-17. The verses attributed to the Yahwist are: Genesis 6:5-8, 7:1-5, 7:7, 7:10, 7:12, 7:16b-17, 7:22-23, 8:2b-3a, 8:6, 8:8-12, 8:13b, 8:20-22.

Either way, the total number of animals should have run into the millions, as animals that were not taken on board would have died, and we would have no descendants of those animals today.

Answer:

Based on the information contained in the Bible, it has been calculated that approximately 16,000 animals were on the ark. The numbers mentioned in the Bible refer only to 'kinds' which are broader classifications than our present day species (on which sceptical estimates are based, hence the inflated figures usually arrived at).

Biblical account probably based on a real local flood, possibly the flooding of what is now the Black Sea. Noah had time to knock together a raft and grab enough of his breeding stock to keep him going when things settled down. What happened to the plants, I'd like to know?

The book of Genesis didn't give any final numbers. It just indicated that Noah had one female and one male representative each of every living, [air?] breathing species [7:8]. It described the species as being of animals and birds.

Answer:

2 of each 'unclean' animal and 7 of the 'clean' animals (Genesis 7:1-3)suitable for sacrifice. After Adam's sin animals were killed to provide clothing for people and for sacrificial purposes. (Genesis 3:21 / Genesis 4:4) Then after the Flood, mankind was given permission from God to eat animals.(Genesis 9:3, 4)

There is no question that the animals entered a state of deep inactivity and/or hibernation. Also, there was a lot of genetic diversifying after the Flood, so that fewer animals needed to be on the ark than what we see today. For example, dogs can breed with wolves and dingoes, and lions can breed with leopards. See also:

Evidence of the Flood

A carnivore thriving on milk, eggs and grain

Proto-Semitic language was the ancestor of the Hebrew language. Hebrew is one of the world's oldest languages. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of the creation of mankind, and of the ancestors of the Hebrew people. At any rate, Adam's and Eve's language was the first language in the world. According to the eleventh chapter of the book of Genesis, one language was spoken until the building of the Tower of Babel. One of the suggested dating methods for events in the Old Testament has given the 29th-28th centuries B.C.E. as the date at which the world language ceased to unite all of the world's peoples. One of the projects of a number of linguistics professors and researchers is the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, the world's first spoken language. The language of Adam and Eve is protoindoeuropean. Anna Katharina Emmerick:

The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Shem, and Noah, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language.
We don't know because the Bible doesn't say.

Bologna History:

The Lighter Side of History

(Which means some "historical facts" and a whole lot of bologna)

Adam and Eve spoke the language of love. That is until Adam started pining for his ex Lilith and then Eve started speaking the language of nagging, a time honored language of wives that defies regional phrasing and can be understood universally regardless of what language it is spoken in. Adam was fond of hiding from Eve when she was going through her nagging phase, underneath the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil which he named as such because when Eve left him alone there it was good and when Eve came a nagging it was evil. While modern historians tend to give Sir Isaac Newton credit for the discovery of gravity, in fact, that discovery was made by Adam one day when Eve, upset over Adams laziness and unwillingness to mow the Garden of Eden, began kicking Adam and using her broomstick to hit him over the head. Adam, in a vain attempt to escape this abuse dodged her blows and with one blow Eve hit the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and an apple came plunging down on Adam's head. Eve, unimpressed with Adam's pain, told him she didn't think he understood the gravity of the situation and at that moment Adam decided to call the inexplicable force...gravity.

Editors note:

In spite of the mythological accounts of Adam and Eve, The Society of Uptight and Really, Really, Serious Historians, (S.U.R.R.S.H.), have had enough with this answerers antics and demand a serious and academic answer from him right now.

Oh come on! Were talking about Adam and Eve for crying out loud. How can S.U.R.R.S.H. know if I am right or wrong.

Ahem.

Oh, all right, fine then. According to Abrahamic traditions the language of Adam and Eve was called the Adamic Language, named after none other than Adam who spoke this strange and mysterious form of pig Latin to his second wife Eve. Lilith was his first wife and while Eve was made from a rib from Adams rib cage, Lilith was made from grime as opposed to the dust Adam was made from. Lilith spoke only in gutteral type pronouncements which didn't seem to matter much to Adam who found Lilith very sexy and a whole lot of fun under the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil...

Ahem.

O.k. fine. It is in the Book of Genesis 2:19 of the Old Testament where we learn that Adam either invented this language himself or learned it from God who often spoke to Adam over a cup of chamomile tea and some cucumber sandwiches...

Ahem!

Sorry...I'm sorry. Anyway traditional Jewish traditions claim Adam spoke Hebrew because of the names he gave Eve. Most of those names wont get past the obscenity police in wikianswers so it is best to just give the two found in Genesis 2:23 and 3:20 respectively. Those names are Isha and Chava and Jewish scholars claim those names only make sense in Hebrew. What doesn't make sense is if these were the names that Adam gave Eve then why does everybody keep calling her Eve? If Adam spoke Adamic or Hebrew the Book of Genesis is rather ambiguous on whether the language of Adam was actually preserved by Adams descendants before the "confusion of tongues" brought on by the wicked, wicked, wicked Babel or if it just evolved naturally before the time of the wicked, wicked, wicked Babel.

Dante, in his De Vulgari Eloquentia argues that the Adamic language is of divine origin and as such unchangeable. Dante also claims that according to Genesis, the first act of actual speech is spoken by Eve to the serpent and not to Adam. This, of course, gives an awful lot of credence to my prior tale of Adam and Eve speaking the language of love and it is unclear to me why S.U.R.R.S.H. is so persnickety about that. It also seems to be more realistic as wives rarely speak to their husbands and will often speak to "those serpents" instead of their husbands even in modern times...at least that is my experience of wives and any real conversations with them. At any rate, in his Divine Commedia, Dante changes his view somewhat and claims that Adam did invent the Adamic language and consequentially took the view that the language was immutable and since this time the Hebrew language is no longer considered the language of Paradise.

Dante goes further in his Paridiso XXVI to claim that Hebrew is a derivative of the Adamic language and reconstructs the Hebrew name for God in its scholastic tradition of El to the less lettered I. This would explain why years later when God appeared to Moses as a burning bush, told Moses that his name is I Am that I Am. It is also very similar to the language Dr. Seuss relied upon and the metric style profoundly similar such as; "Hey you, what is your name you?" "Why, I Am that I Am as I Am I." But before the wikieditors interrupt me with another ahem, let's not get into Dr. Seuss as that would be off topic.

So is personal stories of ex-wives and the readers don't need to know about your cuckolded life. Just stay on topic please.

O.k. fine. And BTW, I never said my ex cheated on me I only suggested she spent more time talking to other men than she did to me.

If that's what you choose to believe that is your business but has no business in this answer. Do you understand? It should also be noted at this point that the claim that Adam and Eve spoke a form of pig Latin is considered a false claim by S.U.R.R.S.H.

Yeah right. That just shows what a bunch of guys who gather at a Society for Uptight and Really, Really, Serious Historians actually really, really know about it. It should be further noted then, that some Christian scholars have claimed that Adam spoke Latin and based this claim from an interpretation of Genesis 10:5, so what do you uptight and really, really serious historians have to say about that smart guy?

It is the consensus of S.U.R.R.S.H. that these claims were an invention by some early priests to explain the use of Latin as the Liturgical language of the Church.

Oh. Well...maybe so.

So?

What?

Do you ever intend to finish this answer?

I guess it is finished. I certainly don't have anything more to add. Do you?...Hello? Are you still there? I hate when he does that.
The Bible implies the language of Adam and Eve must have been Hebrew. Genesis chapter 11 says that those who disobeyed God and built the Tower of Babel were scattered and their language confounded. Today, we know that Hebrew originated as a West Semitic language and continued to evolve down through the centuries. Even if Adam and Eve were historical people, the Hebrews would not really have understood them.
The language given to Adam was evidently the one that later came to be known as Hebrew. For at least the first 1,757 years of human existence, all mankind evidently continued to speak that one language. (Genesis 11:1)
What men today call the Hebrew language was, in its original form, the language that Adam spoke in the garden of Eden
English probably. But no one knows for sure.
The Bible does not say what language Adam and Eve spoke. It certainly can not have been Hebrew, since scholars have identified the origins of that language to the late tenth century BCE. It should also be remembered that languages actually go back to at least 100,000 years ago, long before the time attributed to Adam and Eve.

Leon R. Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis) considers Adam and Eve to be purely mythical and says that we should not regard the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as a historical yet idealised portrait of a blissful existence we once enjoyed but lost. On that view, deciding what language they spoke would be meaningless.

The early Hebrews imagined Adam and Eve as speaking Hebrew, just as they did. However, this is plainly impossible as the Hebrew language only evolved from a dialect of Canaanite in the first millennium BCE.
Adam is a figment of a collective judeo-christian imagination. what language is spoken by santa Claus or the Easter bunny? equally relevent. According to the Jews, Adam spoke Hebrew.

An unbiased and reasonable person would say that Noah's Ark does not and could not prefigure baptism. However, Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament) tells how with a little ingenuity, one can come up with any comparisons between the Old Testament and the New Testament that one wishes. There is a trick that Mack sees happen all the time in the classrooms of the School of Theology at Claremont and which seems to come naturally when studying the Bible. One can ask any question of the Bible and get some kind of answer. At first the study of a text may not seem to support the answer one hopes to find in the Bible, but with a little ingenuity, one can set up the comparison again with other emphases and make the answer come out right. This is how to make Noah's Ark appear to prefigure baptism.

In the flood, Noah and his family were saved because the ark kept them OUT of the water. In baptism, one is plunged INTO the water. Reverse scenario. "Antitype."

The NIV also says that "this [flood] water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also." How can that be so? Everyone outside the ark perished in the flood!

So does the carnal person of sin, in baptism!

Romans 6:3, 4 - Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.[NKJV]

Had God wanted to, they could have fit in a suitcase. The Creator of all has no difficulty in bringing about such a phenomenon, through "natural" or miraculous means. For example, tradition states that the Ark of the Covenant took up zero physical space in the Holy of Holies (Talmud, Yoma 21a). Therefore, though calculations are interesting, they need not have the final word. For a calculation, see the Related Link (by a Christian author).

Link: Fitting the animals into the ark

Some Answers from our contributors:

1. If you are asking can a gentile become a Jew, the answer is yes. If you are asking whether someone can continue to be a non-Jew and yet be Jewish, the answer is no.

2. A Jew is anybody born from a Jewish mother, or who has converted to Judaism. If a non-Jew and a Jew have a child and the mother is a Jew, then according to Judaism all of their children are Jews. If the father is a Jew and the mother is a non-Jew, the children are not Jews. (Except in Reform Judaism, which accepts children of Jewish fathers, as long as the children were raised as Jews.)

3. Any non-Jew can convert to Judaism and will then be considered fully Jewish. There is an explanation of this at the Related Link below.

4. I'd like to split the question in two:

A- Can a Gentile become a Jew?

B- Can a Gentile believe in Jesus and be a Jew?

To the first question, Yes. There is a formal procedure, involving much study, rabbinic oversight, etc, which if the candidate is accepted, culminates in a miqveh, and for men, circumcision. Although Judaism discourages conversion, it also teaches that a "convert" is to be highly regarded (it isn't always easy to take on the Torah's obligations if you aren't raised in it). Also, a person who has completed the conversion process is viewed by Jewish Law as a full Jew, period.

To the second question, No. Although there can be an "interpretation" placed on Paul's teachings that one may be a "spiritual" Jew having had "circumcision of the heart," but this is contradictory both to Jesus's teaching, as well as the clear practice and teaching of the Jews.

5. The question doesn't make sense, really. Can a German Shepherd dog be a Labrador Retriever dog?

6. You can be whatever you want. If you want to follow one of the major religions, you can do so to your hearts content. You will always find a sect that will accept you as you are, while others may reject you since they don't like to accept outsiders.

You can decide you are Jewish, start following all the customs and holidays, go to temple, etc., teach your children and tell them they are Jewish. Who can tell you not to?

On the other hand you could just be a free-thinker, an atheist, or a secular humanist. Secular humanism emphasizes being a good human being. Either way, if you are a good human being you don't need to define yourself as anything other than human. Believing in a god or a prophet is unnecessary. Just love others and help them as much as you can. This is all you need to do in life to be a worthy member of the human race. Don't do it because you have to, do it because you want to. Everything else can easily lead you on the wrong path. Don't listen to others, listen to your heart. If you are a good person you will know I'm right.

The history of the world is now too well-known for there to have been a world-wide flood just 5000 years ago. In addition to this, the geological and fossil evidence is entirely inconsistent with there having been a biblical Flood, whether 5000 years ago or even earlier.

However, there is a probable basis for the biblical Flood tradition, in the inundation of what is now the Black Sea, at the end of the last Ice Age.