Bible predictions about Noahs Ark...are true.

[CrowCross]

One of the evidences that supports the YEC's view has been lifted from the bible.

If one reads an account in the bile...then goes looking for the remains of the account and finds it...the bible gains even more credence.

In the bible there is an account of a sea worhty vessel called Noahs Ark. People have read about it for several thousand years.
People have looked for it where the bible says it landed....Genesis 8:4 informs us that...the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

So they looked...and here's what has been discoverd as presented in this article
FIGURE 1. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF AN OBJECT, SHAPED LIKE A SHIP, IN THE ARARAT MOUNTAINS, EASTERN TURKEY, 1959,

The Old earth Secular geologist claimed it was simply a natural phenomena...and walked away.
About a year after taking the photo an expedition went looking for it.

The Ark like anomaly was found and over the years investigated....as the link above shows.

They employed scientific techniques such as metal detection and deep penatrating radar to peer underground...and discovered a ship.

The article tells us....On one occasion, the radar equipment picked up what appeared to be a square shaped object within the ships remains. The specimen was dug up by the Turkish military at that time, and later analyzed by Galbraith Laboratories in the United States. The laboratory testing confirmed that the specimen contained organic carbon, indicating that the material was not rock, but was once composed of living material, consistent with petrified wood. (Fig. 4).

The natural phenomena that the OE Geologist walked away from turns out to not be rock. Metallic objects were also discovered at the Ark site....see figure 5 in the link provided above.

Figure six shows a very ship like pattern when the locations metal was connected....quite amazing.
It was then concluded that the object was the remains of a ship, which exactly matched the Biblical description, and dimensions of Noah’s Ark.

As time went on the rib indentations of the ships were discovered and investigated. Figures 8,9 and 10

As time went on they eventually took 3D images...and the hull of the ship became apparent. Figure 14.

Once again the physical biblical description was realized...“WITH LOWER, SECOND, AND THIRD STORIES SHALT THOU MAKE IT.” (GEN 6:16)
Once again the biblical details were a match....Location, size, shape, (figure 19) decks, materials

The article goes on to explain many more biblically predected features and draws several conclusions. One which is:

It would be a physical impossibility, for a ship the size of the Ark, to drift into the Ararat Mountains, and run aground, 2000 metres above the present elevation of sea level, without water being present. Yet the Ark is not millions of years old. The fossils and sediment on top of which the Ark came to rest, had to have been deposited by the same water, which carried the Ark into that area.

For those who don't believe the bible and follow an Old earth narrative....if it's not Noahs Ark...what is it?

 

[Sereni-tea]

So they looked...and here's what has been discoverd as presented in this article

While there is much that could be said about this article, this in particular stood out to me:

Ron Wyatt also found a metallic object next to the Ark, which had the shape of a large rivet, and was surrounded by what appeared to be an equally large metal washer. (Fig. 5). Part of the metal was tested by Teledyne Allvac laboratories in the United States, where the results showed it to contain a complex alloy of metals, including Aluminium. Aluminium is never found in its pure form, in nature, it is entirely a man-made metal.

The article is correct that aluminium is very rare as a metal and is usually found as aluminium compounds. It is only relatively recently that a way to make aluminium metal by smelting was discovered. This therefore causes me to wonder how Bronze Age Noah would be using a complex alloy of metals, including aluminium, to make the ark.

 

[Sereni-tea]

For those who don't believe the bible and follow an Old earth narrative....if it's not Noahs Ark...what is it?

I believe the Bible but I believe in reading it in its context. The flood was a real event but I have no idea when it happened. I also believe that the account makes deliberate use of hyperbole to get the author's theological point across. But for argument's sake, let's say that a wooden boat that size was found, and proven to be Noah's ark, it wouldn't change the way I read the passage. In the same way, if the earth was proven to be only 6000 years old, it wouldn't change the way I read Genesis 1.

However, you need a lot more evidence than it looks boat shaped and is in the Ararat Mountain region before you can say it is Noah's ark.

 

[TB2]

While there is much that could be said about this article, this in particular stood out to me:


The article is correct that aluminium is very rare as a metal and is usually found as aluminium compounds. It is only relatively recently that a way to make aluminium metal by smelting was discovered. This therefore causes me to wonder how Bronze Age Noah would be using a complex alloy of metals, including aluminium, to make the ark.

Old news. Been debunked

 

[Sereni-tea]

Old news. Been debunked

I'm sure it has.

 

[prism]

Old news. Been debunked

In what way?

 

[TB2]

In what way?

That one in particular is just a natural, geologic formation. Like that face that was seen on Mars that just turned out to be shadows and rocks formations

 

[Bob Carabbio]

One of the evidences that supports the YEC's view has been lifted from the bible.

If one reads an account in the bile...then goes looking for the remains of the account and finds it...the bible gains even more credence.

In the bible there is an account of a sea worhty vessel called Noahs Ark. People have read about it for several thousand years.
People have looked for it where the bible says it landed....Genesis 8:4 informs us that...the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

So they looked...and here's what has been discoverd as presented in this article
FIGURE 1. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF AN OBJECT, SHAPED LIKE A SHIP, IN THE ARARAT MOUNTAINS, EASTERN TURKEY, 1959,

The Old earth Secular geologist claimed it was simply a natural phenomena...and walked away.
About a year after taking the photo an expedition went looking for it.

The Ark like anomaly was found and over the years investigated....as the link above shows.

They employed scientific techniques such as metal detection and deep penatrating radar to peer underground...and discovered a ship.

The article tells us....On one occasion, the radar equipment picked up what appeared to be a square shaped object within the ships remains. The specimen was dug up by the Turkish military at that time, and later analyzed by Galbraith Laboratories in the United States. The laboratory testing confirmed that the specimen contained organic carbon, indicating that the material was not rock, but was once composed of living material, consistent with petrified wood. (Fig. 4).

The natural phenomena that the OE Geologist walked away from turns out to not be rock. Metallic objects were also discovered at the Ark site....see figure 5 in the link provided above.

Figure six shows a very ship like pattern when the locations metal was connected....quite amazing.
It was then concluded that the object was the remains of a ship, which exactly matched the Biblical description, and dimensions of Noah’s Ark.

As time went on the rib indentations of the ships were discovered and investigated. Figures 8,9 and 10

As time went on they eventually took 3D images...and the hull of the ship became apparent. Figure 14.

Once again the physical biblical description was realized...“WITH LOWER, SECOND, AND THIRD STORIES SHALT THOU MAKE IT.” (GEN 6:16)
Once again the biblical details were a match....Location, size, shape, (figure 19) decks, materials

The article goes on to explain many more biblically predected features and draws several conclusions. One which is:

It would be a physical impossibility, for a ship the size of the Ark, to drift into the Ararat Mountains, and run aground, 2000 metres above the present elevation of sea level, without water being present. Yet the Ark is not millions of years old. The fossils and sediment on top of which the Ark came to rest, had to have been deposited by the same water, which carried the Ark into that area.

For those who don't believe the bible and follow an Old earth narrative....if it's not Noahs Ark...what is it?

The existence of "Noah's Ark" (whether they ever find it or not - it gets "found" every few years, just like the Ark of the covenant), and the instance of the Flood have no effect whatsoever on the YEC / OEC issue.

 

[prism]

The existence of "Noah's Ark" (whether they ever find it or not - it gets "found" every few years, just like the Ark of the covenant), and the instance of the Flood have no effect whatsoever on the YEC / OEC issue.

Right God's Word is sufficient (or should be) in settling the OE/YE controversy. It's a shame so much spiritualizing of the text goes on. As I mentioned in another thread, 'evening + morning = one day' (Gen 1:5), but I guess with all of our Eden-fallen sophistries we are able to twist one day into millions of years.

 

[TB2]

On top of that the Bible identifies the mountains of Ararat plural as the resting place so it's unclear which specific mountain. More important is the theological significance. A lot of people seem unaware that the mountains of Ararat region around Van Lake is also a traditional location for the garden of Eden and makes a little more sense since Gen 2 describes the four rivers diverging out from one which makes it sound more like headwaters than terminal deltas. But just the idea of return back to the area of Eden though destroyed has the idea of a fresh start, second chance. Humanity has been judged and the Creation week partially undone and reversed, and now partial renewal.

Van Lake area near mountains of Ararat, near headwaters of Tigris and Euphrates

 

[CrowCross]

While there is much that could be said about this article, this in particular stood out to me:


The article is correct that aluminium is very rare as a metal and is usually found as aluminium compounds. It is only relatively recently that a way to make aluminium metal by smelting was discovered. This therefore causes me to wonder how Bronze Age Noah would be using a complex alloy of metals, including aluminium, to make the ark.

I think people often look at Noah and the pre-flood technology...and label it as "Bronz Age"....I would say thanks to the bible mentioning Tubal and his making tools out of bronze. (Gen 4:22). We must keep in mind Tubal was post flood who was Japheth son. Japheth was one of the three sons of Noah who survived the flood with him

According to britannica the people were processing aluminum thousands of years ago. I believe when you say "It is only relatively recently" it seems that you might be incorrect....then again I don't know what you mean by relatively recent.
Of course Britannica was writing reflecting a recent post flood society and the technology of the pre-flood society would have been lost to the flood.

 

[CrowCross]

I believe the Bible but I believe in reading it in its context. The flood was a real event but I have no idea when it happened.

According to Got Questions....So we have Noah’s birth, which occurred about 1,056 years after the creation of Adam. Then, in Genesis 7:11, we are told that the flood came in the 600th year of Noah’s life, so that would mean the Great Flood came approximately 1,656 years after Adam was created in Eden. Using a similar method places the creation of Adam and Eve at around 4004 BC. So, doing the math, Noah’s flood occurred in approximately 2348 BC.

I also believe that the account makes deliberate use of hyperbole to get the author's theological point across. But for argument's sake, let's say that a wooden boat that size was found, and proven to be Noah's ark, it wouldn't change the way I read the passage. In the same way, if the earth was proven to be only 6000 years old, it wouldn't change the way I read Genesis 1.

It might not change the way you read the passage...but it would provide a lot more insight into the event.

However, you need a lot more evidence than it looks boat shaped and is in the Ararat Mountain region before you can say it is Noah's ark.

When one reads the article there is a lot more evidence presented that shows more than....it looks boat shaped.

 

[CrowCross]

That one in particular is just a natural, geologic formation. Like that face that was seen on Mars that just turned out to be shadows and rocks formations

When one reads the article...and the testing performed (ground penetrating radar) it shows that the formation was not natural.

The best one could say is that the boat like structure was built in the mountains and what we see left is the ruins of that boat shaped structure.

As to the face on Mars..as well as other anomilities seen there...the jury is still out.

 

[CrowCross]

On top of that the Bible identifies the mountains of Ararat plural as the resting place so it's unclear which specific mountain. More important is the theological significance. A lot of people seem unaware that the mountains of Ararat region around Van Lake is also a traditional location for the garden of Eden and makes a little more sense since Gen 2 describes the four rivers diverging out from one which makes it sound more like headwaters than terminal deltas. But just the idea of return back to the area of Eden though destroyed has the idea of a fresh start, second chance. Humanity has been judged and the Creation week partially undone and reversed, and now partial renewal.

The following is a reference from Got Questions.

If the Tigris and Euphrates mentioned are the same rivers by those names today, that would put the Garden of Eden somewhere in the Middle East, likely in Iraq. However, even a small local flood can change the course of a river, and the Flood of Noah’s day was more than a localized flood. The Deluge completely changed the topography of the earth. Because of this, the original location of the Tigris and Euphrates is uncertain. It could be that the modern rivers called the Tigris and Euphrates are simply named after those associated with Eden, in the same way that Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is named after the town in Judea.

Answers in Genesis explains it this way...
This is a major consideration that needs to be taken into account. The worldwide, catastrophic Flood of Noah’s day would have destroyed the surface of the earth. If most of the sedimentary strata over the earth’s surface (many thousands of feet thick in places) is the result of this global catastrophe as creationists believe, then we would have no idea where the Garden of Eden was originally located—the earth’s surface totally changed as a result of the Flood.

Not only this, but underneath the region where the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are located, there exists hundreds of feet of sedimentary strata—a significant amount of which is fossiliferous. Such fossil-bearing strata had to be laid down at the time of the Flood.

Therefore, no one can logically suggest that the area where the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are today....where the Garden of Eve was located.

 

[TB2]

You just need to be careful on these things. We're already fools for Christ (which I'm okay with). There's no need to be fools for foolishness sake.

Back in 1993 there was a Southern California actor who staged a TV documentary hoax claiming he had discovered wood from Noah's Ark. USC helped chemically treat the wood to make it look old. It was all a staged hoax for publicity and a lot of Christians bought it hook line and sinker, once again making us look like unsuspecting fools who will believe anything.

Admitting ‘Noah’s Ark’ Hoax : Television: A man who claimed on a CBS special to have located the ark now says it was a setup.​

BY DANIEL CERONE
OCT. 30, 1993 12 AM PT

 

[TB2]

If you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologists

 

[prism]

If you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologist.

I hate to be cynical, but 'true facts'? Isn't that a bit redundant? And 'Christian geologist'? Is that like a Christian barber or Christian taxi driver?

 

[CrowCross]

You just need to be careful on these things. We're already fools for Christ (which I'm okay with). There's no need to be fools for foolishness sake.

Back in 1993 there was a Southern California actor who staged a TV documentary hoax claiming he had discovered wood from Noah's Ark. USC helped chemically treat the wood to make it look old. It was all a staged hoax for publicity and a lot of Christians bought it hook line and sinker, once again making us look like unsuspecting fools who will believe anything.

Admitting ‘Noah’s Ark’ Hoax : Television: A man who claimed on a CBS special to have located the ark now says it was a setup.​

BY DANIEL CERONE
OCT. 30, 1993 12 AM PT

I'm not saying people haven't made false claims...but then again the portion of the article you presented doesn't say he made such a claim.
You may be correct in this instance but so far your claim of a claim is nothing more than a claim.

 

[CrowCross]

If you want to know the true facts of the situation get this book written by Christian geologists

I would suggest you read this book...written by Christian geologist...

View attachment 372

 

[TB2]

I hate to be cynical, but 'true facts'? Isn't that a bit redundant? And 'Christian geologist'? Is that like a Christian barber or Christian taxi driver?

I started with the word "truth" and then thought that could sound too dogmatic authoritative "gospel truth" when science isn't like that and then added facts and was too lazy to fix it. Point taken. And the Christian was to let people know this is isn't a book written by 'evil' secular scientists.

"Monument to an Ancient Earth" is the "truth" about what the scientific facts are and was written in rebuttal to the YEC book "Monument to Catastrophe" which distorted and misrepresented the actual 'true facts' (clumsy wording, ik)

(Oh good, crowcross just posted a picture so you can see the rebutted YEC book I'm talking about)