Noah's Ark Found??

[EarlyActs]

When the Transfiguration happened, if you had had a stop watch and started it counting, the 4 people would have gone to that hill, spoken to Moses and Elijah, and returned a few minutes later. It was not an event outside of a normal time continuum. The stopwatch did not stop! That's what I mean by a unity of knowledge.

 

[EarlyActs]

ICR may be overeager, but the references I gave on Carter (corr from Larson) were on IS GENESIS HISTORY? and on Dave Rives productions. I believe he is also the producer of EVOLUTION'S ACHILLE'S HEEL. There are some 20 peer scientists on that production.

 

[Frank Robert]

I don't think you've grasped the signficance of what I'm saying. The "neo" in neo-orthodox truly matters! You're right that it is not a book about science, but also is not a book about sex. Yet when those topics come up it is not conflicted, confusing, misleading, propaganda, subversion. You can refuse to believe in the extent of world flood narrative, but that does not change that they are there.

Neo-orthodoxity means nothing to me. Many years ago I learned the historical-critical method to interpret the OT so I do not have a need to struggle for for literal interpretation to learn the Bible's religious significance for Christians.

What you are missing is that it does not matter how we interpret the bible as long as it does not challenge Christian morals or faith in God.

Many religious lessons can be learned from the flood narrative. For me the main lesson concerns salvation and faith where Noah's Ark is used as a symbol of salvation and faith and in conveying moral and ethical lessons. Noah's obedience to God's to build the ark and gather animals is as an act of faith, and his family's survival inside the ark represents salvation. All of which is linked to the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Don't you understand what Dali painted about the "Last Supper." He realized what neo-orthodoxy was doing: setting up a "faith" that had no facts under it.

Faith by definition is belief and trust in God without proof. If you able to make a logical argument why the historical-critical nethod goes against belief and faith in God, please do.

 

[David1701]

The following statement made me question it...

"Their findings also determined that ''clayey materials, marine materials, and seafood'' were present in the area between 5500 and 3000 BC, according to the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet."

I'm not quite sure what dating method they used (C14?)...but, I would expect the ages to be much older...that is if the material they tested was pre-flood material.

The Earth is about 6,000 years old, according to biblical chronologies. The Flood was about 1,500 years after the Earth was created, putting it at about 4,500 years ago. This agrees with the timescale you've quoted.

 

[Frank Robert]

The Earth is about 6,000 years old, according to biblical chronologies. The Flood was about 1,500 years after the Earth was created, putting it at about 4,500 years ago. This agrees with the timescale you've quoted

You are neglecting the conclusions of the Geology expert, Dr. Snelling.

"What I saw immediately convinced me, that if these C-14 test results were obtained on wood samples from the structure they had discovered on Mt. Ararat, then they had definitely NOT discovered the Ark. I graciously sought to explain this to our conference call hosts, giving the reasons for my coming to that conclusion. I also strongly urged them to have further C-14 testing done on their wood samples, and other scientific tests performed on samples of a rope and white pellets we’d seen in the video footage and photos. I even suggested that they delay their press conference until such time as extra scientific tests had been done."​

 

[CrowCross]

The Earth is about 6,000 years old, according to biblical chronologies. The Flood was about 1,500 years after the Earth was created, putting it at about 4,500 years ago. This agrees with the timescale you've quoted.

My question was....considering the atmosphere would be different pre-flood...that would have created a different C14 to C12 ratio.
How much older would the pre-flood wood date?

 

[CrowCross]

You are neglecting the conclusions of the Geology expert, Dr. Snelling.

"What I saw immediately convinced me, that if these C-14 test results were obtained on wood samples from the structure they had discovered on Mt. Ararat, then they had definitely NOT discovered the Ark. I graciously sought to explain this to our conference call hosts, giving the reasons for my coming to that conclusion. I also strongly urged them to have further C-14 testing done on their wood samples, and other scientific tests performed on samples of a rope and white pellets we’d seen in the video footage and photos. I even suggested that they delay their press conference until such time as extra scientific tests had been done."​

Pearls would date differently than wood...as pearls (under water matine life) would date differently due to a different amount of C14 under the sea then on dry ground.

 

[David1701]

You are neglecting the conclusions of the Geology expert, Dr. Snelling.

"What I saw immediately convinced me, that if these C-14 test results were obtained on wood samples from the structure they had discovered on Mt. Ararat, then they had definitely NOT discovered the Ark. I graciously sought to explain this to our conference call hosts, giving the reasons for my coming to that conclusion. I also strongly urged them to have further C-14 testing done on their wood samples, and other scientific tests performed on samples of a rope and white pellets we’d seen in the video footage and photos. I even suggested that they delay their press conference until such time as extra scientific tests had been done."​

I said nothing about whether or not I thought that the ark had been discovered.

 

[David1701]

My question was....considering the atmosphere would be different pre-flood...that would have created a different C14 to C12 ratio.
How much older would the pre-flood wood date?

Who knows?

 

[Mr GLee]

Because that is not how it happened.

God is a witness as one there we have his account.

You have not said how the Nephilim survived the flood.

The sons of God were in the Ark There were sons of God born again believers even after the flood that mixed with daughter of men (unbelievers with believers) . The warning as the reason for the flood is the same even today .Believer are not to be yoked with unbelievers.

I believe in living my faith in Christ which has nothing to do with the way I interpret the OT.

You are asking questions and making statements Well if the faith to understand Christ comes from the old testament .Then what to you do with the old. Discard? Ignore ?

 

[turbomaniac]

I see a lot of interesting opinions here and interpretations of the Bible, something like 6000 years of earth, etc

We must always remember that only bad science fight back Christ. True science and God are very close because in the end of science there is the God Word. What is impossible for science is possible for God because God Word created cosmos and beyond. If it is written in the bible that the cataclysm was real, that is History and that history passed also to many other nations that they described the cataclysm. If Jesus wanted to keep animal life in Earth he could do it, the animals in the Ark are not the only way possible. Many times in the Bible God uses things of this world to make the so called Miracles. Remember Ezekiel treatment with fig ointment. It was the Fig ointment that treated Ezekiel? of course not. So as in the Ark. It was one animal couple that saved the animals? Of course not, God Word saved the animals.

 

[Frank Robert]

God is a witness as one there we have his account

Where is there a spiritual benefit to interpreting the bible literally? Does pretending that Noah could fit millions of animals on a boat in some way bring anyone closer to God?

The sons of God were in the Ark There were sons of God born again believers even after the flood that mixed with daughter of men (unbelievers with believers) . The warning as the reason for the flood is the same even today .Believer are not to be yoked with unbelievers.

I think you are reading something into the ark narrative that isn't there.

You are asking questions and making statements Well if the faith to understand Christ comes from the old testament .Then what to you do with the old. Discard? Ignore ?

I can not make sense from what you are saying. I think I have already commented that the OT stories are teaching stories that have religious significance. For example the story of Noah's Ark is a symbol of salvation and faith. Noah's obedience to God's command to build the ark and gather animals is seen as an act of faith, and his family's survival inside the ark represents salvation. Christians link this to the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Does that sound like am disregarding or ignoring the OT stories?

 

[Mr GLee]

Where is there a spiritual benefit to interpreting the bible literally? Does pretending that Noah could fit millions of animals on a boat in some way bring anyone closer to God?

I would think not that we know God after the rudiments of this world but two by two of kinds Kinds are types of the original not the potential considerable variations.

 

[CrowCross]

Who knows?

It is true we didn't have oxygen sensors and other analytical sensors back then.

But, there may be a clue at to what the atmosphere may have looked like when one see what is required to sustain some of the "large" life back in those days. The fossil record deposited by the flood shows some of this large life.
Some claim the atmosphere was similar to a Hyperbaric chamber.

 

[CrowCross]

In post 2 I presented a link to some interesting information about the...what seems to be...discovery of the ark. If you missed the link in post 2 you can check out the information presented there.

Part of what was presented was a 3D scan of what appears to be a ship...

From the article:
Looking at the hull shape in three dimensions the resistivity images show that the front section which lies beneath the ground resembles the form of a ship which is symmetrical and with the shape of a deep hull design. (Fig.13 and 14).

When you see the other research performed in the article...one has to ask, what is presented below in the 3D scans?

 

[David1701]

It is true we didn't have oxygen sensors and other analytical sensors back then.

But, there may be a clue at to what the atmosphere may have looked like when one see what is required to sustain some of the "large" life back in those days. The fossil record deposited by the flood shows some of this large life.
Some claim the atmosphere was similar to a Hyperbaric chamber.

It does seem likely that there was a higher oxygen content and, possibly, higher atmospheric pressure; but there's no proof.

 

[Mr GLee]

Where is there a spiritual benefit to interpreting the bible literally? Does pretending that Noah could fit millions of animals on a boat in some way bring anyone closer to God?

I think you are reading something into the ark narrative that isn't there.

I can not make sense from what you are saying. I think I have already commented that the OT stories are teaching stories that have religious significance. For example the story of Noah's Ark is a symbol of salvation and faith. Noah's obedience to God's command to build the ark and gather animals is seen as an act of faith, and his family's survival inside the ark represents salvation. Christians link this to the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Does that sound like am disregarding or ignoring the OT stories?

True stories. I think you meant OT prophecy with parables, the signified mixed with the literal historical understanding. Using the temporal things seen to give us his unseen understanding hid in parable as a figure of speech also called hidden manna.

 

[Frank Robert]

True stories. I think you meant OT prophecy with parables, the signified mixed with the literal historical understanding. Using the temporal things seen to give us his unseen understanding hid in parable as a figure of speech also called hidden manna.

If you are saying the stories are not meant to be taken literally, I agree.

 

[Mr GLee]

If you are saying the stories are not meant to be taken literally, I agree.

Yes spiritually hid from the literal the gospel understanding

 

[CrowCross]

If you are saying the stories are not meant to be taken literally, I agree.

Should the ascention of Christ be taken literally?