Noah's Ark Found??

[Frank Robert]

Should the ascention of Christ be taken literally?

Of course.

Your question appears to be conflating the old testament and new testament.

The Old Testament stories are intended to be read as historical narrative containing symbolic and allegorical elements while the New Testament is an actual record of the life, teachings, and mission of Jesus Christ.

 

[CrowCross]

Of course.

Your question appears to be conflating the old testament and new testament.

The Old Testament stories are intended to be read as historical narrative containing symbolic and allegorical elements while the New Testament is an actual record of the life, teachings, and mission of Jesus Christ.

It's nice to finally understand King David of the Old Testament didn't actually and historically commit adultery and kill her husband .....it was purely allegorical.

 

[Frank Robert]

It's nice to finally understand King David of the Old Testament didn't actually and historically commit adultery and kill her husband .....it was purely allegorical.

There is no direct, conclusive evidence of King David's existence, the indirect archaeological and historical evidence, along with the biblical accounts, suggest that he may have been a historical figure. Either way, it does not diminish the spiritual and moral teachings from the OT. The overwhelming theme is the sovereignty of God. It is God who anoints and appoints David as king, and David continually acknowledges God as the ultimate authority.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Noah's Ark Found? Experts Discover 5000-Year-Old Boat-Shaped Mound In Turkey

The teamextracted aged rock and soil samples from a geological formation in Turkey, which they believe contained the ruins of the vessel.

www.ndtv.com

Archaeologists in Turkey have discovered what they believe to be ruins of a Noah's Ark-like vessel after excavating a geological site, the New York Post reported. The Mount Ararat and Noah's Ark Research Team is comprised of three Turkish and American universities, and their project began in 2021.​

​

The team extracted aged rock and soil samples from a geological formation in Turkey, which they believe contained the ruins of the vessel. 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.​

​

The Durupinar formation lies in the Doğubayazıt district of Ağrı, located less than two miles from the Iran-Turkey border. It is a 538-foot geographic feature made of limonite, believed by some locals to be the remnants of Noah's Ark.​

​

According to legend, Noah loaded two of every animal onto a 150-meter-long ark to save them from apocalyptic flooding that drowned the Earth. In the Book of Genesis, it was the mountains of Ararat in what is now eastern Turkey where Noah's Ark came to rest after the flood.​

​

The mountain stands at 16,500 feet and is carved out like an ark.​

​

...While dozens of researchers and individuals have claimed to have located the ark, no one has ever been able to produce definitive evidence. The holy texts of three religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, have all made references to Noah's Ark.​

 

[Frank Robert]

There is no direct, conclusive evidence of King David's existence, the indirect archaeological and historical evidence, along with the biblical accounts, suggest that he may have been a historical figure. Either way, it does not diminish the spiritual and moral teachings from the OT. The overwhelming theme is the sovereignty of God. It is God who anoints and appoints David as king, and David continually acknowledges God as the ultimate authority.

I found a reference to King David on a monumental stone which is the earliest reference to the Davidic dynasty outside the Bible.

This unique Aramaic inscription, part of a monumental stone slab commemorating the military victories of Hazael, king of Aram, contains the earliest reference to the Davidic dynasty outside the Bible.

In the inscription, the king boasts of killing Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of “the House of David” (Judah). The text contradicts the account in the Book of Kings, according to which Joram and Ahaziah were killed by Jehu, who subsequently seized the throne of Israel.​

​

Inscription: […] and cut […] my father went up [against him when] he fought at […] And my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors]. And the king of Irael entered previously in my father’s land. [And] Hadad made me king. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from [the] seven […]s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kings, who harnessed thou[sands of cha]riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation …] other [… and Jehu ru]led over Is[rael … and I laid] siege upon […]​

​

King Hazael's reign was (c. 842–800 bce),[4] and David had ruled from about 1000 to 962 bce. It is all the more valuable in that it dates from barely 150 years after David took the throne.

 

[CrowCross]

There is no direct, conclusive evidence of King David's existence,

OK, if that's how and what you need to argue your point.....I'm done with you on this topic.

 

[Frank Robert]

OK, if that's how and what you need to argue your point.....I'm done with you on this topic.

My argument is that it does not matter if King David existed or not or that if any other parts of the OT contain a bit of history or science. I even posted a second comment with a link that contain historical references to King David. I have also commented several times that I agree that there are historical and archeological references in the OT narratives. Still some literalists here appear determined to argue that the OT is devoid of metaphors and allegories and is a history and science book. I seldom see them argue for the OT's moral, spiritual contributions, or Christian contributions and values.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

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.

Faith is believing things that are proved instead of balking at them because you don't want to. Check the healing of the paralytic in Mk 2's first account. He specifically proved the 'invisible' by the visible. That's what kind of person we are talking about. Do you actually think he'd ask you to believe that the people of the flood dithered in sin when it didn't actually happen! Mt. 24. And that was a warning to Israel in that generation what would happen in 40 years. Pretty tight proof you if are asking.

 

[EarlyActs]

My argument is that it does not matter if King David existed or not or that if any other parts of the OT contain a bit of history or science. I even posted a second comment with a link that contain historical references to King David. I have also commented several times that I agree that there are historical and archeological references in the OT narratives. Still some literalists here appear determined to argue that the OT is devoid of metaphors and allegories and is a history and science book. I seldom see them argue for the OT's moral, spiritual contributions, or Christian contributions and values.

Christ died for your sins--which didn't actually happen (neither our sin nor his death). That's all. Neo-orthodoxy says the physical imprint didn't actually happen. Meaning that it is meaningless, a Dali painting, nothing else, move along.

There are metaphors and then there are historic narratives. Where it touches on science in those narratives, it is true.

You probably don't see them arguing for the 'spiritual contribution' because logically it is meaningless if the other never happened. See the healing of the paralytic in Mk 2's first scene.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Of course the "Ark of Noah" (and the Ark of the Covenant) are "Found" every few years or so.

So I'll file the whole fantasy in my "Pending" folder, and ignore it until there's some actual PROOF.

Almost everything in my "Pending" folder, dies there.

 

[Frank Robert]

Christ died for your sins--which didn't actually happen (neither our sin nor his death).

Correct, Christ died for our sins and it is up to us to live our faith in Christ.

That's all. Neo-orthodoxy says the physical imprint didn't actually happen. Meaning that it is meaningless, a Dali painting, nothing else, move along.

You could say I am a heterodox Catholic but not Neo-orthodox.

Catholicism is a traditional branch of Christianity with its roots in the early Church, while Neo-Orthodoxy is a relatively modern theological movement that arose as a reaction against certain trends in liberal theology. They have different theological emphases and historical origins, and they are not the same.

There are metaphors and then there are historic narratives. Where it touches on science in those narratives, it is true.

I have said multiple time that there are bits and pieces of science and history in the Bible, but that does not make the Bible a history or science book.

You probably don't see them arguing for the 'spiritual contribution' because logically it is meaningless if the other never happened. See the healing of the paralytic in Mk 2's first scene.

Perhaps it just too early in the AM, but I am unable to decipher what you are trying to say.

 

[Frank Robert]

Faith is believing things that are proved instead of balking at them because you don't want to.

The definition of faith is belief without full proof.

Check the healing of the paralytic in Mk 2's first account. He specifically proved the 'invisible' by the visible. That's what kind of person we are talking about. Do you actually think he'd ask you to believe that the people of the flood dithered in sin when it didn't actually happen! Mt. 24. And that was a warning to Israel in that generation what would happen in 40 years. Pretty tight proof you if are asking.

If you are saying humans are sinful, I agree.

Though again, it too early in the AM for me to decipher what you are saying.

 

[CrowCross]

My argument is that it does not matter if King David existed or not or that if any other parts of the OT contain a bit of history or science. I even posted a second comment with a link that contain historical references to King David. I have also commented several times that I agree that there are historical and archeological references in the OT narratives. Still some literalists here appear determined to argue that the OT is devoid of metaphors and allegories and is a history and science book. I seldom see them argue for the OT's moral, spiritual contributions, or Christian contributions and values.

You had posted...."My argument is that it does not matter if King David existed or not"

Then the linage of Jesus was not true....and that matters.

Luke 3:23....Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

 

[CrowCross]

Of course the "Ark of Noah" (and the Ark of the Covenant) are "Found" every few years or so.

So I'll file the whole fantasy in my "Pending" folder, and ignore it until there's some actual PROOF.

Almost everything in my "Pending" folder, dies there.

The article presented in this post shows some proof.

 

[Frank Robert]

You had posted...."My argument is that it does not matter if King David existed or not"

Yes, in my haste I was incorrect. I should have said what I have argued several times," it does not matter how we interpret the Old Testament" meaning we can do so figuratively or literally.

Then the linage of Jesus was not true....and that matters.

Luke 3:23....Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

I agree.

 

[CrowCross]

Yes, in my haste I was incorrect. I should have said what I have argued several times," it does not matter how we interpret the Old Testament" meaning we can do so figuratively or literally.

The OT does use "types" of Christ....as played out in the literal....but, to interpret scripture as figurative there need to be good reason or a bias error can occur.

I agree.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The article presented in this post shows some proof.

ALL the "findings" invariably "Show some proof". What makes you think that Noah's Ark was even shaped like a boat?? It's only purpose was to FLOAT, not "navigate".

 

[CrowCross]

ALL the "findings" invariably "Show some proof". What makes you think that Noah's Ark was even shaped like a boat?? It's only purpose was to FLOAT, not "navigate".

Apparently the boat depicted in the 3D image floated....

 

[EarlyActs]

Correct, Christ died for our sins and it is up to us to live our faith in Christ.

You could say I am a heterodox Catholic but not Neo-orthodox.

Catholicism is a traditional branch of Christianity with its roots in the early Church, while Neo-Orthodoxy is a relatively modern theological movement that arose as a reaction against certain trends in liberal theology. They have different theological emphases and historical origins, and they are not the same.

I have said multiple time that there are bits and pieces of science and history in the Bible, but that does not make the Bible a history or science book.

Perhaps it just too early in the AM, but I am unable to decipher what you are trying to say.

But in your system, how do we even know Christ died for our sins? How do we know sins matter? Maybe they don't actually happen. Maybe the evil of the bizarre inter-species entities before the flood didn't happen.

Neo-orthodoxy is a synthesis of liberal theology; a way to compromise with its dismissal of the amount of fact in Scripture and just find a niche of 'spiritual meaning' that is true.

I don't get bits and pieces. They are each historic science or not. I don't find that the writers are trying, seeking, experimenting with fantasy whatsoever.

Spend time on Mk 2's paralytic miracle and see if Jesus avoids proof.

I'm glad you know there is an extension beyond what can be proved, but the proof that is the basis is proper proof. If we read the end of John, we actually find the opposite of an extension: there are so many accounts to write, it would fill infinite books. So "blessed are those who have not seen"--not because proof is not there or not needed, but because the existing normal proof is both in a normal sense and is sufficent.

It was Nic Robertson of CNN who declared that 'faith is completely apart from proof' when trying to explain Islam back in the 00s. This is not what Christian faith is like. I do not go with CNN for theological principles!

Did you see the GA animation of the Cataclysm? It is full of ordinary proof that gradualism fumbles badly.

Did you read Schaeffer "Faith vs 'Faith'" about the mountain hike?

 

[Frank Robert]

But in your system, how do we even know Christ died for our sins? How do we know sins matter? Maybe they don't actually happen. Maybe the evil of the bizarre inter-species entities before the flood didn't happen.

From the New Testament. You appear shocked that Catholics read the Bible. I have also taken courses on the NT History and Literature.

Neo-orthodoxy is a synthesis of liberal theology; a way to compromise with its dismissal of the amount of fact in Scripture and just find a niche of 'spiritual meaning' that is true.

Perhaps you did not read what I wrote regarding the difference between Neo-orthodoxy and Catholicism: Here it is again:

Catholicism is a traditional branch of Christianity with its roots in the early Church, while Neo-Orthodoxy is a relatively modern theological movement that arose as a reaction against certain trends in liberal theology. They have different theological emphases and historical origins. They are not the same.​

​

If you don't understand it, I will be happy to elaborate so you don't have to make things up. And, Once again: Catholics are not confined to a literal interpretation of the OT. Some Catholics read it literally others do not. Catholics understand that it does not matter which way
they interpret the OT.

I don't get bits and pieces. They are each historic science or not. I don't find that the writers are trying, seeking, experimenting with fantasy whatsoever.

I read the the OT as teaching stories, some of which could contain bits and pieces of history and/or science. I read both the OT and NT for spiritual inspiration.

Spend time on Mk 2's paralytic miracle and see if Jesus avoids proof.

Miracles are not science. The Scientific Method is unable to set up testable hypotheses to investigate miracles. In case you are unaware, Catholics believe in miracles.

I'm glad you know there is an extension beyond what can be proved, but the proof that is the basis is proper proof

Do you have a reference to what "proper proof" is?

If we read the end of John, we actually find the opposite of an extension: there are so many accounts to write, it would fill infinite books. So "blessed are those who have not seen"--not because proof is not there or not needed, but because the existing normal proof is both in a normal sense and is sufficent.

It was Nic Robertson of CNN who declared that 'faith is completely apart from proof' when trying to explain Islam back in the 00s. This is not what Christian faith is like. I do not go with CNN for theological principles!

I don't, and would not watch, CNN to learn about my faith in Christ.

Did you see the GA animation of the Cataclysm? It is full of ordinary proof that gradualism fumbles badly.

Did you read Schaeffer "Faith vs 'Faith'" about the mountain hike?

No I have not read them nor have I not come across any references to them in the religious books that I do read,