Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40

Thread: Noah's Ark Finally Found?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default Noah's Ark Finally Found?

    Have they finally found the ark which Noah and his family escaped the wrath of God in?

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...turkey-arafat/

    The article is in error, however, when it states that Noah was commanded to put "two of each SPECIES" on the ark. He was commanded no such thing.

    Noah was in fact commanded to put two of each KIND on the ark, and the difference is highly significant.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    I've heard they found nearby an autographed copy of the Gospel of John too. The first edition, mind you.
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    They've had a lot of false starts concerning the Ark, but there's been so much activity in that region that it's almost certainly to be there, and this one sounds like it might have some teeth to it.

    They say that Ararat where this expedition went is the hardest mountain in the world to climb, even above Everest, because the conditions are extremely brutal in this area, so you don't just go waltzing up there.

    They've had reports for years of locals affirming that the Ark was up there, and one general even had his soldier shell a certain area where he and his troops said the Ark rested because he wanted to keep the "religious fanatics" away from the site.

    Of course, the discovery, if true, won't settle anything, but it will act as yet another confirmation of the biblical account it if turns out to be true, just as archaelogy does in other portions of the Bible.

    But as the Lord Jesus said, so it applies here as well -- "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31

  4. #4

    Default

    The discovery would be very cool, no doubt. But don't those boards and beams look awfully polished and in-good-condition to you? For being 4K+ years old?
    Dan Phillips
    Books:Web presence:
    tfo+[]l;w> hw"hy> tr:AT-ta, vArd>li Abb'l. !ykihe ar"z>[, yKi

    s `jP'(v.miW qxo laer"f.yIB. dMel;l.W

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post

    But as the Lord Jesus said, so it applies here as well -- "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31
    This is more what I was getting at. Whether it is the ark or not, isn't really important if the Gospel is still not acknowledged. I'm highly skeptical, clearly the burden of proof is on them to show that it could be, but even if it were, it's of rather minor import to my faith. Now if they find the bones of Jesus, well that's a different story...
    Michael Hanel
    PhD candidate Classics Univ. of Cincinnati
    MDiv Concordia Seminary
    MA Classics Washington University
    Unofficial BibleWorks Blog
    LibraryThing!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Hanel View Post
    ...Now if they find the bones of Jesus, well that's a different story...
    I already know where the bones of Jesus are --

    "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24:39

    That's post-resurrection. And everybody else will know where his bones are in the not too distant future, even those who don't believe in him, or who don't even believe that he ever existed --

    "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Revelation 1:7

  7. #7

    Default

    I wouldn't put too much stock in the claims. It has already been claimed twice already. Also, the genre of Genesis 1-11 in my opinion demands that we view it differently than just adding up years and arriving at 2800 BC. There's more to it than some religio-historical interpretation. The genealogies are selective and serve other purposes than historical ones. While I'm sure there's some historical truth to the story about Noah and the Ark, it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says." I know this is controversial stuff and bothers some evangelicals (of which I am one), but all that to say I just wouldn't put too much stock in it. As Witherington said on his blog, it's a good possibility that it's an ark shrine.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soxfan23 View Post
    ...it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says
    Yes, it is just as simple as that, and there is not a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who became born again by any other way.

    ""And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:2-3"
    Last edited by Adelphos; 04-28-2010 at 08:40 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Yes, it is just as simple as that, and there is not a genuinely born again Christian on this planet who became born again by any other way.

    ""And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:2-3"


    That's a straw-man, Adelphos. It was obvious I was referring to the Ark in particular and Genesis 1-11 in general. You then have to turn it around and relate it to soteriological matters and make it look like I don't have "childlike faith." You may think you're "defending truth," but historicity of the Ark is far from a cardinal doctrine. Even many conservative evangelical scholars don't hold to the wooden literalism which you espouse. It's a genre issue, i.e. an issue with how we're supposed to read it. It's not an issue with the text itself.

    Please don't resort to the same old fundamentalist tactics when making your argument. Trust me, I love Jesus and fully believe in the inspiration of Scripture. There's no need to question my faith because I don't take a woodenly literal approach to Scripture 100% of the time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    I can only respond to what you write, not to what may be bouncing around in your mind. When you state "it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says" I have to assume that you meant what you actually wrote.

    Furthermore, the Ark is a soteriological issue. If Adam and Eve aren't literal historical figures, and if the Ark of Noah is a fable, then I have no basis to believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a literal historcal fact.

    And neither do you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •