Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Noah's Ark Finally Found?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    192

    Default

    I could be wrong (and many times I am) but I don't believe that he is challenging the physical reality of the Ark, but mainly just the dates. I think he may be saying that the Ark could potentially be older than a rigid 4800 years.
    Chris Sansom
    M. Div. Concordia Seminary
    Google+
    Facebook!
    LibraryThing!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Oh, I think he's disputing far more than the dates.

    Moreover, orthodox Christians down through the centuries have held to the view that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.

    Only since modern science with its grossly inaccurate radiometric dating methodologies has this been disputed by a relatively large number of people.

    A simple childlike faith also holds that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Phillips View Post
    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?
    Actually, the wood, according to some, is/would be petrified, and probably have been encased almost wholly in ice. Couple that with the fact that God commanded Noah to use gopher wood, which is undoubtedly a unique and very tough type of wood. So the pictures seem to match that.

    However, as everyone recognizes, it's going to take some serious verifications to sort it all out. And we can't be surprised if it turns out to be false or a hoax, for there have already been many of those.

    On the other hand, it if turns out to be true, it also wouldn't surprise me, for the Ark DID come to rest, and it very well would have probably been preserved in the icy climate of this expedition, if that is in fact where it came to rest.

  4. #14

    Default Ark "discovery" is a fraud...

    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Well, that's sobering. Randall Price has a pretty good reputation, so I am definitely skeptical now.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sansom48 View Post
    I could be wrong (and many times I am) but I don't believe that he is challenging the physical reality of the Ark, but mainly just the dates. I think he may be saying that the Ark could potentially be older than a rigid 4800 years.


    You're not wrong. Thanks for understanding my point

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    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.

    Adelphos, it was VERY clear from my post above that my quote was in reference to the ark in particular and Genesis 1-11 in general. If you can't gather that, then you're just looking for things.

    And to say the ark is a soteriological issue is to use the same old slippery slope argument so common amongst apologists that is dead wrong time and again. My faith doesn't rest on the ark. Maybe yours does. If it does I say it rests in the wrong place, and I feel insulted that you are insinuating that I am not a Christian because of these views that are even held by many conservative scholars. Your rhetoric does not help and is disturbing. I believe Adam and Eve were historical figures and I believe in Noah as a historical figure. My only point was that the genre of Genesis 1-11 demands that we read it different than some woodenly literal factual historical account. Moreover, I was particularly aiming my claims against the young earth people and apologists who just add the chronologies up in the Bible and somehow think they can reach the exact date of events that took place in the primeval history. It's not so simple. Maybe your "childlike faith" believes in a 7-headed Leviathan as well.

    As far as orthodox Christians believing the genealogies are sequential, perhaps they did (though I doubt it's as unanimous as you say). But they also believed the earth was flat and the sun journeyed below the earth when it was night time. Does that mean it's true?

    You're trying to make the Bible fit your modern standards of what it should look like and how it should behave. The problem is not the Bible's, it is yours. It has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, it has to do with how it behaves vs. how you think it SHOULD behave.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Well, these words of yours indicate that you don't believe that the biblical account of Noah's Ark as recorded in Genesis is one hundred percent accurate --

    "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."

    The phrase "some historical truth" is an explicit decree that not all of the biblical account is accurate.

    That's why I said your position is unorthodox. If you DO believe that the biblical account is one hundred percent accurate, then you might want to be a little more diligent in your wording.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soxfan23 View Post
    Adelphos, it was VERY clear from my post above that my quote was in reference to the ark in particular and Genesis 1-11 in general. If you can't gather that, then you're just looking for things.
    As I said, I can only go by what you write. You stated explicitly that it is not as simple as believing the Bible.

    It is in fact that simple. And if you think I was attacking your faith then you are personalizing the matter.

    In short, your asssertion is flat wrong, and by historical orthodox standards would be considered rank heresy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soxfan23 View Post
    And to say the ark is a soteriological issue is to use the same old slippery slope argument so common amongst apologists that is dead wrong time and again. My faith doesn't rest on the ark. Maybe yours does.
    Talk about strawmen! I related it all to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and why that is important. As I said, you are personalizing this with ad hominems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soxfan23 View Post
    My only point was that the genre of Genesis 1-11 demands that we read it different than some woodenly literal factual historical account. Moreover, I was particularly aiming my claims against the young earth people and apologists who just add the chronologies up in the Bible and somehow think they can reach the exact date of events that took place in the primeval history. It's not so simple. Maybe your "childlike faith" believes in a 7-headed Leviathan as well.
    There you go again with the ad hominem -- "maybe your childlike faith believes in a 7-headed Leviathan".

    I would say your ad hominems are what is truly disturbing.

    And the reason we read Genesis literally is because that is CLEARLY how Jesus read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Soxfan23 View Post
    As far as orthodox Christians believing the genealogies are sequential, perhaps they did (though I doubt it's as unanimous as you say).
    I never said any such thing.

  10. #20

    Default

    Nevermind. These conversations never go anywhere. My original point looks correct, don't put too much stock in this claim of finding the Ark.

Posting Permissions

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